Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The quintessential Andrew Sullivan

Blogger Andrew Sullivan charged Sunday that, whereas in December of last year I advocated a gasoline tax, in my “latest column” on climate change, “the gas tax idea is missing.”

“Why?” asks Sullivan. Because: “In the end, the conservative intelligentsia is much more invested in obstructing and thereby neutering Obama and the Democrats than in solving any actual problems in front of us. It’s a game for them, and they play it with impunity.”

He calls this “The Positioning Of Charles Krauthammer,” a demonstration of rank partisanship and bad faith.

It is quite a charge: This “latest column” proves that I've positioned my views on a gasoline tax for reasons cynically partisan, mindlessly anti-Obama, interested only in the game of power and not in the welfare of the country. In other words, so blinded by selfishness as to be unpatriotic.

However, there’s a slight problem with Sullivan’s analysis. If you click on the column of mine that he cites, which he calls my "latest" and which betrays my anti-Obama fanaticism, you will find that it begins with the following headline:

Carbon Chastity
The First Commandment of the Church of the Environment
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 30, 2008

Note the date: May 30, 2008. A year and a half ago. At the time, George Bush was president. Barack Obama hadn’t even won the Democratic nomination, let alone become president of the United States. The column has absolutely nothing to do with Barack Obama.

Sullivan's entire ad hominem conclusion -- that my views are animated by nothing but the basest, most corrupt partisan motives -- turned out to be a complete invention based on his inability to read dates.

And, characteristically, on total ignorance of the subject he is writing about -- in this case, my views on a gasoline tax. I've been an advocate of a tax on oil not since December 2008 but since 1983 (“The Oil Bust Panic," The New Republic, February 21, 1983). I have not changed my position in the intervening 26 years. I've criticized every administration, Republican and Democratic, for not taxing petroleum, beginning with the Reagan administration, which I repeatedly criticized for the idiocy of trying to persuade the Saudis to curtail production and raise the world price rather than impose some kind of oil tax on our own.

I've advocated a petroleum tax at least 20 times over the years. (The only thing I have changed is the form the levy should take: from an oil import fee to the more simply administered and refunded gasoline tax.) I have never changed my views.

Sullivan’s conclusion that I advocated a gas tax in December ’08 and then dropped it this year because I’m only interested in neutering Obama shows that he knows absolutely nothing about my views. The column in question -- the one Sullivan thinks I wrote just now, but in fact was published in May 2008 -- is not "positioning." Bush was president, Obama not even an issue. The gas tax wasn't mentioned because it's not particularly relevant to the subject I was addressing -- the ideological rigidity of climate-change activism. And because my views on the gas tax had been repeated so many times, writing about it again would have been superfluous.

Nine months later (March 5, 2009), I gave a public presentation at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies to a group of around 30 economists and energy analysts on my proposed “Net-Zero” gas tax. I’m no historian, but that appears to have occurred during the Obama presidency.

Sullivan’s post merits reading as the quintessential Sullivan, leaping from nonexistent fact to blanket ad hominem without even a pause for a reality check. Enjoy it here.

[UPDATE: See Andrew Sullivan's correction and apology here.]

By Charles Krauthammer  | November 30, 2009; 5:48 PM ET
Categories:  Krauthammer  | Tags:  Charles Krauthammer  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Yes, we should ban loud commercials
Next: The Salahis doth protest too much

Comments

This article proves that no one with an ounce of intelligence should mess with Dr. K. unless they are totally sure of their facts. I doubt Sullivan will post a rebuttal. He is probably too embarrassed that he was "outed" on the facts

Posted by: jkk1943 | November 30, 2009 8:13 PM | Report abuse

There are too many like Sullivan who spew reckless babble with no integrity.There goal is to destroy the credibility of their adversary with distortions and blatant lies.If you can`t agree with the opinion or ideology of these people,they will simply smear you.

Posted by: bowspray | November 30, 2009 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Sullivan goofed. Good call. No doubt he will issue a retraction. I'm intrigued by the distinction between the oil import fee and the gas tax. Surely the oil import fee would do more to enhance US energy security. I'd be interested in reading an elaboration on these ideas.

Posted by: DCAIAD | November 30, 2009 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Too bad you didn't take a higher road by leaving the smarmy attacks out of your response and looking like the bigger man.

Instead, you got down in the dirt with Sully, and now you're both a bit muddy.

Sad, but predictable.

Posted by: tettes | November 30, 2009 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Andrew Sullivan is Perez Hilton with a PC.

Posted by: WashingtonDame | November 30, 2009 10:49 PM | Report abuse

As it happens, Mr. Sullivan already has published a correction and an apology, noting that he got the date of the piece wrong, and did so less than 5 hours after the error was pointed out here. He is, in my experience, one of the two prominent media personalities most likely to correct his errors prominently and to actually apologize for them. Anyone who reads him enough to be able to accurately describe a post as "the quintessential Sullivan" would know that.

One thing Sullivan has that is not apparent in this post is a certain amount of graciousness. Had Mr. Krauthammer sent him an email noting the mistake, Sullivan would have published it, acknowledging his error. (He does it all the time.) Instead, Mr. Krauthammer took out his cudgel. It's an interesting choice.

Posted by: jharringto | December 1, 2009 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, so Andrew missed a date. You write one column a week, and he writes one a day... Let's get real Charlie - we all know you don't exactly rely on being 'fair and balanced' in your columns, and this churlish response to his mistake just confirms that. However, with dwindling subscribers, it's not in your best interests to be such a curmudgeon. Look at it this way, now you know someone on the cutting edge of journalism actually reads your old partisan poison. I know it is a lot to ask but be sure to link to Andrew's prompt retraction.

Posted by: 1armywife | December 1, 2009 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Nevertheless, Mr. Krauthammer, Mr. Sullivan is correct in that you're only interested in blind obstructionism, as blind as your hatred for Mr. Obama.

Posted by: yatim99 | December 1, 2009 12:28 AM | Report abuse

Chuckles writes:

"Sullivan's entire ad hominem conclusion -- that my views are animated by nothing but the basest, most corrupt partisan motives -- turned out to be a complete invention based on his inability to read dates."

Chuckles, we all know that your views are animated by Likud. You should be grateful that Andrew Sullivan considers you to be an independent human instead of the Likud puppet you actually re.

Posted by: angelos_peter | December 1, 2009 12:30 AM | Report abuse

"I was wrong in inferring any shift of Krauthammer's position under Obama; and I apologize to Krauthammer and my readers for both the mistake and the unfair inference."
--Andrew Sullivan

Don't be so uppity, Charles. And quit using that black hair dye--it's rotting your brain.

Posted by: muckamuck | December 1, 2009 12:30 AM | Report abuse

Charles Krauthammer's birth name is Shecky Schlomo Krauheimer. Shecky is at the top of the list at the American Enterprise Institute. It is a Neo-Con organization that promotes War against Iran at all costs. It would help Israel expand and that is what Shecky, Bill Kristol, Podhoretz, Kagan, Bernie and Jonah Goldberg Frum and all of the miserable War-Mongers at the Weekly Standard, and Heritage Foundation promote.

Posted by: orionexpress | December 1, 2009 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Charles Krauthammer's birth name is Shecky Schlomo Krauheimer. Shecky is at the top of the list at the American Enterprise Institute. It is a Neo-Con organization that promotes War against Iran at all costs. It would help Israel expand and that is what Shecky, Bill Kristol, Podhoretz, Kagan, Bernie and Jonah Goldberg Frum and all of the miserable War-Mongers at the Weekly Standard, and Heritage Foundation promote.

Posted by: orionexpress | December 1, 2009 12:45 AM | Report abuse

When was the last time Krauthammer printed a apology for anything? How about his support for the Iraq war. How about supporting Bush and his economic policies. Nope. Sullivan was wrong but acknowledged it. I have more faith in someone who admits he was wrong, as Sullivan has about his support for Bush and the Iraq war.

Posted by: dougeeca | December 1, 2009 1:22 AM | Report abuse

I would waste my time trying to research Charles's one time fellow conservative Andrew Sullivan is right or wrong in this instance, his general is absolutely and has been. Not only with respect to utterly thuggary of Charles but his party as a whole. They do not care about this care, and never have. The only thing that matters is the power grab to continue their corporate agenda. That is why corporate is continuing propping up this party.

Posted by: kevin1231 | December 1, 2009 1:32 AM | Report abuse

Oh silly Charles. You do act in bad faith. You aren't interested in solving the country's problems. You are obviously interested in promoting Conservative thought by any means possible. In this light you spend no shortage of words slamming the current president and administration for everything they do. According to you they can do nothing right. Your writing is so partisan it's laughable Charles. If you would take the time to read the crap you write you will see a hateful old man in the mirror. I really hate to break this to you Charles, but you are a terrible American. Not that this is anything new for you Charles. Posts have been written over and over about the same thing Sullivan accused you of and it's rolled off your back like water on a duck.

Sulllivan may or may not of made a factual error and you pounce on this alleged error to show people the liberals are attacking you unfairly? Didn't we see this type of ploy with the draft dodging Bush and Dan Rather? It's old Charles. It's called shoot the messenger, but don't discuss the issues.

Bottom line is Charles none of us pity you. Outside of small group of right wing whacko's the rest of think you are an ideologue without morals. You are so hell bent on being right you will say or do anything to further your cause with or without truth, reason or facts.

Posted by: boblund1 | December 1, 2009 3:08 AM | Report abuse

Notice what Krauthammer is doing here.

Sullivan said two things, one was about your advocacy of a gas tax and the other was that you're only interested in defeating Obama whatever he does, regardless of how it affects the country.

