Our friends on the Left are miffed

We've joined in the air strikes of Libya and the usual subjects on the Left are taking it none too kindly.  Don Surber has a roundup of reactions from Andrew Sullivan, Robert Dreyfuss, Louis Farrakhan and Michael Moore.  Honest righteous indignation from the Left or just their typical "I'm so important that everyone is waiting to hear my opinion" claptrap?

I've heard rumors that Michael Moore is so distraught over the bombings that he couldn't even eat is normal ten meals before breakfast.  Sullivan has had a bad case of the joneses since first he laid eyes on Barry and on the odd occasion that he does see fit to criticize his pet he typically lays the ultimate blame elsewhere.  Now he's calling for a congressional vote-in all likelihood believing that a vote will give his beloved cover.  Dreyfuss is blaming the women in Obama's life.  Hey, we're all Delilha's at heart.  Only Farrakhan managed to sound genuinely pissed-"Who the Hell do you think you are?"  I think Obama had an epiphany somewhere between the third and forth hole, turned to his caddy and said, "I think I may be president of the United States."  Just a guess.

For all the rumbling, what is the Left going to do?  Refuse to support his re-election campaign?  Actually vote against him?  Nope.  This is just lipservice and this too, shall pass.

The Fantastical World of Andrew Sullivan

Today in The Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan wrote "History Happened" a slobbering missive which should have been titled, "An Ode to Obama", and should have included a subtitle referring to Obama's magnificent loins.  I shudder to think what Sullivan did with his other hand while typing that nonsense.

Sullivan opined that Obama "represents the pragmatic center" in this country.  If Sullivan believes this, and I am sure he does, then what does he define as left of center?  He actually refers to Obama as pragmatic twice.  I thought "pragmatic" meant "practical" and therefore would only be the correct terminology if Sullivan meant to say that Obama wants practically everything under his administration's control. 

But in Sullivan's fantastical world he deems Obama to be a reasoned and reasonable saint soul who has played the cards dealt to him as only a man of great depth and perception could.  His example:

Even yesterday, Obama did not batter Wall Street. He asked them to "join" him in rescuing capitalism from itself and restoring the confidence of ordinary folks with retirement accounts in Wall Street....

One can almost hear Satan say, "Join me or spend all of Eternity in the fiery abyss."  I would hope that if Wall Street joins him (again) they will at least leave their checkbooks at home this time.  And then there is this:

The epistemic closure on the right is how other conservatives still manage to blind themselves to the pragmatic virtues of this president's remarkable 15 month record at home and abroad.

Again, Sullivan must have an entirely different definition of the word "remarkable" than the one I am used to.  But to be fair, were I to write a two word title for a post on Obama with the second word being "happened" the first word would not be "history".

Hump Day Pop Quiz

Who said:

My own view is moving toward supporting a direct American military imposition of a two-state solution, with NATO troops on the borders of the new states of Palestine and Israel.

If you guessed Andy "little guns" Sullivan give yourself a gold star.  Who knew Andy was one of them war mongering imperialist swashbucklers that advocates the invasion of other countries just because they make him "sick" (I don't think it was Israel that caused him to become sick)? 

My suggestion to Israelis, is lock up your young sons and small farm animals.

That's an Odd Title

Politico has a poll out by The New American Foundation that found that 39% of Israelis (both Jewish and Muslim) believe that President Obama is a Muslim. Although the number is a bit higher than I would have expected, I didn't find the poll particularly shocking. What I did find surprising was Andrew Sullivan's title to his post linking the poll:

Israelis Or Appalachians?

Andy didn't elaborate so I have no idea what he is inferring. I would love to hear from him how he believes that Israelis and Appalachians compare to each other. I am sure it would make for a fascinating anthropological treatise.

Apologies Will Be Forth Coming In 4, 3, 2...Never Mind

Now that we've learned that Bill Sparkman committed suicide I'm sitting here listening to the crickets chirp while I wait for the Left to apologize for smearing pretty much everyone on the Right and pretty much everyone in my former home state of Kentucky when news of Sparkman's death first surfaced.

