Sadly, No! gets results!
Yesterday (at 10:26AM CET) we wrote:
Back to Andrew however: he “quotes” Krugman as arguing that tax cuts are the “entire” reason for “the deficit,” while Krugman suggests they are the “main” reason.
Today (at 6:14AM CET) Andrew Sullivan writes:
CORRECTION: In tackling Krugman, I committed an error of hyperbole. I wrote that he had said that the “entire reason” for the deficit was tax cuts. He said the “main reason.” He did, however, omit any reference to the vast increase in discretionary domestic spending under Bush.
In other words: I was wrong but I’ll add what I think is a Krugman error to move the cheese just a little bit further.
Hello Andrew.
Update: Donald Luskin corrects Sullivan but adds that Krugman lied:
But now he’s [Sullivan] made another error of hyperbole in the opposite direction, adding “He did, however, omit any reference to the vast increase in discretionary domestic spending under Bush.” Au contraire. Krugman certainly did not “omit any reference.” He made many references, all of which were lies… [Italics in the original]
Update 2: Calpundit also gets results.
Andrew Sullivan channels Nedra Pickler. Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse.
You know, you and/or Sullywatch and/or some other sites have given Sullivan grief for how much of his site is cut-and-paste; well, Andrew is writing a lot of original material now and all I can say is
BRING BACK THE CUT AND PASTE!
Sweet christ a’mighty–today’s toilet-paper-roll length ramblings on Gay Marriage?, Krugman, bleccetera. Does the guy get ANYTHING right? He’s WRONG about Krugman (others make errors, Andy makes “errors of hyperbole”–WHAT?!) He completely botches the Kurtz gay marriage piece (Andy’s furious because Kurtz dares set foot on “his” turf)–so blinded by rage at Kurtz for doing this Andrew makes numerous errors and is so rigid and insane that he cannot make a proper retraction/apology.
But best of all is his assertion that marriage must be “saved” from domestic partnerships, and that gays must be “co-opted” into marriage. He says this makes him a CONSERVATIVE on the issue.
Shorter Andrew Sullivan: I believe Catholic priests should be able to marry each other. Therefore, I am a conservative.
All together now…Sadly, No!
I love you guys. Keep it up!
But best of all is his assertion that marriage must be “saved” from domestic partnerships, and that gays must be “co-opted” into marriage. He says this makes him a CONSERVATIVE on the issue.
What’s most striking to us is that Sullivan seems absolutely convinced that if only he comes up with the perfect “conservative” argument for gay marriage John Derbyshire, David Frum, Maggie Gallagher & Co. will say: “Hey, you’ve got a point. Let’s go baby!” We don’t care to identify the “root causes” of their opposition, but trying to convince such conservatives/Republicans that they should support gay marriage is like pushing for a new round of WTO talks at an AFL/CIO meeting.
We would be delighted to see them (and Bush) support gay marriage — but we’re not kidding ourselves about the odds.