You're claim that he was wrong about the first assertion is proven true. Somehow you're trying to apply this 'wrongness' to both assertions, sort of a slippery slope ... or should I say slimy slope.

You're still a worm Charles. One of the slimiest columnists in America. Even when you're right, you're still a slimy worm.

Posted by: khote14 | December 1, 2009 3:17 AM | Report abuse


The "Five-cornered Square" vs Quintessential Andrew Sullivan".

Talk of a high profile debate!

Just another lousy Krautie show of pompous chastizing for a trifle. The guy Sullivan appologized, a few hours later but the Kraut doesn't have the elegance to mention it. Neither did he just correct the mistake in dates and save us his preaching.

Same old Chuck. Just don't mess with rattlesnake and say amen to all his paranoid drivle.

Posted by: foxblues | December 1, 2009 3:26 AM | Report abuse

Krauthammer says, "I have never changed my views." But what has changed over the years is the amount of the tax that he's advocated. I don't archive old Krauthammer columns, but I have the impression that in the 90s he pushed for a $5-per-gallon minimum price for gas, and that that figure subsequently dropped to $3 (in inflated dollars). So Sullivan's point, in somewhat weaker form, is right.

Posted by: donnolo | December 1, 2009 3:52 AM | Report abuse

I don't know what is worse: Sullivan's improper ad hominem attack or your assumption that you're important enough a subject to write a column about.

The only people that are really capable of pulling rank here are people like me, who want opposing political opinions because we're interested and/or engaged in the substance of the most important public issues of our time. And, I'm doing it here, too.

Furthermore, I find your apparent enjoyment of this episode (as if it advances public debate at all) insulting. You've only succeeded in proving that you're no better than he. You've both just wasted our time when there are legitimate issues to be debated.

If you harbor any perversion of a reality in which you, personally, matter, then you really are the arrogant, self-aggrandizing S.O.B. people call you in the comments here. And, for that matter, Sullivan could be said to be no different.

Tell me this could not have been handled without disrupting public discourse. The facts are so plain that I'm sure Sullivan would have posted the correction and apology he eventually did post.

It's a wonder that you can cite columns going back to the early-80's and in the same article succeed in proving that, since then, you have not learned the first thing about your own profession and its importance to our society.

You're both an embarrassment. This isn't about you or him, dumb-dumb.

Love to your mothers.

-PMartini

Posted by: PMartini | December 1, 2009 4:50 AM | Report abuse

>> He calls this “The Positioning Of Charles Krauthammer,” a demonstration of rank partisanship and bad faith <<<

99 per cent of the time -- that would be true.

Posted by: Marcaurelius | December 1, 2009 5:00 AM | Report abuse

As hard as Krauthammer tried, he could not make the Obamas go away. Krauthammer saw Obamas peering at him over his windowsill when he tried to sleep at night. Hundreds of Obamas walked the street whenever Krauthammer rolled his chair outside. Obamas were in his soup and Obamas stared at him silently over the stall when he sat on a commode.

Krauthammer had all he could take and beseeched the conjurer woman to deliver him from these hundreds of Obamas, always staring and smirking and mocking the old neo-con rat.

The conjurer woman told Krauthammer that the only way to liberate himself from the Obamas was to steal a pair of Barack Obama's old unwashed underwear and to wear them on his head for at least a month. Krauthammer, at his wit's end did what he was told and wore Obama's dirty drawers on his head until they began to smell. But still the hundreds of Obamas haunted him, mocked him and laughed at him now for wearing a pair of dirty drawers on his head.

Posted by: DCSage | December 1, 2009 5:17 AM | Report abuse

I like free-for-alls.

I hate anti-Semitic, neocon bashing.

Krauthammer seems to be the most hated columnist on the WaPo staff. I'm guessing the real reason is that his detractors are frustrated by their inability to effectively counter his arguments. Their despicable insults expose a rank cretinism.

Posted by: elgropo1 | December 1, 2009 5:42 AM | Report abuse

Well, if its a game for the Republicans to neutralized Obama they are winning. Fact is, Obama's repeated blunders are the reason the nation is turing against Obama and the Dems, the Republicans are just the party that will gain for his continued idiocy.

The Dems have super Majorities in Congress and they have the White House. the Republicans CANNOT slow down or get in the the waywhat the Dems want to do, but the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Cap and Tax & Socialist Health Plan are so bad, a majority of the Democrats have a hard time supporting it.

Don't blame the Republicans for the incompetentcy of Obama and the Democratic party.

Posted by: Realist20 | December 1, 2009 5:55 AM | Report abuse

Dr. K is wrong about the gas tax now and he was wrong about it years ago as well. But that does not change the fact that Sullivan is almost always over his head when it come to rational argument. Sullivan really does not read facts and he does not listen to anything but this own personal bias. The reason a gas tax is wrong is because taxing use in a very open and competitive market, retail gasoline, does nothing but distort the market. I get his idea of rebating the money is somewhat helpful, but the fact is that a huge number of poor folks don't even file tax returns so the tax would still be highly regressive. What we should tax are the folks that use the seas to transport oil because the US basically ensures that oil tankers around the world can pass without being attacked. Off the coast of Africa we see what happens when we do not protects shipping. So it is the Saudi's and the UAE and Kuwait and Iraq and Iran et al that should be paying an petroleum shipments tax to the US. And the tax should be a percentage of the avg cost of a barrel of oil purchased by companies selling that oil in the US. That way when the terrorist supporting crooks of OPEC increase prices by changing supply, they pay a higher tax when the price goes up and a lower tax when the price goes down.

Posted by: gagalbert | December 1, 2009 6:09 AM | Report abuse

elgropo1 wrote: "I hate anti-Semitic, neocon bashing. Krauthammer seems to be the most hated columnist on the WaPo staff."

DC Sage wrote: Charles Krauthammer is a hatemonger himself. 24 hours a day, Krauthammer spews hate against the President of the United States from Fox faked News to the Washington Post editorial pages. Krauthammer is obsessed with his hatred for Barack Obama and Krauthammer's arguments are nothing more than hateful neo-con rants against the President on any subject that he can think of.

The claim that bashing hateful war-mongering neo-con hacks like Krauthammer has something to do with "anti-Semitism" is just so much hogwash. Krauthammer spews hate and people don't like him because he is a bitter, dispepsic and hateful old man with nothing ever positive to say. Any bashing that this old hatemonger gets he deserves.

Posted by: DCSage | December 1, 2009 6:35 AM | Report abuse

Every one of your columns, Krautie, screams rank partisanship and bad faith. Don't think you are fooling people. Andrew Sullivan is corect about you.

Posted by: Gatsby10 | December 1, 2009 6:42 AM | Report abuse

There can only be one explanation for the animosity between Krauthammer and Sullivan--they must be former lovers.

Posted by: yatest | December 1, 2009 6:44 AM | Report abuse

Bitter, party of one...Krauthamer, do you really want to go down the "I'm not wrong, he is road" - your track record isn't exactly stellar.

You're still just a petty neocon hack bound and determined to handicap the President. Once a hack, always a hack. BTW your retort after his apology and correction is pretty sophomoric, but I that's part of your M.O.

Posted by: NotFooledTX | December 1, 2009 6:52 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: orionexpress | December 1, 2009 12:44 AM
Krauthammer's name...ect. etc.

-------------------------------------------

Frankly, I'm glad Mr. Krauthammer chose such a great name (if indeed, it is not his birth name). Mr. orionexpress, in his thinly veiled slur, is no doubt aware that Schicklgruber would not have been a suitable name for HIS hero.

Posted by: sanfran6003 | December 1, 2009 7:06 AM | Report abuse

Keep up the good work Charles. To the koolaid crowd you are like a tick that constantly annoys them. They cannot tolerate anyone who doesnt swoon and slobber all over Obama. Mr Obama has done nothing for blacks, gays, or Americans in general. Why he continues to be adored is laughable. He has given millions to Palestinians and to the United Nations and yet they hate us still. Those millions could have gone to Americans who truly need help...yet he ignores us.. and continues to apologize for America. To Mr Obama - if you hate America and capitalism so much then please go back to Kenya...the same Kenya that is mentioned as your birthplace in those 1994 articles that ran as you campaigned to be Senator. The ones that the media continue to ignore because they refuse to smell the manure in your biography that is sealed tight. Transparency indeed - unless it applies to him...

Posted by: JUNGLEJIM123 | December 1, 2009 7:38 AM | Report abuse

Hey Andrew, take this you little biotch.

Posted by: gorams1 | December 1, 2009 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Oh Krauthammer, Andrew got one thing wrong and you're trying to claim this is typical of him. And besides, you are a partisan hack. Every column I've read of yours, save a few, have been attacks on President Obama. And most of them are deeply dishonest, especially your columns on health care. Andrew got one wrong, but his overall opinion of you is dead on.

Posted by: PhyloSeFiser | December 1, 2009 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Here is my one simple question. How can anyone take anything Andrew Sullivan says seriously in light of his continuing to question (as late as last week) whether Sarah Palin is Trig Palin's mother? This insanity of his is on a par with the people who maintain that Flight 93 did not actually crash on September 11. There is a baby. Babies do not appear out of thin air. We know how babies are made. (Maybe Andrew doesn't but the rest of us do). However improbable Mr. Sullivan thinks it. She is the baby's mother.

Now, if he really believes that she isn't the baby's mother, he has a serious screw loose. If he has a serious screw loose on this issue, it may indicate he has a serious screw loose on a lot of issues. He clearly has little judgment and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Posted by: susansalisbury1 | December 1, 2009 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Once again, Dr. Krauthammer shows himself to be one of the most embittered and shrill voices on the entire Right Wing Fox Nation.

Krauthammer preaches to the Choir with fudged facts. Do I feel sorry for Krauthammer? Yes. But I feel worse for the Discourse he so routinely poisons with his participation in the hateful exercise on Fox News, where Mara Liasson and Juan Williams pretend to be the "liberals" and every discussion is an excoriation of Fox News enemies, like President Obama, and an idolatrous fawning over Great Men like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Krauthammer himself.

Posted by: wapoisrightwingrag | December 1, 2009 8:24 AM | Report abuse

relax charlie. it ain't like sullivan has scooped the world. as you so correctly put it, "...my views are animated by nothing but the basest, most corrupt partisan motives" is probably the most honest comment you've put to paper in years. everyone knows it.

Posted by: jimfilyaw | December 1, 2009 8:41 AM | Report abuse

No, Krauthammer's views are simply motivated by an anti-Obama sentiment. I don't think anyone with half a brain thinks otherwise. Oh, and by the way, gas tax, good idea.

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | December 1, 2009 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Kraut, a neoCON hack will oppose everything the President does because he still has his lips attached to dick cheney's a$$.

Posted by: calif-joe | December 1, 2009 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Sullivan reveals his own bad intentions (and of many in the lib press), redirected at Krauthammer. Just replace Obama with Bush and Dem with Repub, and you see their whole strategy on the war on terror for the past 5 years or so:

Leftist intelligentsia is much more invested in obstructing and thereby neutering Bush and the Republicans than in solving any actual problems in front of us. It’s a game for them, and they play it with impunity.

Posted by: _buster | December 1, 2009 8:57 AM | Report abuse

It’s just amazing to see Mr. K lamenting about a little distortion here and there while at every opportunity he’s belittling others or distorting policies according to his ultra conservative “Holier than thou” thinking. Sometimes one just can read his sneer of the pages and one reason I stopped reading his garbage.

In fact most of us liberals gave up on this dogmatic columnist but today it happens that I read because of the Andrew Sullivan title. Who wants to read the rubbish partisan and disdainful articles this individual writes. There are many conservative columnists who really take on the issues rather on personalities or on mean things and never unpatriotically adopt policies that will eventually hurt the country, Mr. Brooks comes to mind whom we cherish to read his take because of all the thoughtful analysis and less partisan approach of issues.

It seems that one can’t teach an old dog any new tricks. So the best approach is to guard our minds against the partisan and less intellectual churn that he espouses as enlightening.

Skennd

Posted by: sarm1 | December 1, 2009 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Wow I used to think Krauthammer was pretty smart. But taxing petroleum? Really stupid, and really liberal. I say get rid of ALL taxes on fuel, because these taxes are used to damage the economy and build bigger governmetn. We need to starve government,not feed it, you moron.

Posted by: doctorfixit | December 1, 2009 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Tax liberals, not gasoline!

Posted by: doctorfixit | December 1, 2009 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Once Mr. Krauthammer allowed himself to be the primary media mouthpiece for the Cheney evidence for war in Iraq, his credibility was flushed. When officials in the Pentagon (including General Anthony Zinni) called Cheney's man Doug Feith on the trumped up evidence of Iraq's involvement with 9/11, Feith and friends sent the "evidence" to one Charles Krauthammer, who readily printed the bad information as fact. I have had no use for Mr. Krauthammer since. He is partisan, he is selfish, and he will allow himself to be used to spread lies.

Posted by: curtb | December 1, 2009 9:12 AM | Report abuse

I'll match Sullivan and raise it ten.

I regard you as a failed psychiatrist, a Neoconservative internationalist who places the interests of Israel over/against those of the United States,
a stooge for the Insurance indsutry, and as someone who projects his personal narcissism onto the President.

And that's being generous...

Posted by: RadicalGlove | December 1, 2009 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Sullivan apologized and offered a correction to his piece (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/a-correction-and-an-apology.html) When has Krauthammer ever done the same? For his errors on the the wars, etc. etc. etc.

Posted by: mty917 | December 1, 2009 9:27 AM | Report abuse


Krauthammer shut up about his "net-zero" gas tax because the neo-cons are too busy terrorizing Social Security and Medicare recipients about healthcare reform.

The problem with his "net-zero" is that it includes "exemptions" for special interest groups (i.e., Wall Street corporations) and is really designed to bankrupt Social Security and Medicare by slashing the tax revenues that are now dedicated to those programs.

So, in the end, Krauthammer's neo-con Wall Street mafia will merely take the taxes that now go to support elderly Americans and hand them over to Congress to spend on ... what? Healthcare? Clean energy? More tax cuts for the filthy rich??

..

Posted by: DEFJAX | December 1, 2009 9:31 AM | Report abuse

I've been a Sullivan blog reader since just after 9/11. Although I disagreed, I had no problem with his Obama endorsement. It's not his left leaning or right leaning views that have driven his descent. It's the manner in which he inexplicably abandoned his core belief system; seemingly for a President that projects an image he approves of.


The breathless defenses of everything-Obama since the election, the Palin ambulance chasing (Im no Palin fan, but enough already), the Hannity and/or Olberman-like black & white views along party lines, his equally lack of nuanced opinions of Fox News, and his sudden loss of ability to stand up for a libertarian principle most notably on health care & the environment all contribute to make him just another blogger in the blogsphere.


He used to be an excellent source for a thought provoking opinion based on a set of core principles. Read the last twelve months of his blog and you wouldnt know what those principles are. Every time he has an opportunity to stand up for his beliefs he disappoints. I didnt vote for Ron Paul, but he has been fighting an interesting fight on health care and other issues. Read Sullivan's blog and you'd guess that Paul died sometime in the early fall 2008. It's truly unfortunate and, having read Sullivan's books, the shift is mostly unexplainable.

Posted by: Drivingrain | December 1, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse

I love Dr.Krauthammer. I just do. He's funny and wicked smart. Makes liberals look even more silly than usual. Only thing is that I can't believe than anyone takes these liberal bloggers serious enough to even respond to them. Oh well. What a crazy time we are living in.

Posted by: EliseinAtlanta | December 1, 2009 9:37 AM | Report abuse

What's so funny here is that Krauthammer proves himself right and Sullivan wrong and everyone here is gnashing their teeth and rending their garments because Krauthammer wasn't "gracious" about being slandered.

Which, apparently, supposedly proves Sullivan's point about Krauthammer. It would seem "fake but accurate" (like Dan Rather and now, ClimateGate) has become a staple part of liberal discourse.

Posted by: martinknght | December 1, 2009 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Sullivan admits in his correction that Krauthammer "rightly excoriates me for the error." Somehow, the radical left-wing commentators on this site missed that quote, instead choosing to obstruct and thereby neuter any voice (such as Krauthammer's) with whom they disagree. Ironic (if you don't know the meaning of that term, look it up).

It would have been easy enough for Sullivan to remove the post from his site. Instead, he wrote a separate mea culpa that's not even linked to the original post. So, although Sullivan's post is "largely moot" (his words), it remains there for all to see, unvarnished by his correction. In other words, a vacuous apology.

Posted by: cheappleasures | December 1, 2009 9:47 AM | Report abuse

That Krauthammer should be granted column space to indulge in a cat fight is evidence of how mediocre the once great WAPO has become. Ben Bradlee would have tossed it into the wastebasket instantly.

Posted by: lobern | December 1, 2009 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Look. This is a simple choice for me. Andrew Sullivan may not have the intellectual credentials of Krauthammer but far and away he is more honst and candid in his views. If it comes to a choice between Sullivan and Krauthammer, I will take Andrew anytime.

Look. Krauthammer is shameless in his heaving partisan hatred for Barack Obama. More than anything else, he is guided by a desiore for payback because of the left's heavy, sometimes partisan criticism of George W. Bush. Krauthammer won't admit it but he was really stung by Bush's failure and Obama's election to the Presidency. He is really, really angry about it all because he was so passionate in his neoconservative delerium for Bush's foreign policy. One need only to Google Krauthammer's past columns during the Bush administration to apprehend that he had his nose way, way up the Bush-Cheney rectal orifice.

Krauthammer is one of those conservatives that always bleats about liberal bias in the media apparently blissfully ignorant that he gets a paycheck for his contributions in one of those very liberal newspapers. How many liberals of comparable stature does one find on the pages of the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times or the New York Post? Believe me, conservatives love bias. They just don't like liberal bias.

Posted by: jaxas | December 1, 2009 9:55 AM | Report abuse

It's more than a little disingenuous of Dr. Krauthammer to complain about ad hominem attack when he's called people insane for simple disagreement ("The Delusional Dean," Dec. 5, 2003).

Posted by: mattintx | December 1, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Charles The Great........once again proofs that he has more smarts in his left thumb then all the liberals in America.

Sullivan is your typical left-wing reporter nut that infest our left-wing MSM wolfpack press, clearly the most corrupt left-ist institution in America and the "main power supply" for the Democrat Party.

The NAZIS's propganda machine is nothing compared to the progaganda machine the left-ists in this country have created..........nothing....sad

We The People need to change that...

Posted by: allenridge | December 1, 2009 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Please hire a conservative commentator without hemorrhoids.

Krauthhammer's column is now either a lip quivering attack on Obama, or a whimpering defense of himself.

Hire David Brooks, please. Conservative opinion uncluttered by emotion.

Posted by: mbus | December 1, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Andrew Sullivan is such an idiot. The sure sign of downfall of any great nation is that lighweights like him become percieved as serious thinkers.

Posted by: dummypants | December 1, 2009 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Quite honestly, I could care less about the details of the cat fight between Sullovan and Krauthammer. It really doesn't matter who was right and who was wrong in this particular bruhaha.

What does matter is that Krauthammer is trying to soothe his shattered ego by using his Washington Post column to simply beat up on President Obama as payback for what happened to the Bush-Cheney administration.

Someone needs to remind Krauthammer that the failure of the Bush administration represents a failure of neoconservatism. That is really what is giving Krauthammer an intolerable rash on both buttocks. He has consistently been taking out his anger and frustration over that failure on President Obama. Yet, what he should be doing is reviewing his own committment to a failed philosopy.

But then, like Palin. Limbaugh, Beck and all the rest, it is simply inconceivable that conservatism could fail so they are offering up poor, old George W. Bush as a sacrifice on the altar of what they now see him as a liberal big spender. This is a fantasy of course concocted in the wake of a miserable failure and defeat.

They will try and resurrect this dying old philosophy of government which in fact never really did get off the ground because so many in their own party don't buy it when the rubber meets the road on actual policy implementation. After all, who in the world do they think George W. Bush was listening to when he cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, invaded Iraq on flawed neocon, Cheney ginned up intelligence on WMD, and called for taking funds out of the Social Security trust fund and placing them in private accounts managed by Wall Street bankers? Do they seriously believe he was doing the bidding of big spending liberal democrats?

Posted by: jaxas | December 1, 2009 10:12 AM | Report abuse

It's unfortunate that Mr. Sullivan's dementia has advanced so far. He used to be an intelligent, thoughtful writer.

I admit, however, I am shocked by the naked anti-Semitism of a number of those posting here. Aren't any of you liberals out there embarrassed to be associated with the likes of angelos and orion?

Posted by: DBL2 | December 1, 2009 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone even take Sullivan seriously anymore? Isn't he still obsessively trying to prove that Trig is Bristol's baby? This is a classic case of projection: irrational, insubstantial hostility or worship applied to a person or subject with no basis in reality. Sounds like just about every Sullivan post.

Posted by: franf1 | December 1, 2009 10:15 AM | Report abuse

I am a conservative who ordinarily hates taxes of ALL kinds. Except moderate consumption taxes (GST and gas tax)

But I support K.'s position on a gas tax. It is easily managed and the evidence that it reduces gas consumption, reduces oil imports, large-size cars, and excessive driving, can be found across Europe and Canada.

Many Governments also re-direct most of the gas taxs to building better transportation systems. Another net benefit.

Posted by: pvilso24 | December 1, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

jaxas,

What social security trust fund? Where is it? Is there any money in it? If it's a trust fund, who are the beneficiaries? Do they have any legal rights to that fund?

Never mind, I'm sure you are aware that social security taxes go into the general fund to pay the general expenses of the federal government.

Posted by: DBL2 | December 1, 2009 10:17 AM | Report abuse

So dummypants, who is your idea of a "serious thinker" eh? Sarah Palin? Glenn Beck?

Look. The conservatives had near absolute control for 4 years between 2002 and 2006. They had the House for 12 years. And at various times in the past 30 years, they have had the White House for 20 of those years and control of one or both houses for a goodly part of that time.

So, you tell me. Why did they not implement their brain dead, 18th cnetury agenda of limited government? Why did they allow an expansion of Executive Power way beyond anything the Founding Fathers envisioned? Why did they in fact create far larger deficits and an inconceivably large national debt? And why were they not able to reverse Roe v. Wade?

Why over that 30 year period did the tax burden on the American middle class double while the top rate taxes on the rich decline more than 100%? And for all of their peddling fear about Obamacare, why did they not attempt to control the cost of health care in all that time?

No, you can sit around with your collective thumb up your rectal orifice and condemn Obama all you want but he hasn't been around long enough to do the sort of damage you right wing cretins have done to this country.

And isn't it significant that during all that time, the one time we did get a balanced budget and asurplus was when a Democratic President was in power and you idiots wanted to impeach him for doing what half of your party has been doing in the last 8 years.

Posted by: jaxas | December 1, 2009 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Charles, why waste your time with such a blind idiot? Also, spare me the link to his blog...why should I give him more hits to his baseless tripe? Spend more time on issues that matter rather than starting down that slippery slope of mud slinging. Never argue with a fool...observors often can't distinguish between the parties!

Posted by: MI-Sooner | December 1, 2009 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Yeah Kraut! Neuter him Jesse Jackson style!

Posted by: alan19 | December 1, 2009 10:33 AM | Report abuse

DBL2, are you really that stupid or is it just an act? Look. That is the problem with the social security trust fund. For decades, Congress and Presidential administrations of both party have robbed the trust fund replacing them with IOUs to be paid back out of borrowing from foreign governments. And yes, some of those funds were used for general fund purposes. But they were also used to pay for Bush's idiotic tax cuts for people who really didn't need it and didn't care whether they got a tax cut in the first place.

Yet, that has not stopped these old, towen hall fahts who love to hate Obama from carring moronic signs saying KEEP THE GOVERNMENT'S HANDS OFF MY SOCIAL SECURITY while happily trudging off the nearest Post Office once a month to pick up their check, then rushing back to their nearest town hall meeting to rail against the socialist Barack Obama.

So you tell me: Did you support Bush and the conservatives when they wanted to take a portion of social security and put it in a private Wall Street account? And what do you supposed would have happened if the Congress had been idiotic enough to accepth that, given what happened on Wall Street little more than a year ago?

Posted by: jaxas | December 1, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Why does anyone take this fellow seriously on anything ?
What has he to say about 61 years' crimes against the earliest settlers in Palestine?

Posted by: jnyren1 | December 1, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Sullivan should stick to the vacuous, but friendlier confines of the Chris Matthews Show where Obama worship and extacy are
de rigueur.

Apparently the pressures of a daily deadline have gotten to him. He has to say something even when he has nothing to say.

Touche' Dr. Krauthammer.

Posted by: maxtel1910 | December 1, 2009 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Andrew Sullivan is unhinged. He has allowed Sarah Palin (among other things) to completely derail his mental capacity.

Charles Krauthammer probably shouldn't have dignified Sullivan with a response, but I enjoy that he did, mainly because it brings out all of the whiners and haters, all of whom put together don't have as much intelligence as Dr. Krauthammer has in his little finger.

Enjoy spewing your bile, nutjobs.

Posted by: etpietro | December 1, 2009 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Look. Scratch Krauthammer and you will find that underneath it all he is simply a Nazi and a racist. He has eagerly peddled every Glenn Beck inspired right wing fantasy about Obama and death panels, Obama and concentration camps, Obama as a dedicated socialist, communist and terrorist sympathizer. And now he is championing the crap Dick Cheney is peddling about Obama projecting weakness.

Krauthammer, Cheney, Bush, Limbaugh--all of these trogs seems to have an obsession about projecting "manhood" when it comes to telling Presidents what to do and all have eschewed such demonstrations of their own manhood when offered up the chance to do so.

In sum, they never met a war they didn't like and wouldn't lie their hind ends off to avoid direct service in.

Posted by: jaxas | December 1, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse

A liberal facing reality is like a Vampire eating garlic-that's why they run from reality and run and get jobs in "journalism" where they can spew their ignorance without worrying about being challenged.

Posted by: cschotta1 | December 1, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Isn't this just delicious? Back in the early days of the Bush administration when Andrew Sullivan thought the sun rose and set in Bush's narrow little hiney, he was all the rage on the right. Limbaugh quoted him daily.He was the toast of Fox News where Tony Snow relied on his gushy analysis of Bush's war on terrorism and just what an all round swell guy he was.

Now, that Sullivan finds grace in Obama, he is now fecal material. He has suddenly become an enemy of the natural order that order of course being conservative righteosness in all things.
Andrew is not the only moderate republican being disemboweled these days. This purity document being circulated by right wing brown shirts has got a great many of them worried about the direction of the GOP.

The GOP would do well to nip this crappy movement in the bud. One would think that the failure of that neocon sophistry over the past 8 years would force a general review and question the wisdom of following the advice of this dimwitted crew of knuckledragging neanderthals.

Posted by: jaxas | December 1, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Typical liberals. Andy the Trig Truther is proven to be an illiterate goof, and your only response is anti-Semetic slurs aimed at Krauthammer. It's so amusing, and yet so sad.

Posted by: pzummo | December 1, 2009 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Wow Charles! They really are upset with you. All of you people with that haze over your face wake up. There is not one thing you can dispute that Charles has said, and especially about obama. Obama is destroying our country and you choose to attack Charles. Charles, thanks for hitting things dead on the head. Love your comments and your column! And to those of you that want to respond to what I have just said, go take an asprin and get over yourself.

Posted by: BigMoe2 | December 1, 2009 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Chuck, you're not fooling anyone.

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | December 1, 2009 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Andrew Sullivan, formerly a gay conservative Republican and now a gay far left liberal, gets a shiver up his leg (ala Chris Matthews) and elsewhere when it comes to Obama. Sullivan is both in love and lust with the "chosen One" and his hormones have gone so out of control that he has made NO sense for quite some time, e.g. others conspiring against Obama as well as Sullivan's out-of this world paranoia regarding Sarah Palin. His rantings really do not deserve a response. Sullivan has become totally irrelevant to thoughtful opinion journalism.

Posted by: nickyle | December 1, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Cschotta, it seems to me that when you talk about "vampires" eating the garlic of reality you're talking about the conservative right.

Look. You guys have had your shot and you failed big time. It wasn't liberals who took us into a disastrous war in Iraq that embarrased the nation. It wasn't liberals who took a surplus and transformed it overnight into a belching, heaving deficit by giving away billions of dillars of our Treasury to people like Charles Schwab, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Gates and Donald Trump in the form of tax cuts. It wasn't liberals who cut funding for the Army Corp of Engineers as part of an overall government drawdown, thus deleting them of the funds necessary to upgrade New Orleansd levees, thus creating the disaster that occurred after Katrina. It wasn't liberals who wasted the government's time and tresources intervening in the Teri Schiavo case. It wasn't liberals who shot down attempts at the GAO and the SEC to strengthen the financial regulatory framework to prevent just the sort of finanacial collapse that hit last year before the election of Barack Obama.

No, it is all of us who are choking on all of the conservative malfeasance in government that finally came to a head. It is the application conservative governing philosophies which has brought this ruin upon us. And now you are trying to wriggle out of your well earend accountability by blaming it all on the new guy, Obama.

Well, anyone with the barest collection of brain cells knows it wasn't Barack Obama who brought this ton of feces down on our heads. It was you conservatives.

Posted by: jaxas | December 1, 2009 11:07 AM | Report abuse

worst thing ever is oBomba as a so called president-- please, only one term-- or get him out sooner-- the VP isn't the best ever, but 1,000,000 better than what we have now!

Posted by: tigger46 | December 1, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Thankfully the neocons are consumed with bringing down Obama instead of creating any message of their own. If they weren't such teabagging cretins, liberals might have to worry.

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | December 1, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Jaxas wrote: "Why over that 30 year period did the tax burden on the American middle class double while the top rate taxes on the rich decline more than 100%?"

Have you looked at the IRS data? According to The Tax Foundation, the top 10% of all wage earners (AGI of more than $113K) earn 48% of the wages in this county but pay 71% of the taxes.

The bottom 50% of wage earners (less than $33K)earn 12% of the total IRS wages and pay less than 3% in total taxes.

Your numbers don't add up and I'm not sure how this fits into Charles column. It is a typical liberal talking point, though. LOL!

Posted by: LeftCoastRightBrain | December 1, 2009 11:20 AM | Report abuse


Accusing the ugly, disgusting Krauthammer of "partisanship and bad faith"?
Like calling Katrina a breeze in the south.

DO let's wish that the zionists so hard at work ruining American values and safety
were only "bad faith". Further this stupid column proves Krauthammer

has a skin so thin it's hardly discernable.
And that he's too LAZY to think or compose a resonable column of information... except banging the President
and yelling against anything Islamic, which he phones in. Lazy, nasty thin skinned.

Won't we all miss this creep when the Post goes down? (Not soon enough).

Posted by: whistling | December 1, 2009 11:20 AM | Report abuse

It is beyond obvious what conservatives are trying to do. At the moment, there is a great deal of angst throughout the land at all politicians of all stripes. Conservatives are trying to hitchike a ride on this angst back into power. If that were to happen it would be a disaster because it is the application of conservative governing ideology that got us to this unhappy place we now find ourselves in.

Conservatives know that the worst scenario for them is if the economy starts to improve and jobs start coming back. There are dedicated conservatives in business and finance as well as in the political arena that are working against this President to ensure that he does not succeed. When that fathead Rush Limbaugh said he wanted Obama to fail, he meant just what he said because Limbaugh is a rigid ideologue first and foremost. Indeed, being a loyal American is one of the last hings on his list.

Limbaugh and these right wing zealots are blind with rage that Obama won the election and they are motivated to do everything in their power to see him fail even if it hurts them and the rest of us. That is how utterly zealous and rigid athey are in their hate, anger and frustration.

I can tell you this: If this bunch gets back in power again, it will ruin America forever. We will never rise again because this rotten bunch will use their power to set up procedures in government that ensure that they stay in power as as a One Party Authoritarian State. That is what they really want. They do not accept the legitimacy of a two party system because they think their view is the only moral, legitimate view. And that is terrifying.

Posted by: jaxas | December 1, 2009 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Look, leftcoastright brain, that sort of AEI-Club For Growth geewhiz theory might be all the rage for all of you right wing dimwads who are up Bill Kristol's crusty innarads but out here where the rest of us live it all translates as welfare for the wealthy.

Anyone who has had to struggle and work to make ends meet knows that taxes have a disporportinate impact on the poor and middle class than they do on the wealthy. And did anyone ever notice, conservatives never seem to mind that there is a far wider gulf in who takes the welath out of our system compared to who does the hard work. That income gap has been evergrowing proportinate to conservative republican administrations. That moral gap seems to elude conservatives like you.

The truth is that the entire tax system needs to be overhauled but, this is the reality, there simply is not enough taxable income among the poor and middle class to match the demand for government services. Soeone has to pay a little bit more. And trust me, the people at the top know this and accept it. It is just this silly little band of conservative theologues who simply cannot wean themselves off all of this Ayn Rnad inspired claptrap.

Posted by: jaxas | December 1, 2009 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Let me see if I have this straight. Sullivan attacks Krauthammer unfairly. Krauthammer defends himself with the facts, then Sullivan apologizes. In the view of many of the commenters here Sullivan is therefore a paradigm of fairness and Krauthammer is a cad for defending himself. Makes perfect sense to me.

Note also how many of the comments involve the kinds of ad hominem attacks that Krauthammer was complaining about originally. I am enjoying the hell out of this.

Posted by: glyeakley | December 1, 2009 11:38 AM | Report abuse

The only thing quintessential about this is that Andrew apologized for the mistake. He doesn't regularly or deliberately misrepresent easily verifiable information, that's Sarah Palin's and Michelle Malkin's job.

Posted by: Potter2 | December 1, 2009 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Sullivan goofed on the date, he has corrected. Overall, he has your number as fanatical, against anything Obama, more interested in defending neocons than advancing anything that would actually serve the public good. The scorched earth type.

Posted by: SarahBB | December 1, 2009 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Oh my, the nasty comments from the haters! Theirs must be a cozy world, with blinders and without thought, where the left is ALWAYS right and the right is ALWAYS wrong. Most can't even address the issues but console themselves with personal attacks and screaming diatribes. Don't like having their cozy world invaded, even with the truth. Too sad.

Posted by: ecrivain1 | December 1, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

"ensure that he does not succeed"

jaxas, you ignorant fool, Obama is a failure and was always going to be a failure because he is nothing but a political hack from the corrupt political waste land of Chicago. He has no clue how to handle the economical crisis and his "ideas" are from college dorm room bull sessions from 40 years ago. Of course they were going to fail.

And Obama's stupidity along with his complete inadequacy for the job has meant that his cabinet has fewer advisors from industry and markets than any modern history. In his entire cabinet, Obama has only one advisor who has spent more than a year in private industry, instead Obama brought along all his corrupt grafters from Chicago who have made a lives of hijacking taxpayers money to funnel to the enrichment of their friends. Hence we get Obama increasing the debt in October more than any President has in a full year.

Someone with the lack of economic intelligence as Obama would need a team of experienced businessmen to school him on viable options so we can expect a wave of firings next year and hiring of businessmen when Obama tries to save his image, but by then it will be too late as none will allowed the albatross of this fool to tarnish them.

And you are pissed at Rush for understanding that Obama and his ideas were a disaster before everyone else?

Posted by: LogicalSC | December 1, 2009 11:50 AM | Report abuse

There's no shortage of other evidence that "the conservative intelligentsia is much more invested in obstructing and thereby neutering Obama and the Democrats than in solving any actual problems in front of us." Krauthammer has nothing to offer but bile and it's a stretch to include him in any definition of "intelligentisia."

Posted by: pejesq | December 1, 2009 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Thou Dost Protest Too Much. The tone of your article reminds me of a serial-thief wrongfully accused - only someone guilty (in this case of crass partisanship) 99% of the time can muster such self-righteous outrage.

And Chuckie, if you spent half the time advocating for higher taxes among your partisan brethren as you do on criticizing those of us trying to get the country out of the mess YOUR PARTY created, you'd have some credibility...as it is, not so much...

Posted by: russcarter1 | December 1, 2009 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Maybe Krauthammer is tired of people who don't have a real job, criticizing him using ad hominem attacks, distorting his views, and inciting unwarranted hatred against him. And let's face it, what does a liberal 'blogger' do other than incite hatred?
Sometimes you need to make an example of someone. People attack this guy everyday, all day, so he pushed back. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!!! So when he decides to blast someone back, all of a sudden, Charles's name is mud, and he is 'churlish' and 'thuggish'? GET OVER IT.
The guy is in a wheelchair for crying out loud, WORDS are all he has.
Krauthammer's goal is to stop people from making ridiculously childish mistakes in their criticism of him, and it worked.
I know you liberals think that when someone punches you, the best thing to do is go run and tell the teacher, so they can set up a conference, so they can issue guidelines, so that an administrator can shake his finger, so that in the future a bully will see (gee golly gosh) just how wrong and insensitive he has been, but that is YOUR problem. When a bully hits you, HIT HIM BACK... you wimps.
If you have a saber, YOU OUGHT TO RATTLE IT. Mess with the bull and get the horns.
Way to go Chuck!!!
Bloggers suck, get a real job.

Posted by: cmr2323 | December 1, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Ironically, Sullivan's views are now irrelevant due to HIS exposure as a non-credible source.

Posted by: primegrop | December 1, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Give 'em heck Charles. Well said, as always. The "Hammer" strikes again.

Posted by: NNM7 | December 1, 2009 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Sullivan's defenders in these comments are doing more damage to his position than Sullivan did.

Posted by: Socratease | December 1, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

"Sullivan’s post merits reading as the quintessential Sullivan, leaping from nonexistent fact to blanket ad hominem without even a pause for a reality check"

He forgot the other essential parts of Sullivans blog: the 'tu quoque' arguments comparing everything to Bush/Cheney/Neocons and when all else fails, obsessing about Sarah Palin.

