David Talbot (Salon) rips Andrew Sullivan (WSJ, New Republic, Weekly Standard) a new one

October 20, 2001 2:02 PM

David Talbot (Salon) rips Andrew Sullivan (WSJ, New Republic, Weekly Standard) a new one From Salon editorial "....It's repellent to be lectured about my commitment to America, which is deep and true, by an arrogant and self-important Brit.....earlier this year, Sullivan was exposed by the gay press for advertising for "bareback" sex (unprotected by condoms) in an AOL chat room.....if a right-wing theocracy ever came to power in America, guess who'd be the first person whose ass would be rounded up...." Don't they have more compelling subject matter to rant and rave about?
posted by Voyageman (25 comments total)

Andrew vs David Andrew's New Republic article that hurt David's feelings.
posted by Voyageman at 2:18 PM on October 20, 2001

Actually, Andrew Sullivan wrote a brilliant article about the effects of "right wing theocracy" last Sunday. Perhaps David Talbot is upset it was published not on his failing website but rather in a reputable magazine. Although, not everyone agrees that the New York Times is the deserved paper of record.
posted by Real9 at 2:20 PM on October 20, 2001

Wow. That's an incredibly embarrassing bit of acting out on Talbot's part. And that irrelevant reference to Sullivan's little bareback escapade is going to come back to haunt him, and Salon.
posted by aaron at 2:31 PM on October 20, 2001

As if "right-wing theocracy" is actually going to happen during any of our lifetimes. Notice how the whole debate isn't over substance, but rather who can drive up enough rage against Christians and conservatives. One left-wing bigot fighting another.

Nuts on both their houses.
posted by Iberaband at 2:43 PM on October 20, 2001

Also Talbot's xenophobia is showing, big time: It's repellent to be lectured about my commitment to America, which is deep and true, by an arrogant and self-important Brit. Specially since Sullivan says nothing anywhere about Talbot's "commitment to America".
Since nobody can doubt Sullivan's love for his adopted country, I wonder whether Talbot would prefer to be lectured by a straight, 100% American, nutter from Free Republic.

*dons psychologist's tinfoil hat, after doffing to aaron* a lot of displacement going on, no?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:47 PM on October 20, 2001

it's not gonna come back to haunt Salon.

what, you think on-line journalists are considered "real"?

heh. technically speaking, everyone here could call ourselves 'journalists'.

:P
posted by jcterminal at 2:48 PM on October 20, 2001

I really like the idea of showing up at the White House Press Room with a little sticker that says "Hello, My Name is Dong Resin."
posted by dong_resin at 2:59 PM on October 20, 2001

tomorrow Talbot will write that from now on his rants will be on Salon Premium and if you want to continue to read his vitriol you have to pony up the $30....
posted by mattpfeff at 3:19 PM on October 20, 2001

We should be so lucky, mattpfeff.

No, I'm afraid Talbot will continue to grace us with his opinions for free.
posted by willconsult4food at 3:44 PM on October 20, 2001

I usd to read A. Sullivan's website daily, but I agree that, since 09/11 he's become monotonous and McCarthyish. That article by Talbot ain't gonna win no Pulitzer, but he's right when he says that Sullivan has become all but unreadable ...
posted by Shadowkeeper at 5:18 PM on October 20, 2001

Bwahahahaha
posted by Aikido at 5:54 PM on October 20, 2001

Bwahahahaha
posted by Aikido at 6:06 PM on October 20, 2001

In The Real Andrew Sullivan Scandal, Richard Goldstein asks "Why are attack queers so appealing to straight liberals?" Good question.
posted by Carol Anne at 6:20 PM on October 20, 2001

Sullivan can at times be brilliant but like so many right-wingers (filled with Rage) he is obsessed with liberals and can never write more than three paragraphs in his blog withoutbadmouthing the Left and liberals. Sad.
posted by Postroad at 7:18 PM on October 20, 2001

Is Salon still up? I think it's really cheesy on Talbot's part to link to a premium article.
posted by prodigal at 8:29 PM on October 20, 2001

what, you think on-line journalists are considered "real"?

