Google "define: drama queen"

Monday, October 23, 2006
... and get a link to Sullivan.


Instapundit.com -: "Unlike Andrew, I've actually paid attention to this race, instead of merely forming phantoms of my own imagining. Which is why I voted as I did. In the meantime, I'll view his comments on politics with increased skepticism, given the ignorance and inattention on display here."

17 comments:

chuck said...

Instapundit is quite the gentleman. I would say worse: Andrew is stark, raving, crazee. No wonder he is brought forth as the representative of the conservative point of view by the MSM.

MeaninglessHotAir said...

Andrew Sullivan is a fine writer. But there's much more to intelligent discourse than having a fine style. There are matters of intellect, intelligence, and ultimately judgement which enter into it as well. He falls down completely on judgement, having jumped the shark quite some time ago. Hardly anything he says makes any sense. That Reynolds has stuck with him this long reflects rather poorly on Reynolds's judgement.

Seneca the Younger said...

That Reynolds has stuck with him this long reflects rather poorly on Reynolds's judgement.

He's been increasingly sharp with Andy for quite a while. But what's with this outbreak of Anti-Reynoldsism? What's everyone so pissed off about?

CF said...

Beats me. I thought all the -re-mortem stuff was over the top. He is after all not a conservative nor a Republican although on some things--the economy,the war and guns --he tends in that direction.Andrew was the first blog I ever read, and I gave him money when he started it. He was dishonest before the 2004 election, telling his blog readers that he hadn't decided who he'd support and a gay mag he was backing Kerry.
He's not consistent--and increasingly has gone around the bend.
(Seneca..that shrimp thing is sooo you.)

Rick Ballard said...

The utter puerility of the "Porkbusters" campaign marks him as a cheap demagogue wearing a libertarian mask. If he or any of the other faux budget balancers had even a modicum of honesty they might mention the fact that eliminating earmarks would not reduce the budget by a penny.

He's playing PT Barnum, knowing that the world has never lacked for suckers.

chuck said...

He's not consistent--and increasingly has gone around the bend.

I've been wondering for some time if the problem isn't organic, maybe drug related, rather than emotional. I hate to speculate about such things but the guy just isn't lucid anymore.

chuck said...

The utter puerility of the "Porkbusters" campaign marks him as a cheap demagogue wearing a libertarian mask.

I don't believe that for a moment. I still like the guy and his commentary seems pretty balanced to me. We all have things that matter to us, why should we not pursue them? Is that not the grains of wisdom from which the wisdom of crowds emerges?

As to the pork busters thing, I think it is more about setting the atmosphere than the money. Large things start from small. But enough, let's not make this a Reynolds thread.

CF said...

chuck--that may well be so. And I expect that "torture, torture everywhere" reflects some psychological problem .

Rick, I think you are being unfair.

Rick Ballard said...

In what aspect is "Porkbusters" any different than a promise to go after "waste, fraud and mismanagement" by a political hack? The budget stands at S2.8 trillion dollars of which $2.2 is "non-discretionary", leaving a mere $600 billion in discretionary spending.

I haven't (and won't) bother to look at the total pork projects identified by the fearsome Porkbusters but 1% of the discretionary budget would be $6 billion - how close are they?

I understand that one must start somewhere but starting with this mom, flag and apple pie type of political buffoonery doesn't presage anything more relevant than an attempt to create an appearance. Constructing chimeras is fine, it just isn't serious - nor are the people proposing such a farce.

MeaninglessHotAir said...

I agree with you Rick but also agree with Chuck and CF.

What's the difference between Reynolds and a hack? Reynolds believes in what he is doing. He is an academic. He believes deep down in the power of thinking about things, picking the right decision based on logic, and explaining his proper decision lucidly.

You have a background in business, which is to say in the world of doing. It doesn't matter how much you think about something in business nor about how well you state your thought, for in business one must do and the doing must work, or else. Or else that is layoffs, losses, people's life savings being destroyed, lots of nasty things. So it's easy to see why Reynolds would choose to pursue the path he has and in an honest manner, and also easy to see why you (a person looking for results) sees nothing there.