Posted by: invention13 | December 1, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

It's interesting how openly anti-semitic the Left is.

Posted by: misterpeasea | December 1, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The honest truth is the Atlantic should be embarrassed by Sullivan and it's obvious the only reason they employ is for blog traffic not for his fact challenged and crazed writings. He routinely mischaracterizes links and never corrects his assertions when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary and his rabid obsession with Sarah Palin's uterus alone puts him on par of crazies like Alex Jones. In short, he's nuts, delusional, not bound to reality and he's "sullying" Atlantic's once good name.

Posted by: accentmark | December 1, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

The guy is an absolute loon. He still thinks Sarah Palin didn't have her own baby. I don't know why anyone takes him seriously.

Posted by: bellagrazi | December 1, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Have you noticed that on those "pull away" shots of Andrew when he appears on the Chris Matthews Spew, he's always wearing thick platform shoes? What's up with that?

Posted by: prospector | December 1, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

As far as I am concerned "neutering Obama and the Democrats" qualifies as solving an actual problem in front of us.

Posted by: smacklin1 | December 1, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I like that all the liberal attacks on this post engage in the same kinds of ad hominem attacks that Charles was responding to. There seems to be a trend. And, for you people who obviously are confused, there's a significant difference between an opinion and a fact. If you get facts wrong, like Sullivan did, you should be smacked for it, especially when basing one's opinions upon those supposed facts.

Posted by: squid1 | December 1, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Shame on you lefties! I would love to see the day when you people act in a fair and honest manner to bring into the open the sins of the extreme left and the fascist jihadists. However, I better sit down because I am sure that day will never pass to be. Fairness from you people is: to praise the terrorists as victims of imperialism, Castro and Chavez and their surrogates as the heroes for the emancipation of the Western Hemisphere. The Ayatollahs as the true representation of a freedom loving society, and the holocaust as exaggerated misinformation.

Posted by: jrega67844 | December 1, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Krauthammer does lean to the right, but in the 5 years I've been reading his op-eds, I have to say I've never read one of his articles criticizing someone's policies without presenting an alternative solution. That by definition counters the accusation that he is blindly a anti-Obama partisan. While I may not always agree with his alternative solutions, I respect the fact that he offers them instead of spouting rhetoric. It certainly is more productive to those on the left who once tried to denounce any criticizm of Obama with unfounded accusations of racism.

Posted by: akmzrazor | December 1, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse


Is Charlie whining about a little untruth?

Say it ain't so.

This can't be coming from the man who is so highly partisan that many have a downright disgust for him.

Stop your whining Charlie and get a grip on yourself.

Regardless of whether the date is wrong or right, you are still partisan.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | December 1, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Charles keep up the good work! You've got the blind left chattering and bumping into each other in the dark,..... making you the bad guy. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Oh, and people.... stop blaming Bush for things this Pres. is screwing up. Its getting old. obama is the President, not Bush. You voted him in, he is destroying the country, and you blame others. Sad.

Posted by: BigMoe2 | December 1, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

O T ----

You need a new picture of yourself for your column, Mr. Krauthammer.

Posted by: creatia52 | December 1, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Charles points out a theme in liberal debate that is oft repeated on this very site.

More times than I could possibly count, I have seen "arguments" based on nothing but biased (and many times completely false) opinion, posted as if the author were omniscient. When challenged to provide factual substance to support said claims, the response is indignant anger, served up with liberal use of ad hominem of the most sophomoric nature.

Ironically, the personal attacks almost invariably touch on the talking-point du jour themes of "anger", "hate-filled", etc.

Posted by: kirnosnorbin | December 1, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Charles Krauthammer charges blogger Andrew Sullivan with an "inability to read dates," "total ignorance," and "leaping from nonexistent fact to blanket ad hominem without even a pause for a reality check."

Mr. Krauthammer, "[those are] quite [some] charge[s]."

Why the hostility?

Posted by: brosen67 | December 1, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Normally I do not agree with with Mr. Krautheimer's views. However here I must comment. Andrew Sullivan must be deported. He is a British subject and has no right to comment on our political process here in the United States. Let him go home to London and criticize the Prime Minister. Mr. Sullivan is an unrepentent homosexual infected with HIV who is willing to have unproducted ga sex with other men. This makes him a hazard to public health, and a criminal. His persecution of Sarah Palin is beyond the pale. I hope Sarah engages legal counsel and sues him for libel. He should be put on a plane to London this day, and not allowed to re-enter the United States for any reason.

Posted by: mike92 | December 1, 2009 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I couldn't care less about the argument between K and AS. What is important is that K is absolutely right that a stiff tax on gasoline, refundable to those who can't afford it, and the rest to go to reduce the deficit. Gas consumption will drop rapidly as drivers move to more efficient cars, foreign oil imports will decrease improving our geopolitical and trade deficity posture, and air pollution will decrease. The tax plus converting power generation to nukes and natural gas and buses and trucks to natural gas (most gas is produced in North America) is the correct energy polic0y, not Cap and Trsde.

Posted by: i1mind | December 1, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Man I love to watch liberals squirm. Go get them Charlie. Sullivan needs to take his bad teeth along with his political opinions back to the UK. Or should I say the Middle East as that is what the UK is becoming with millions of Muslims now living there. Liberals Suck!!

Posted by: Cobra2 | December 1, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

give it a break Krauthammer; nobody is buying your crap anymore. go back to your rabbit hole and hide.
mike

Posted by: michael5 | December 1, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure I agree with Mr. Krauthammer on raising taxes on fuel. I do agree however that Sullivan stepped into it big time.

It seems both Sullivan and Charles Johnson have both gone over to the dark side. Perhaps the food is better (in reference to the movie Duck Soup).

Posted by: Denbo1 | December 1, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

This comment thread is very telling and it highlights the problem that we face in this country. Liberal trolls can do nothing but castigate Charles for responding in a factual manner to Andrew Sullivan's completely fabricated attack on his integrity. Sullivan's post was completely without merit. There was no basis for it whatsoever. If there is another example of Charles allegedly trying to neuter Obama at all costs then he should have referred to that example. He didn't however.

Despite that fact, the liberals on this thread couldn't care less. It was just a "mistake" and Charles shouldn't have the temerity to point that out. That attitude is why this country is in such sad shape. Liberals are illogical idiots. They are projecting onto Charles their own desire to ruin anyone who disagrees with them. Liberals must defend their fragile egos at any cost. The facts don't matter. Logic doesn't matter. Completely fabricated criticisms are "fake but accurate" and, therefore, they are okay.

Posted by: jt007 | December 1, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Typical of the creative, emotional homosexual, Sullivan writes a column with full force and deliberation, only to suddenly say he shouldn't have done so. Once gets the idea that no matter how serious Sullivan writes, he's subject to immediately changing the direction at a moment's notice. I see many above covering for Sullivan in their effort to criticize Charles K., but the point of Dr. K's piece is that what gets printed, either his or a Sullivan article, speaks for itself, and Dr. K. has been consistent, Sullivan not. I'll take a consistent Krauthammer ten times over emotional Sullivans of this world.

Posted by: Art11 | December 1, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

You gotta just love the people here who, instead of castigating Sullivan for essentially lying about Krauthammer are instead insulting Krauthammer because he pointed out the Sullivan is a liar. And what is even more hilarious is the fact they are calling him the hyperpartisan. Needless to say Sullivan will never retract his smear.

Posted by: Bob65 | December 1, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Why would you expect Andrew Sullivan to be able to figure out a calendar date? This is the guy who thinks the same woman can have 2 babies 8 months apart. Chronology is not his strong suit.

Posted by: jimtreacher | December 1, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

The Liberals/Democrats always look like idiots when faced with facts.

They are clearly the least intelligent of our human race.

Posted by: notbuyingit | December 1, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Masterful surgery here.Of course, cutting up Andrew Sullivan beyond recognition will fail to work up a sweat for any of the better conservative columnists among which Charles certainly is to be found

Posted by: diana11777 | December 1, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Dr. Krauthammer is a person whose hatred of Obama knows no bounds. In general Krauthammer is just like Hate Radio, except he is sadder and embittered.

It is frighteningly sad to see Krauthammer absolutely spit hate at Obama while Britt Hume chuckles and makes the tied old, "Tell us what you really think, Charles!"

Krauthammer also worships George W. Bush and Cheney. He is unbalanced and ungenerous and unreadable. I feel sorry for him but wish that he would undergo some sort of conversion just so he did not speak so bitterly.

Posted by: wapoisrightwingrag | December 1, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse


IS IT TRUE?
per above post?

That 'krauthammer's real, birth name is

SCHEKY SCHLOMO KARUHEIMER?

There must be somehwere to document it, (hidden tho it probably is..they always try..)
I'm too busy laughing to find it right now.

Isn't it always the same, lies at the very source...lies pretending to be
decent Americans, change your nose, your name, your intention.

Does Krauthammer even admit to being an official "DEFENDER OF ZION"?

Posted by: whistling | December 1, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Krauthammer also worships George W. Bush and Cheney. He is unbalanced and ungenerous and unreadable. I feel sorry for him but wish that he would undergo some sort of conversion just so he did not speak so bitterly.
Posted by: wapoisrightwingrag

Can you take your own advice?

Posted by: akmzrazor | December 1, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Dr Krappy has always been willing to jump from "nonexistent fact to blanket ad hominem without even a pause for a reality check" Krappy hasn't had a reality check in two decades. Witness his support for the invasion of Iraq.

Read Krappy's declaration of victory in Afghanistan...seven years ago. Reality check - LOL!

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2002/09/06/911_was_an_act_of_war

Posted by: maggots | December 1, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone actually pay attention to Sullivan?

