My questions are about Andrew Sullivan. If Sullivan felt this way of Blumenthal, why was he editing him at the New Republic? It seems to me it is like passing on Jayson Blair at the NYT, when do you find yourself culpable?
And this:"Sids retroactive defense is that the enemy was worse. And in a contest between the duplicitous Clinton and the puritanical Starr, the country and the Senate were absolutely right to back Mr. Clinton."
Why is that, Mr. Sullivan? Is it because it was just about sex?
Nice to see Blumenthal dissected but Sullivan got bloody in the process.
posted on 05/15/2003 8:05:48 AM PDT
(Quid lucrum istic mihi est?)
Thats why, in the end, this book is worth reading. Its brutally revealing about the stupidity, bigotry, malevolence and extremism of the right-wing forces that became obsessed with President Clinton. Im glad they ultimately lost.
Anyone else bothered by this little dig?
Out of the entire article, this is the quote that will be used to promote the book.
How about Mr. Starr was appointed by BJ, and he had no such elected position of power.
I guess Andy decides to gloss over that part.
I think editors often don't have the power to get rid of columnists. Michael Kelly (who detested Blumenthal) edited him for a while at The New Yorker, if memory serves.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson