Showing posts with label the curious lies of Andrew Sullivan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the curious lies of Andrew Sullivan. Show all posts

Saturday, April 15, 2017

Andrew Sullivan blames Hillary Clinton for losing to Trump!



Not a profound insight by Mr. Sullivan, but I give him credit for saying this to Democrats. Of course Democrats should walk away from the Clintons and not look back. 

Sullivan misses (of course) that Donald Trump was a more formidable candidate than people gave him credit for (he did beat the entire GOP field before taking on Clinton). The media hated him and Trump had bombshells drop on him during the campaign that normally would have destroyed another candidate. Somehow he not only survived, he prevailed. Yet the media continues to underestimate him. Hence why Roger Simon predicts he will win again in 2020.  

But it was a close race; Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (for that matter Florida) were all exceedingly close. Hillary Clinton could have won. But Trump managed to get the #CrookedHillary label to stick because it was true. Hillary Clinton lost due to her own character flaws, arrogance and incompetence.  

We dodged a bullet. Our win.  



Monday, February 13, 2017

Friday, May 27, 2016

If anything could drive me to support Donald Trump it's this...

Civic Duty? The preening hyperventalations of Monsieur Sullivan

Andrew Sullivan opining with his pal Bill Maher

Many have written why there are opposed to Donald Trump as President, some very persuasively.  Andrew Sullivan is not one of them.  His arguments on democracy and tyranny, which are a mulligan's stew of regurgitated Plato and de Tocqueville, apply stronger to Barack Obama (and Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton) than they do to Trump. Sullivan is hysterical over Trump, while ignoring we have had a philosopher king for the last seven years telling us all and issuing executive orders on what is the "good" for the country.  This is what Jimmy Carter said about Barack Obama:
"But on the world stage, just to be objective about it, I can’t think of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship now than when he took over."
Ace makes the point here. You can recognize Donald Trump is a short fingered vulgarian and that Hillary Clinton is a leftist Nixonian Lady Macbeth who thinks she is above the law. I concur this choice a not a good situation--but nevertheless it is the choice we have. You have to decide who is worse (or decide to opt out or go third party). I know this much, this list of blowhards is more likely to push me the other way.  

Hillary is probably going to be the Democrat nominee, I recognize it is unlikely, but what if the Democrat Socialist managed to win? How would that turn out? It might not be so good


I can totally understand if you opt out or can't get over the hurdle of Trump.  Everyone has to make their vote (or not vote) on their own. If you want to point out the problems with Trump that is fine, (and appropriate), but unless you are good with a leftist inspired tyranny, point out the problems with the alternative candidates too. If you find yourself agreeing with Andrew Sullivan, at a minimum it is prudent to at least reconsider your position. While we want to consider what is coming if Trump wins, it is equally important to recognize what we will get if Trump loses.    






Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Andrew Sullivan can't help but lie and snark about Paul Ryan...

From Andrew Sullivan's live blogging of the new Pope today (screen shot immediately below for your protection):

The AoSHQ Classic Sully Nuts  Cartoon
Andrew Sullivan is a poorly housebroken beagle that pees on the carpet every time he gets excited.  Paul Ryan does not hate the poor (this is an on going intentional lie from the left to try to damage Ryan), Ryan wants to balance the federal budget in 10 years (and I remember Bill Clinton bragging about his balanced budget).  Is Paul Ryan promoting a balanced budget now so radical or hateful?  We have Barack Obama who insists he will not balance the federal budget and will continue to spend in excess, borrowing from the Chinese to do so.  

I know it is difficult for principled conservatives like David Frum and Andrew Sullivan to understand this basic economic concept but which policy (Barack Obama or Paul Ryan's) will in the long run cause more harm to the poor and the middle class and will expand the permanent dependent class and which one will in the long run make the country stronger, more economically vibrant, and will benefit the most individuals?   


Saturday, October 27, 2012

Obama to his gay supporters: Too bad, you are under the bus, I am not pushing gay marriage in second term...