Andrew Sullivan claims that he has nothing to apologize for. Here's what Sully originally wrote:

It's possible, I suppose, that anger at the feds in general could make a drug dealer murder a census worker. But the most worrying possibility - that this is Southern populist terrorism, whipped up by the GOP and its Fox and talk radio cohorts - remains real. We'll see.

In Andrew's world the We'll see is proof that he was keeping an open mind. Where I come from, we call it the "God bless", as in "God bless her, she's ugly as mud." You can say anything about anybody as long as you qualify it with a "God bless."

Stacy McCain puts it to Sullivan:

This, from a post entitled "Correcting Michelle Malkin," as if Malkin -- who was right all along about the Sparkman case -- needs corrections from Dr. Andrew Sullivan, M.D., OB-GYN. Tell you what: We'll let Sarah Palin's Uterus be the arbiter here. We're not laughing with you, Sully, we're laughing at you.

But Sully wasn't the only chimp who used Sparkman's death as an excuse to fling some feces-
Reason, American Power and Camp of the Saints have round ups of all the Lefty monkeys who practically fell over one another to to smear anyone who failed to worship at the alter of Obama.

To be honest, I'm not really waiting for an apology. That would require a level of honesty and decency not seen from the Left.

Andrew Sullivan: Jew Hater?

Stacy McCain weighs in on the accusation that Andrew Sullivan is a Jew hater:

I certainly don't think so, and consider it terribly unfortunate that Sullivan has exposed himself to this damaging accusation through his reflexive enthusiasm for all things Obama -- just as he once was denounced as a "neocon" because of his reflexive enthusiasm for all things Bush.

Sullivan got over his unrequited Dubya man-crush, and maybe his current see-no-evil attitude toward Israel's enemies will fade if Sullivan discovers that his new presidential idol also has feet of clay. So while I have called Sullivan a menace to society and advocated his deportation, he's probably not a Holocaust denier or a peddler of blood libel.

My friend Dan Riehl called attention to this accusation against Sullivan, by way of firing a shot at Conor Friedersdorf. I've fired my share of shots at Conor, but I certainly would never accuse him of Jew-hating. The extremely toxic nature of the "anti-Semite" label is such that I am extremely hesitant to apply it.

I've got to tell you, I think Sullivan is just plain nuts. Really, this whole obsession that Sully has with Palin's uterus has driven him off a very short cliff. Beyond that he is just a very nasty little man. And to be honest, I prefer crazy people to be way less predictable. Sullivan is a bandwagon jumper and the Left certainly has it in for Israel and all things Jewish so I would rule out that he has decided that the anti-Semite crowd are his new best friends. It is nothing personal with Sully, he is just desperate to be thought of as an intellectual (in that narrow Lefty sense). Which of course is just further proof of Sully's craziness.

Andrew Sullivan: Delusional Fantasist

I’d been storming around in a snit for three days and frankly, it had ceased to be fun. I needed something to giggle about and God bless him, Andrew Sullivan came through:

… And the fact that she is now the leader of the Republican party and a potential presidential candidate, makes this process of deconstruction an important civil responsibility. We take this seriously as we always have. We want to be fair to her, and to her family, and to the innocent people she has brought into the spotlight. And we are not reporters. We are merely analysts trying to make sense of evidence already in the public domain, evidence that points in all sorts of directions, only one of which can be true.

Since the Dish has tried to be rigorous and careful in analyzing Palin's unhinged grip on reality from the very beginning - specifically her fantastic story of her fifth pregnancy - we feel it's vital that we grapple with this new data as fairly and as rigorously as possible. That takes time to get right. And it is so complicated we simply cannot focus on anything else.

Who but Sully could be so earnest and so silly all in a single breath? But there he is saving the Republic from the greatest threat it has faced since Yoko Ono married John Lennon and destroyed the Beatles. Were it not for Sullivan, the Wild Woman of Wasilla would not doubt march on Washington unimpeded. But fear not, he’ll focus on nothing else ‘til the pretender to the presidency is sent packing back to the tundra.

