- BitsBlog - https://bitsblog.com -

Sullivan: Nearly As Predictable As the NYT… And Not As Smart.

Andrew the Incontinent [1]is back on his mountain, and expounds thus:

It was extremely pleasant not to have to respond in real time to the McCain story. Reading the blogosphere as a simple observer, it was, however, a little depressing to see the knee jerk partisanship. Several liberal bloggers exercised some skepticism toward the story and some conservative ones had a little Schadenfreude, but in general, it felt like a lot of people on the right were just relieved to be able to do the old Hannity-hate routine at the NYT. After this demoralizing campaign for Republicans, you can’t blame them, I suppose. But it’s still a little sad to see how much of conservatism is now a series of hate objects.

Oh, please, St. Andrew… Spare us.

Look… anyone who has read here for more than a couple days will understand that my personal thoughts on McCain are hardly what one would call complimentary. I’m someone who wanted him under his own bus months ago. I’m still not convinced it wouldn’t be best for all concerned, were that to occur. I will state flatly that I’m not alone in this as I look across the ‘sphere. So, don’t make the mistake of taking this post as a defense of McCain…

…but do you honestly mean to imply that the Times didn’t do more than their part in confirming what the right has been saying about them for decades, now?  I ask because you didn’t say anything about that… rather pinning your inexplicable, and incomprehensible sight- of- hand defense of the Times on the misbegotten idea that the only reason there was an outcry against the Times was that they’re now an object of ‘hate’ on the right? Matter of fact, the Times matched my prediction almost exactly with this stunt.

I mean, News flash; The New York Times tends not to like Republicans… indeed, tends to like nobody to the right of Fidel Casto. All this story f theirs did was confirm that the image afforded them by the right was very well deserved, indeed. And isn’t it interesting, how the Times, who clearly has been sitting on this information for years…(there’s not thing one new about it)… chose to run the story only AFTER he’d sewn up the Republican nomination?

Your attempt to cut this one down what you see as the ‘middle’ isn’t working, Andrew.