During a live interview today inside the White House, President Obama told MTV viewers that when it comes to same-sex marriage, it would be up to future generations of Americans to implement meaningful reform.
Asked if he would use his second term as a platform to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, the president demurred, saying he viewed it as an issue for the states to decide.
"For us to try to legislate federally into this area is probably the wrong way to go," Obama told MTV presenter Sway Calloway, who asked questions submitted by youth voters.
So what Obama just admitted is his position is the same as Mitt Romney's?  Maybe Andrew Sullivan can weep over that.  

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Separated at Birth: Dustin Hoffman's Rainman character and...?


Predictable and shrill "Excitable Andrew" Sullivan
Charming autistic man"Rainman"















Another instant classic Sully moment!  














They are not exactly the same, Dustin Hoffman's Rainman character is a sympathetic and charming autistic man. Andrew Sullivan is about as sympathetic and charming an infestation of bed bugs, but there are definitely similarities when they face certain stress situations.  Start watching this at around 2:50...


And I know Sullivan is just waiting to show how Obama over came adversity to bounce back from defeat.  Whatever. Obama should lose reelection objectively, because he is terrible at being President.  And a lot of us predicted this back in 2008.  

Monday, October 8, 2012

Andrew Sullivan cries how Obama is screwed...

Wow,  I can't imagine how he got the name Excitable Andrew...
This picture has nothing to do with the story.  It is just a funny picture
and Andrew Sullivan's favorite dogs are beagles...

What Andrew Sullivan is into in his private
life I really don't want to know...
If Barack Obama loses it is because the American people finally woke up, not because Mitt Romney had one good debate night.  And Mitt Romney did well not because he is such a great orator, and not because Barack Obama is such a bad one, but because Mitt Romney had better arguments, more passion for the office, and wants to change the status quo.  Americans do not like being losers.

h/t to Trooper York for the photograph

Update:
Ann Althouse notes Sullivan is posing:  "Sorry, but it's hard not to see this as a lot of posing. A set up for the big announcement that Obama is back. If Obama is any good at all in the next debate or the one after that, we'll be told the man is a miracle."  My response to that is "you think?"  Of course Sullivan is just waiting for an opportunity to breathlessly announce the return of "The One."   Sullivan is known for these public panic attacks, this is just a particularly pathetic one.

Twitchy has some funny tweets regarding Sully's latest case of the vapors:


Twitchy notes that someone should keep an eye on Sully with Daily Kos' poll having Romney ahead by +2.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Andrew Sullivan promises us a bright future over the next four years...


The reality of waving Obama flags is a bit different than the dream...

Does even Andrew Sullivan believe this nonsense?
[Obama] will become the Democrats’ Reagan. The narrative writes itself. He will emerge as an iconic figure who struggled through a recession and a terrorized world, reshaping the economy within it, passing universal health care, strafing the ranks of al-Qaeda, presiding over a civil-rights revolution, and then enjoying the fruits of the recovery … 
And unlike Clinton’s constant triangulating improvisation, Obama has been playing a long, strategic game from the very start—a long game that will only truly pay off if he gets eight full years to see it through. That game is not only changing America. It may also bring his opposition, the GOP, back to the center, just as Reagan indelibly moved the Democrats away from the far left.
The Howard Stern interviews were bad enough, but at least you could explain those by the ignorance and lack of following the news of the people being interviewed.   How do you explain the delusion that Andrew Sullivan, who still considers himself a supporter of Reagan and Thatcher, is operating under?

Update:
Madonna thinks Obama is a Muslim.  

Thursday, May 17, 2012

The curious lies of Andrew Sullivan: Economics and Deficits!

You can tell Andrew Sullivan is lying when you see he is talking, typing, or posting something now a days...