What a quaint bit of baseless snobbery. It is quite often because of InterNet that hordes of "legitimate" print journalists are often exposed as clueless wankers. When was the last time anyone used "serious journalism" and "Time" in the same sentence?
posted by RavinDave at 8:31 PM on October 20, 2001

In reading Sullivan's comments post 9/11, i think the one wrong-headed comment he made was regarding a fifth column here in the U.S. Other than that, he's been dead on in his assessment of the problems the new reality presents to some of the more contrived positions of the left. Obviously, this pisses off those who hold those positions. It's also unmistakable that he's enjoyed the far left's discomfort. This pisses them off more.
posted by prodigal at 8:32 PM on October 20, 2001

I think Sullivan and Talbot are both unworthy of being called journalists. Their "arguments" are nothing more than backhanded attempts to slur each other. Somewhere along the line, both forgot how to be gentlemen, and this world can use many, many more of those.

It is my fervent hope that they are so successful in their attacks that they ruin each others' careers. This is what happens when the media start to think that they have the answers to everything and give in to the cult of personality -- they try to make themselves the story rather than the real story... the death of thousands of people. When the dust settles on this conflict, it is clear who will have really paid the cost of the war. Innocent civilians - both those in the U.S. and those in Afghanistan. We can only hope that something good will come out of it for the Afghani people.

If someone thinks they have all the answers to this conflict/clusterfuck, they're ignorant. End of story. That is why the term FUBAR was created by G.I.'s and not civilians...
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:24 AM on October 21, 2001

"What a quaint bit of baseless snobbery."

hey, i didn't say paper journalists were any better.
posted by jcterminal at 10:48 AM on October 21, 2001

I thought the piece was a pretty good parody of Sullivan's
editorial "style" starting with the gratutious insults and
climaxing with the, "you wouldn't have the privelege of stating your views without us..." argument. (All the while praising Sullivan as an intelligent and thoughtful person.)

Which is of course true. For all of Sullivan's carping, whining and bashing the gay rights movement, the only reason he currently has a position as a commentator for the NYT and New Republic is because the gay press was kind enough to publish his articles when no one else would.

Pointing out Sullivan's personal ad was a low blow but it does point out just how little credibility he has. I find it interesting that the right seems to have a pandemic of "do as I say, not as I do" when it comes to sexual morality. Sullivan made himself a celeberty by attacking the very activities he was a participant in. If you criticize the moral character of others, you should take care that yours is spotless.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:36 PM on October 21, 2001

Sullivan's response is now up.
posted by mw at 9:20 PM on October 21, 2001

Anybody else find the term 'Brit' racist?
posted by kerplunk at 5:24 AM on October 22, 2001

Brit's aren't generally considered a race.

I suppose it could be nationalist, though.
posted by Jart at 9:05 AM on October 22, 2001

Ugh. Yes, Talbot should have taken a few deep breaths and slept on that piece before publishing. The ad hominem would have been less tempting perhaps. The testosterone line was a little below the belt. No pun intended.

However: Sullivan's realm of "interest," shall we say, is identity itself, and the complete unviability of his self-admitted "hodge-podge" of ideals that he proclaims for us gays does in fact beg analysis of his personal life.

Apart from that: Sullivan's article on "Why Gays Must Fight" (sorry, can only find it on subscription-only Planet Out) was ridiculous. His point that gays will finally earn the respect of "the straight world" by going off to bomb Afghanistan is laughable. No one will give a shit if gays become good little soldiers.

And really: isn't being gay just about the least interesting thing in the world? No, middle America isn't all "yay for gays!" yet, and probably never will be, but can't we give it a rest and just be people some day soon?
posted by RJ Reynolds at 11:46 AM on October 23, 2001