Cassandra speaks for all of us when she says:

Once he's done deconstructing Sarah Palin's 5th pregnancy, hopefully he'll have time to catch us up on the Britney Spears/Kevin Federline divorce. I think we're all feeling a bit safer today, knowing Sully is on the case.

More at:

Memeorandum
Villainous Company
Pundit & Pundette
Riehl World View

Andrew Emotes

Today my, “Gee, I wish I’d said that” moment was provided by The Riehl World View:

If Andrew Sullivan wants to jump into the emoting bin at Wal-Mart to pick-out a cheap canned syrupy concoction on Iran to serve up to his readers, he's allowed; but it shouldn't be confused with the insight, or wisdom he colors it up to look to be. And it does matter for reasons that are critically important to America and her security.

Ouch.

I try to read Andrew Sullivan occasionally but must confess I never make it too far. He just seems so easily excitable, and not in a good way. There is something rabid Pomeranian about him that always leaves me queasy. Anyway, the entire post can be read here.

UPDATED: American Power also weighs in on Andrew:

Ayatollah Khomeini did not come to power with the promise of freedom. The revolution of '79 installed a Islamo-fascist dictatorship. Spencer Ackerman sees the Bush administration as a bigger threat to the Iranian regime than the mullahs in Tehran. And Andrew Sullivan, in citing him, is blogging too fast to realize how stupid he makes himself out to be. Once you deconstruct what Sullivan is saying, we see it's all about him and his Man-Crush Dream-Boy Obama.

Well, I guess a man has a right to his dreams no matter how ookey they might be. But to base one’s ideology on the hope that the object of your affection will cast an approving smile your way seems a bit over the top. Of course, we are talking about Andrew.

Andrew Sullivan Shows His Ass (Again)

Only Andrew Sullivan could look at the events unfolding in Iran and use the subornation of the will of millions of people to take a swipe at Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and yes, Sarah Palin, to score some kind of ass backwards political point.

Is there nothing that Sullivan won’t twist to fit his polluted world view? Does he find it so necessary to make every event a pawn to his self absorbed agenda? Man up, Andy. Using a tragedy in this manner just makes you appear small. Are you emboldened by other equally small purveyors of dishonest Left wing propaganda?

Be proud. Nothing like using the First Amendment to shill for hate.

Sullivan Accuses Glenn Reynolds of "Partisan Shenanigans"

Via Memeorandum

So, Andrew Sullivan is ’taking on’ Instapundit? Heh.

Today, David Brooks has a fine column that makes many of the same points. And all Reynolds can talk about is pork and the stimulus! In fact, that's all he ever talked about. In this post bragging that he actually took on the GOP for their "big-spending ways", he cites two posts about pork. That is simply not serious; and never was. It was credentializing to cover for his own support for the most fiscally reckless administration in recent history. If you want to find an intellectually honest fiscal conservative who didn't shill for Bush for eight long years, read Bruce Bartlett, who is now honest enough to envisage a VAT. Or this blog, from 2001 onwards. I have some cred on this issue that extends beyond silly posturing about pork.

Sullivan says that the only thing Reynolds talks about or has ever talked about is pork. However, in the world according to Andrew, Reynolds may have said he was against pork during the Bush years but he didn’t really mean. Either Sullivan isn’t a long time Instapundit reader or he has a serious reading comprehension problem.

Anyone interested in Bruce Bartlett’s views on the VAT would do well to skip Sullivan’s link and go to here. That we are so deep in debt that enacting a VAT only points to how disastrous the Obama presidency has been. On the other hand, I could envision a VAT if it replaced our current system and was the only tax imposed. That would be fair. To enact it in addition to the current system would be burdensome to the breaking point.

As far as Sullivan’s cred, he did call Bush out on spending. If he wants to be “credible” he should call Obama as well. Calling out Glenn Reynolds, who has a long history of advocating fiscal prudence and responsibility is just silly.

Reaction at The Other McCain

Althouse has a poll up. Vote early, vote often