Sullivan posted this graph yesterday to argue
that all are problems stem from Bush tax cuts...and it is not true.
This sort of hyper partisan BS is what we can expect from Sullivan now.  The Bush Era tax cuts are to blame for the deficits?  Really now?  Given that Barack Obama and a Democratic controlled House and Senate kept those tax cuts after 2008, how is that Bush's fault.  And it is a lie, and Sullivan knows it is a lie, that had the Democrats revoked those cuts that revenues would have gone up.  If anything, they would have gone down further due to the negative effect such taxes would have on the economy.  That Sullivan, who used to write how he consider Reagan and Thatcher heroes on such reform, would not be so in the bag for the left is pathetic.

Romney wants to cut spending and not increase taxes (even cut them further)--and most Republicans would revolt against him (and rightly so) if he proposed doing what Sullivan is proposing.  Barack Obama wants to increase spending and increase taxes (he says he does not want to increase spending (just like he said he thought marriage should be limited to one man and one woman), but his proposed cuts are tiny and he wants to expand government and entitlements, you have to increase spending to do that).  Our problem is not under taxing of the wealthy--they actually pay fairly high tax burdens compared to the world and comparable now to those in Western Europe.

Our problem is we are over spending and promising entitlements without any means of paying for them.  Is there bi-partisan blame for this?  Of course.  Bush's sin was not in cutting taxes, but not cutting government spending at the same time (and expanding entitlements).  Obama doubled down on the tax cuts and then increased spending dramatically.  I am watching the GOP very closely for any retreat on the larger goal.

If Sullivan really wants what he says he wants, he would be supporting Paul Ryan's plan for deficit reduction.  The Ryan proposal is hardly radical, it is the minimum effort required to get this country back on the road to prosperity.  We need less government and major entitlement reform.  That will get us heading toward growth which will then increase tax revenues.  Austerity works when it is done right.

Our economic worries far far from over.  Obama wants to see this country be more like Europe.  Given the meltdown happening right now in Europe, be careful what you wish for.

Prior EBL posts:
Larry Summers and Barack Obama...
The continuing curious lies of Andrew Sullivan on the economy...
Andrew Sullivan is either confused or lying on the economy  (We know he is lying).

Update:
Could Europe sink Obama?

Friday, March 2, 2012

Andrew Sullivan and his Protocols of the Elders of Zion Daily Beast Post


Andrew Sullivan looking for another story to post...
Sullivan opines:  "Here's a prediction. Netanyahu, in league and concert with Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, will make his move to get rid of Obama soon. And he will be more lethal to this president than any of his domestic foes."
I will not bother linking Sullivan himself, but he does his anti Semite past proud (at least from his perspective) with his latest conspiracy theories about Israel possibly defending herself against Iran.  Given the statements by the current leadership in Iran about their intentions regarding getting rid of Israel, do you think that might be more a motivator for Israel's leadership to act rather than who is currently in the White House?  Here are two excellent posts on the subject by Rod Radosh and by the Blogmocracy.  And here is another by Karl at Hot Air.  And by Crikey


Jeff Goldberg has an interview with Barack Obama where Obama makes the argument why Israel should wait till after the election.  Hmmm.  Netanyahu:  Israel has the right to defend itself.  Commentary:  Israel cannot rely on any assurances.  


And this is anti-Israel thing by Sullivan is nothing new as noted by Jeff Goldberg over at Sullivan's old place, by Rod Radosh, and by Israel Matzav.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Separated at Birth: Andrew Sullivan and...?

Separated at Birth:  Andrew Sullivan and ...
Andrew Sullivan,  
Daily Beast Contributor
Rabid Obama Supporter
Michael Medved,
 Daily Beast Contributor
Rabid Romney Supporter


















Michael?  Is there something you want to tell us?  Do you think there is just a wee bit of hysteria in all of this?  Hmmm, hysteria, conservative politics, destroying the opposition, where have we seen that before? 