And I love the way the Sullivan defenders attack Krauthammer for the temerity of defending himself against Sullivan's idocy.

Sullivan is retardculous.

Posted by: TheMSMControlsUs | December 1, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

krauthammer--

don't waste time responding to andrew sullivan

you just give him needed publicity

just expose the latest obamination of the week

thats why we call you super-k

Posted by: ProCounsel | December 1, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

We all know Charles has insane hatred for Obama. I have never seen him say one positive word about him anywhere. You lose your credibility when no matter what the policy an individual is articulating, your are critical of him. At least Charles has something in common with Dick Cheney in this regard.

Posted by: Abraxas79 | December 1, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

There sure are lots of Libs. posting to this article.LOL

You folks are good for laughs. Thank God, cause you're not good for anything else.

ps. I do not consider trying to spend other people's money & bankrupt the country GOOD !

Posted by: rannan3 | December 1, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"I've positioned my views on a gasoline tax for reasons cynically partisan, mindlessly anti-Obama, interested only in the game of power and not in the welfare of the country. In other words, so blinded by selfishness as to be unpatriotic."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by: LouisianaDoug | December 1, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Charles Krauthammer crying like a little b*t*h because his feelings have been hurt. Priceless.

Posted by: August30 | December 1, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

DR. K, Don't let the Neocommies wearing the wadded northward moving panties bother you. Andy Sullivan, I'm sure , is Mrs. Sillivan's biggest dissapointment and brings her tears with every column he posts. He's telling half-truths to blithering idiots that lap them up, take them as dogma, and regurgitate them to other idiots. Its a vicious cylce that needs to be broken, for sure, but your time would be much better spent concentrating on illuminating those elusive truths that are not readily self evident but are certainly antethema to the current batch of "journalists" these idiots are attracted to. Truth can set them free from the likes of Mrs. Sullivans mistake.

Posted by: MDDem1 | December 1, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Words fail me. Let's just say 'it's the pot calling the kettle black.'

Posted by: Diogenes | December 1, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

There sure are lots of Libs. posting to this article.LOL

You folks are good for laughs. Thank God, cause you're not good for anything else.

ps. I do not consider trying to spend other people's money & bankrupt the country GOOD !

Posted by: rannan3 | December 1, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

#########################################

You guys wasted a trillion dollars on Iraq and you want to lecture us on thrift - Ha Ha, now I'm laughing!

Posted by: maggots | December 1, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Anti-Semitism is alive and well in America, certainly in the parts where many of the “commentators” otherwise congregate. They don't even try to attack Krauthammer on his facts. Attacking his Jewishness is good enough for them, probably because that's what they normally do among themselves.

Open and shut, you are a Jew!

Posted by: ColoradoWellington | December 1, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Poor Krauthammer. Doesn't he realize that the charge that "the conservative intelligentsia is much more invested in obstructing and thereby neutering Obama and the Democrats than in solving any actual problems in front of us," is not just an opinion held by Andrew Sullivan. It is an observable fact that can be seen in congress, on radio broadcasts, and in all of Krauthammer's columns.

Posted by: gposner | December 1, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

I was watching Charles Krauthammer the other day on FoxNews. Sporting an orange tan and jet black, he looked like a grumpy George Hamilton wannabe, in a wheelchair.

Posted by: HughBriss | December 1, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

"his inability to read dates"

In Mr. Sullivan's defense, as the world's preeminent OB-GYN the only dates he's interested in are dates of LMP and conception of women with the surname "Palin".

In other words, Sullivan is just another leftist idiot and doesn't deserve to be noticed, much less acknowledged.

Posted by: malclave | December 1, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Anti-Semitism is alive and well in America, certainly in the parts where many of the “commentators” otherwise congregate. They don't even try to attack Krauthammer on his facts. Attacking his Jewishness is good enough for them, probably because that's what they normally do among themselves.

Open and shut, you are a Jew!

Posted by: ColoradoWellington | December 1, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

#########################################

Sorry, but I don't hate Krauthammer because he is Jewish. I hate him because he is a demagogic fanatic who will lie through his teeth to achieve his evil designs.

Does that clarify things for you?

Posted by: maggots | December 1, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Excellent - Excellent column, by the Washington Post's best journalist.

Posted by: stephenwhelton | December 1, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Andrew Sullivan is a buffoon and known to be one. The only wonder here is that Krauthammer can be bothered reading Sullivan's rubbish at all let alone writing about it.
I think K's time would have been better spent coming at Sullivan from the angle of his pschiatric training.

Posted by: aramkr | December 1, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Keep up the good work, CK. You've got the left wing frothing at the mouth. Everytime you write an article criticizing the policies of the Messiah they become unhinged.

Posted by: shewholives | December 1, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

DR. K, Don't let the Neocommies wearing the wadded northward moving panties bother you. Andy Sullivan, I'm sure , is Mrs. Sillivan's biggest dissapointment and brings her tears with every column he posts. He's telling half-truths to blithering idiots that lap them up, take them as dogma, and regurgitate them to other idiots. Its a vicious cylce that needs to be broken, for sure, but your time would be much better spent concentrating on illuminating those elusive truths that are not readily self evident but are certainly antethema to the current batch of "journalists" these idiots are attracted to. Truth can set them free from the likes of Mrs. Sullivans mistake.

Posted by: MDDem1 | December 1, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

###################################

Sounds like you would rather worship Krauthammer than read him. Burnt offerings anyone?

Posted by: maggots | December 1, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

While Mr. Karauthammer is correct about Mr. Sullivan's criticism, unfortunately his underlying argument is flawed. Gasoline is a mostly beneficial product that has some negative externalities associated with it. When we tax gasoline we are taxing both the good and the bad. Instead we should tax and regulate the pollution only. For example, California's smog tests have dramatically reduced pollutants. Our public policy goal should be to drain the bath water without harming the baby. Unfortunately Mr. Krauthammer's solution ignores the distinction between the baby and the bath water.

Posted by: LAD4 | December 1, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Although Mr. Krauthammer is surely right on this point. The greater point that he has degenerated into a partisan hack can be proven by many other post and appearances on Fox. Can anyone take him seriously anymore aside from the wingnuts? There was a time when I though he was thoughtful. Now I am afraid his obvious bias controls his every post.

Posted by: roberthurley | December 1, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Andrew Sullivan is a single issue homosexual. If he thinks you are pro gay he will agree with anything else you say. If he believes you to be anti gay he will attack you for any position ( even ones he agreed with yesterday). Its obvious.

Posted by: dencal26 | December 1, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

robert

Krauthammer does appear on FOX often as does Lanny Davis,Bob Beckel, Geraldine Ferarro and dozens of other Democrats. Are they all partisan hacks for appearing on Fox? I think the partisan hack has been exposed and its YOU.

Posted by: dencal26 | December 1, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse

krauthammer--

the columnist who keeps the wash po

from drowning

in a liberal sewer

Posted by: ProCounsel | December 1, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

to: maggots | December 1, 2009 3:21 PM

Sorry, but I don't hate Krauthammer because he is Jewish. I hate him because he is a demagogic fanatic who will lie through his teeth to achieve his evil designs.

Does that clarify things for you?

****************************************************

Yes, it does, Mr. Maggots. You hate the evil designs of Charles Krauthammer.

Posted by: ColoradoWellington | December 1, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

I think Mr. Krauthammer's response is measured and appropriate.

I've never checked the comments to one of his columns before this. I really shouldn't be shocked at the vitriol directed towards him from the left--S.O.P., after all--but I am.

I'm almost as shocked that Sullivan has corrected his error and apologized without reservation. Very classy, and definitely NOT S.O.P. from the left.

Maybe there's hope he'll give up his obsession with Trig Palin's birth. Maybe some day he'll even give a public, complete apology to the Palins as well as to his employers at the Atlantic for embarrassing them.

I have no similar hope for the hatemongers in these comments.

Posted by: zgystardst | December 1, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

The comments are running 9 to 1 against the Krauth. More people think Krauth is an opportunistic liar, so Andrew Sullivan wins regardless. Exactly what benefit does Krauth bring to WaPo? I don't think he brings in a single reader. Every dollar that is paid out as Krauth's salary is a dollar flushed down the toilet. Talk about waste.

Posted by: August30 | December 1, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

This is exactly the reason i stopped reading Sullivan years ago.

1. The tendency to always read the basest of motives to anyone who disagrees with him.
2. An emotional shoot from the hip mentatilty that disregards common sense and plain facts.

Posted by: Muckman_1999 | December 1, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Krauthammer is one of the best commentators in the country. BUT, I think he's gone off the deep end with his constant criticism of Obama. He once published 9 anti-Obama columns in a row; wasn't there anything else meriting Krauthammer's attention during those months? http://www.newsprism.com

Posted by: pcoleman1 | December 1, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Chuck lives for these kinds of mistakes. Made his day if not his month.....

Posted by: buzzsaw1 | December 1, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Sullivan is a human being while Krauty is a ugly 'V' allien

Posted by: bluelagoon21 | December 1, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Chuckles,

The way you whine methinks you should be called Chuckles Palin.

Posted by: mdpilot | December 1, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Chuckles, chuckles, chuckles

Just go away.

Nobody cares what you think about anything.

Posted by: Heerman532 | December 1, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"The comments are running 9 to 1 against the Krauth.." Is this the best case the left can make that Mr. Krauthammer is incorrect or has not adequately made his case? Bwahahahahaha! Final question: was the use of the term "Krauth" deliberate and if so what sort of ad hominem point did you think you were making?