A hack, on the other hand, knows perfectly well that nothing will come of the empty words he utters but does it anyway because he doesn't care. He (or should I say "she"? ;-)) wants only power. Words said, promises broken, mean nothing. The hack achieves neither results, nor even good thoughts of results. A hack takes the most precious of human gifts, the gift of hope, and perverts it for his own utterly despicable will-to-power.

Rick Ballard said...

What is the proper term for someone who proposes a program that looks like it will do something but in reality does absolutely nothing? Eliminating earmarks does not take one cent out of government spending. Earmarks are done after the line item amount is approved. It's a division of spoils and since the majority gets first shot at the division the result is that the majority party will always take the hit wrt earmarks.

Reynolds is no dummy - he knows what he's doing with this crap. It's not as if the budget is a hidden document - if Pajamas wants to make a splash they can pick a few line items to attack. The problem with that is that every line item has a constituency and they don't want to offend a constituency - just like politicians don't want to offend constituentcies.

They could propose caps on subsidy payments where no entity could receive more than X dollars - that would trim a few dollars from the budget.

It's a cheap marketing ploy, nothing more. Heaven forbid that an advertiser might be offended. Much better to ding the Reps a bit.

Btw, I agree with Chuck wrt to Sullivan and drugs - or the natural progression of the disease. His faculties are going and they aren't coming back.

Knucklehead said...

I'm a bit surprised that so many still pay any attention to Andrew Sullivan. He was, as for many others, my introduction to making a habit of checking particular blogs regularly but, as Chuck points out, he has gone stark, raving, crazee. I don't even bother with him anymore. There are more than enough stylish loons to read.

Seneca the Younger said...

What is the proper term for someone who proposes a program that looks like it will do something but in reality does absolutely nothing?

I dunno, Rick. What's the term for someone who insists that everybody ought to pursue not their own goals, but the right goals, and do it in the right way withoutn deviation, in order to be an honest person of good intentions?

Rick Ballard said...

Lay out the libertarian goal that Reynolds (and Pajamas) is pursuing with Porkbusters and give an estimate about what it will accomplish aside from giving liberatarians a frisson of feeling that at last, someone is actually doing something.

I didn't propose one and only one way - I am saying that he is methodically unserious about politics and methodically serious about building a reputation with deceit at its base. There is nothing at all wrong with making as much money as one can and lying is one way to do it. The only requirement for success is an uncritical audience incapable of distinguishing flimflam from substance. Apparently Reynolds has his chickens well pegged.

Luther McLeod said...

Pretty broad brush there, Rick. I go to Instapundit for aggregation. I know that there will usually be links to information I would not otherwise see/read. I do not visit there for his politics nor his cause of the month/quarter/year. I guess I'm trying to say, I don't feel victimized, used nor particularly poultry like. If I am guilty by association due to my adding to his site visit stats, then so be it.

As for Sullivan, he drove me away from being a 30+ year subscriber to TNR. That was several years ago or shortly after his joining the magazine. As MHA notes, other than his writing skills, I never saw much there, there.

Knucklehead said...

For what little it's worth I'm with Luther on this one. I click into Instapundit because he links to a lot of stuff much of which I find interesting. As with pretty much all libertarians I find his politics, at least as far as I can figure them out, a bit, ummm..., academic.

Reynolds has no influence on me politically beyond, perhaps, the indirect influence of what he links to that I read and ponder.

I seriously doubt the Porkbusters will make any difference upon spending and agree with Rick that they're barking up a tree with nuttin' but a too scrawny 'coon in it. That said, this rather vague notion of "tranparency" has potential. It might be useful if there were some way for people who aren't masters of government audits to figure out what the heck money is being spent on and who sent it where it went. Then again, how hard can be to hide things in a $2.8 trillion budget.

Oh well. I'll continue to peruse Reynold's links and ignore those I find uninteresting (such as the Porkbusters stuff).

Seneca the Younger said...

Lay out the libertarian goal that Reynolds (and Pajamas) is pursuing with Porkbusters and give an estimate about what it will accomplish aside from giving liberatarians a frisson of feeling that at last, someone is actually doing something.

Reducing spending by more than they would reduce it by doing nothinggpmwyimp?