Andrew Sullivan endorses Rick Santorum for the GOP nomination:
I am relieved [Santorum] is at least candid. For now we can see in plain view the religious fanaticism that has destroyed one of the major parties in this country, a destruction that is perilous for any workable politics. It must be defeated - and not by electing a plastic liar and panderer like Romney. But by nominating Santorum and defeating him by such a margin that this theo-political Frankenstein, which threatens both genuine faith and civil politics, is dispatched once and for all.
Did Santorum make Excitable Andrew Sullivan feel bad about himself?  Rick Santorum is an observant Catholic (unlike that other Catholic that Andrew Sullivan thinks was such a model of presidential virtue).  But Santorum has said flat out that he would not restrict contraception.  Santorum has said that just because he talks about an issue, doesn't mean he is going to take presidential action on an issue.   The reason that Santorum's moral message has appeal in America of 2012 is there is a demonstrable moral decline occurring.   In terms of success, as shown demographically, the stogie values of 1960 are the ones that successful people adopt.  And yes, success is in many ways due to old fashioned attitudes like hard work, discipline, marriage, and commitment.  I understand that Santorum opposes same sex marriage (and I also disagree with Mr. Santorum on that issue).    But Barack Obama said he thought marriage should be limited to one man and one woman too and that his Christianity was the basis of that belief.  But of course we all know Barack Obama really did not mean that.  And apparently, that sort of moral pandering and subterfuge is the model for a good president?  Sullivan of course ignores that in terms of same sex marriage and instead focused on when Obama has done similar things on health care.  But is Andrew Sullivan calling for repeal of Obamacare?  Nope.  Hey if you are not a true believer of the neo-Gaiaism New Ageism that passes as supposed rational thought, you must hate the earth!  Christianist!  

As far as passing an amendment to ban abortion--the country is still roughly evenly divided over this issue (although the majority now support greater restrictions on late term abortion) and I doubt NARAL and Amanda Marcotte can start a civil war over it (although if a President Santorum gets to pick a replacement for one of the liberal Supreme Court justices, they just may try).  And given how difficult it is to pass a constitutional amendment, Andrew can stop hyperventilating and can safely hit his medical marijuana bong again--a President Santorum is probably not going to be able to pass an amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman.  What absolute horror would take place if Santorum got elected?  A more balanced budget?  Cuts to entitlements?   Perhaps the possibility the United States will not end up like this in a few years?  Rather than panicking over the possibility of Santorum, why isn't Sullivan (who still have the gaul to call himself conservative) panicking over the damage Barack Obama and the Democrats are doing?  


Michael Medved also panics that Rick Santorum might win the GOP nomination, fearing that a Santorum ticket would have such negative coattails as to not only lose the general presidential election, but to lose the House and Senate to the Democrats:
Democrats promising to spend hundreds of millions in a determined bid to recapture the House, and with Republicans mounting a supreme effort to win the four Democratic seats they need to win control of the Senate, the members of Congress naturally want a candidate at the top of the ticket who will make their own races easier, not harder. Even veteran incumbents with only token opposition still care deeply about the overall outcome: if the GOP loses the House, then Republicans must give up all the committee chairmanships and other prerogatives of power they currently enjoy.
I expect this sort of thing from Sullivan, but the hyperventilating and defeatism over Santorum by supposed conservatives like Ann Coulter, Chris Christie, Karl Rove, and Jennifer Rubin is getting tiresome.  And what is Michael Medved smoking?  If you guys are for Mitt Romney, then support Mitt Romney.  This defeatist talk in Medved's column about how inevitable Barack Obama is pathetic and also untrue!  Glenn Reynolds is no Santorum fan, but he acknowledges that the attacks on him as unelectable have been unfair.  I have been critical of Rick Santorum and warned him not to be a nanny stater or alienate folks who could be potential allies.  And it is possible Rick Santorum could blow it.  But if Santorum does become the nominee, I am going to support him (and also encourage him to win).   Plus Obama's victory is not guaranteed.  These conservative pundits can support whoever they want, but remember the Left will be trying to destroy Romney as the nominee as much as Santorum in the general.  I would rather have a conservative fighting than see another 2008 election.

original hat tip:  Spy Magazine


Monday, January 23, 2012

11 stunning revelations from Larry Summers’s secret economics memo to Barack Obama

David Frum strikes at Andrew Sullivan and Barack Obama...?