One puzzling part of Mr. Krauthammer's response is his criticism of Reagan's "idiocy of trying to persuade the Saudis to curtail production and raise the world price rather than impose some kind of oil tax on our own." In fact, successful behind the scenes negotiations with the Saudi's resulted in a mid-1980s boost in their production from 2 bbd to 9 bbd. So what's he talking about?

The reason the Reagan administration sought a boost in Saudi production was that it was one of the various levers of pressure against the USSR - in this case to drastically reduce their foreign exchange earnings which depended almost entirely on oil revenue - by increasing the world supply and thus lowering its price. I'm disappointed that Krauthammer would make a simple mistake like this.

Posted by: TonyX | December 1, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

This does not change the fact that Mr. K will do or say anything to obstruct Obama and does not care about the welfare of the country.

Posted by: SidVicious | December 1, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

whistling (with gall) writes:
"DO let's wish that the zionists so hard at work ruining American values and safety
were only "bad faith".
Oh my, the emperor has no clothes! Yes, whistling (pardon the pun) an old refrain--It's all the fault of the JEWS!
Take your malevolent anti-Semitic rants elsewhere, fool. If the jihadists ever got control of things, you Leftists will be the very first to be a head shorter.

Posted by: AdamSmith2 | December 1, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

As much as I tend to disagree with Charles Krauthammer, I totally agree with his stand on enacting a gasoline tax. Now Mr. K., after a quarter of a century, how about exerting some persuasive influence and getting those "no tax Republicans" to agree that your idea has merit?

Without a doubt, Andrew Sullivan messed up - but at least he apologized. It doesn't matter whether or not he directly linked it to the misguided column. Mr. K took care of that.

However, for Heaven's sake, posters, let's can the liberal versus conservative "wingnut" diatribes. It doesn't enliven healthy and intelligent debate, or advance meritorious ideas one iota.

And yes, Mr. K is in a wheelchair, but let's not patronize an intelligent man by saying that "all he has is words". That only infers that criticizing his opinions is somehow unfair. He's shown that he is far too feisty for that.

Posted by: MillPond2 | December 1, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Got your shorts in a knot Charles?....over a misconstrued date? Wouldn't have a personal phone call to AS pointing this out have sufficed?

Your post would have us believe that you are chaste when it comes to partisanship on all matters Obama or liberal. Quick check the nose in the mirror, you might be giving Pinnochio a run on the length of the old proboscis.

Posted by: mendonsa | December 1, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

DC Sage:
The claim that bashing hateful war-mongering neo-con hacks like Krauthammer has something to do with "anti-Semitism" is just so much hogwash. Krauthammer spews hate and people don't like him because he is a bitter, dispepsic and hateful old man with nothing ever positive to say. Any bashing that this old hatemonger gets he deserves.

Posted by: DCSage | December 1, 2009 6:35 AM | Report abuse
-__________________
And that is a defense of anti-Jewish racism? So, when we disagree with Robinson, find this or that postition too conservative, as has happened of late, should we attack him on his blackness?

And what about the Catholic/Christian neoCons such as Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh?

When they annoy us, shall we discuss pedophile priests, Christian/Catholic genocide in Iraq/Aghanistan? The Christian support of wiping them off the face of the earth?

Christophobia? Anti-black racism? Islamophobia?

Is that what you want?

What's good for the goose, is good for ganders, everywhere.

Your argument doesn't make sense to me.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | December 1, 2009 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Why is CK paying any attention to Sullivan?

This is the same guy who was suspended by his boss because he was embarrassing his publication with his creepy Trig Palin obsession.

Now, The Atlantic takes another one on the chin. I wonder how much longer they'll put up with this?

Posted by: HughJassPhD | December 1, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

"The comments are running 9 to 1 against the Krauth. More people think Krauth is an opportunistic liar, so Andrew Sullivan wins regardless."

Yes, that would explain Sullivan's abject apology.

Posted by: jimtreacher | December 1, 2009 6:57 PM | Report abuse

The more Jews let this maniac Krauthammer spew his nonsense vitriol, the more they do a disservice to their religion and people. Where are the sensible jews and why aren't they protesting the comments made by this subhuman piece of slime.

Posted by: playa_brotha | December 1, 2009 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Andrew has been wasting his intellect the past few years rabidly attacking or supporting individuals, rather than ideas. His targets are a diverse group: Susan Sontag, Hillary Clinton, all people connected to the Bush administration (after he turned on them), and ironically, David Brock, for being ideologically inconsistent. As far as we know, he hasn't yet turned on Reagan or Thatcher. Here, he was rushing to attack an individual, not an idea, and he deserves to be called on it.

Posted by: pieguy | December 1, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

OK. Sullivan blew it -- and had the decency to apologize. Krauthhammer got him -- in about 1,000 words more than it should have taken any less egocentric jerk.

Posted by: jimsteinberg1 | December 1, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Lot of hate in these posts. Frequent targets are gays and Jews, not that there's anything wrong with either.
One of you haters care to explain this to me? I'm a straight Jew.

Posted by: jimsteinberg1 | December 1, 2009 7:57 PM | Report abuse

The more Jews let this maniac Krauthammer spew his nonsense vitriol, the more they do a disservice to their religion and people. Where are the sensible jews and why aren't they protesting the comments made by this subhuman piece of slime.

Posted by: playa_brotha | December 1, 2009 7:32 PM | Report abuse
-----------------------
I see. So then the more the Christians/Catholics allow Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Beck to spew their nonsence, vitriol, they are doing a diservice to their religions.

As for the "sensible jews" (sic) they are right here on this thread.

Now where are the "sensible" christians/catholics "and why aren't they protesting the comments made by the subhuman slime" O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity," just to name a few. Why aren't they attacking Krautheimer?

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | December 1, 2009 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Sullivan smoked a sack of weed and forgot what year it was. It's possible.

Posted by: phohenberger | December 1, 2009 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Chuckles, chuckles, chuckles

Just go away.

Nobody cares what you think about anything.

Posted by: Heerman532
-----------------------
Except you, apparently. You obviously disagree with, and you might even hate Krauthammer. But you cant seem to pry your little brains away...

Log off, unplug. Go outside and visit with your neighbours. Give it a rest already.

Posted by: htmn03 | December 1, 2009 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Wow. What a bunch of rabid Nazis on this board!

What does Charles Krauthammer's ethnicity and religion have to do with this post? All of you need to get off the internet and indulge in some serious self-reflection.

Posted by: Cody2 | December 1, 2009 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Herr Doktor Krauthammer cries himself to sleep every night when he realizes his neocon dream of incinerating the Middle East on behalf of Israel isn't in the cards. Maybe he should've written a couple dozen more pieces literally begging Americans to vote for his imbecile puppet John McCain.

Posted by: mwleonard | December 1, 2009 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Well, Charles rightly called out Sullivan, who has apologized for his error. Charles gleefully rejoices in it without a further word, let alone a gracious one of acceptance (not that I expected one).

As so many others have pointed out, the irony here is that while Sullivan is quite wrong about Krauthammer's position on the gas tax (major mistake!), he is equally right about Dr. K's unrelenting stream of attacks, often _ad hominem_, against Obama.

I am a centrist and no knee-jerk Obamabot. I think Pres. Obama deserves some of the criticism he has received. And who is surprised that a neocon like Krauthammer finds plenty to criticize in Obama's policies? But Krauthammer has in fact produced a constant stream of disproportionately personal invective against Obama. I think Charles is in a horrible snit over the fact that anybody could actually repudiate his views (why, the nerve of them!). It's unbecoming for an such an articulate and intelligent guy like you to behave this way, Charles. You see the speck in Sullivan's eye but not the beam in your own.

Bottom line: Sullivan's blast remains true on the macro scale if inaccurate on the micro. Sullivan's words bear repeating: “In the end, the conservative intelligentsia is much more invested in obstructing and thereby neutering Obama and the Democrats than in solving any actual problems in front of us. It’s a game for them, and they play it with impunity.” Sadly, too true.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | December 1, 2009 9:56 PM | Report abuse

In a post on May 1, 2009, Sullivan makes a far more serious allegation against Krauthammer, one that seems to be a blatant misreading and concerning which I haven't seen the record corrected. He writes that according to Krauthammer, "all that is required to torture is 'the slightest belief' that the torture victim has useful information." In fact, Krauthammer is referring to someone who is known to have useful information, and the 'slightest belief' is that torture could be effective 'to save a million people.' It seems much more important that Sullivan (or Krauthammer himself) address that error than the one made today.

Posted by: discussant | December 1, 2009 10:03 PM | Report abuse

I have never seen so many disjointed repostes to a Dr. K. column. This looks like Andrew Sullivan posted via sock puppets.

Sheesh; you can see his little following all seem to suffer from the same malady Sullie does.

Sullie ascribes all sorts of vile things to Dr. K, and his creepy minions have the temerity to complain that K is "unfair." What the hell is wrong with you fools.

Get a life.

Posted by: hamitchell | December 1, 2009 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Congrats Dr. Krauthammer, when the Obots jump you with their rude, out of control posts, you know that you have gotten under their skin and the two guys in the WH have sent out their hit squad.

They have no real ammunition, so they make it up as they go. They can never be wrong and they prove it by being obnoxious.

Thankfully, everyone ignores them. But they do keep on trying.

Frankly, anyone to takes on Dr. K without doing their research, is a fool.

Those who make personal, nasty comments, are just not good people. They reflect very badly on this President that they are trying to support.

All of this will be kept in mind when people make their decisions at the polls.

What KIND of people do we want representing us, and what do we know about them from their friends and backers. Unfortunately not too many people paid attention to that factor in 2008.

That mistake will not be made again.

Posted by: letscheck | December 2, 2009 2:45 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company