Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Editorials & Other Articles
In reply to the discussion: Andrew Sullivan: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics [View all]zipplewrath
(16,698 posts)56. Focusing on his dumbest critics
Conor Friedersdorf has a different point of view
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/dear-andrew-sullivan-why-focus-on-obamas-dumbest-critics/251528/
But his Newsweek essay fits the pattern I've lamented of Obama apologists who tell a narrative of his administration that ignores some of these issues and minimizes the importance of others, as if they're a relatively unimportant matter to be set aside in a sentence or three before proceeding to the more important business of whether the president is being critiqued fairly by obtuse partisans.
Sullivan should reconsider this approach.
During President Bush's first term, Sullivan will recall the most unhinged attacks on him -- the comparisons to Hitler, the puppets burned in effigy, the comparisons to a chimp. There wasn't anything wrong with lamenting those attacks, just as there's nothing wrong with pointing out exaggerated and baseless attacks on Obama, which have spread through most of the Republican Party. But the priority put on rebutting the least persuasive left-wing critiques of Bush, and pre-election 2004 worrying about the flaws of the Democratic field, are part of what postponed the backlash against Bush's ruinous policies. The backlash should've been the priority all along.
Sullivan should reconsider this approach.
During President Bush's first term, Sullivan will recall the most unhinged attacks on him -- the comparisons to Hitler, the puppets burned in effigy, the comparisons to a chimp. There wasn't anything wrong with lamenting those attacks, just as there's nothing wrong with pointing out exaggerated and baseless attacks on Obama, which have spread through most of the Republican Party. But the priority put on rebutting the least persuasive left-wing critiques of Bush, and pre-election 2004 worrying about the flaws of the Democratic field, are part of what postponed the backlash against Bush's ruinous policies. The backlash should've been the priority all along.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
68 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Andy Sullivan is a strong Obama supporter. He also voted for John Kerry in 2004. Here's one
Liberal_Stalwart71
Jan 2012
#2
Do you mind sending me a link? I'd like to read and also send to some conservative Sully fans.
Liberal_Stalwart71
Jan 2012
#30
Wait a minute. Why are you attacking me? I obviously did not know Sully's views. I'm open
Liberal_Stalwart71
Jan 2012
#32
No, the point for sending it to the conservative folks who like Sully is that they didn't know about
Liberal_Stalwart71
Jan 2012
#34
Your rude posts really irritate me and turn me off, so I'll put you on Ignore now.
Liberal_Stalwart71
Jan 2012
#36
Does anyone else want to puke until you can't puke anymore about this defense of--
eridani
Jan 2012
#53
So, MSM propaganda, Koch bros spending *$30 million*, and it's Obama/Democrats...
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#60
They got out more votes because they successfully faked being defenders of Medicare
eridani
Jan 2012
#65
The Commission's point was to put attacking Social Security and Medicare on the table
eridani
Jan 2012
#67
It was never "on the table." It was never put up to a vote. It never got out of committee.
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#68