Curmudgeonly & Skeptical

Did you see Andrew Sulllivan's take? He says that conservative criticisms of Hatch are just more proof of conservative extremism in Washington.

I came across that article yesterday when looking for a Michael Ramirez comic. It was (the article), to put it lightly, rubbish.

The author--if I'm not mistaken--the associate editor of the New Republic, takes the position that the lack of groupthink and unwavering unity is proof of extremism and "militancy" from the GOP.

It not once seems to cross Mr. Crowley's mind that perhaps some in the GOP consider Senator Hatch to be doing a poor job, particularly on the memo fiasco of late. He went along with a plan to throw an aide to the wolves, so to speak, despite the aid having done nothing illegal. The man literally clicked on Network Neighborhood and found the files because their the permissions were improperly set. And now he is without job because a computer technician did a poor job.

What I read in that article gave me far more insight into the mind of a leading Democrat voter than anything to do with Orin Hatch or the GOP. When a man sees infighting as "extremism" and "militancy", there is a problem. When a man sees the lack of wholly unified message devoid of deviation or second-guessing, there is a problem.

And, with regards, to Andrew Sullivan...well, he's been trending towards "odd" for a while now. I read something on Econopundit about Andrew Sullivan that I think is dead on the money. It was submitted by a reader and follows:

I have to agree with [Bezowsky]. I only majored in economics in college before getting my JD, so I don't have the background of professional economists, but I find his [Andrew Sullivan's] stuff increasingly unhinged. I have read him since before the 2000 election, but find that I spend little time there anymore. Lately, it is just a quick scan to see if there might be one post worth reading out of the 4 or 5 he puts up and I'm gone.

As for his ethics, you got to be kidding. He has the strangest, most self-serving ethical and philosophical structure I have ever seen. He is a Catholic, except for the fact that he disagrees with the Church on almost everything. He is a conservative, except for the social and economic issues that he disagrees with.

I think he is the ultimate modern man per C S Lewis. Andrew puts God in the dock and judges Him. Sullivan likes drugs, so he decides they are morally acceptable. He succumbs to the temptation of unmarried sex with serial partners, so he decides it isn't sinful. He enjoys homosexual sex, so he decides that it isn't sinful. What he ends up with is a god who is nothing more than a deity who reinforces all of Andrew's rationalizations. Andrew has constructed his own god for his own reasons.

Sullivan apparently doesn't repent. He merely redefines sin to accord with his own earthly desires.

We read him for the same reason we read the papers and monitor the networks. He has influence and it is important to understand how other people are thinking.
- Stan Brown, in comments to “Econopundit”

Hatch is more interested in being liked in the Washington cocktail circuit and has lost his interest in good government. Another reason for term limits.

Notice that Crowley does not mention what was in the memos even though they document real crimes that were committed by the Donks.

Two things:

1. Hatch is a worm.
2. So is Sullivan.

I read Sullivan, ONCE, and never again. Yes, he shows occasional commonsense, but that's no criterion for acceptance. He's still a liberal asswipe with a dactyl for a last name.

And no, it has nothing to do with his homersekshalidee.

Well done addison