Andrew Sullivan “Responds” (And Jonathan Chait Too!)
Responding to my morning post, Andrew Sullivan pronounces me “unhinged.”
My favorite quote:
“Later on, Hewitt calls former war supporter Jon Chait a ‘blind pig.'”
Just to remind you, here’s what I wrote:
Jonathan Chait, the superbly undereducated BA from the University of Michigan was back at it Sunday in the pages of the rapidly collapsing Los Angeles Times, telling no truths about Bush, but banging his only, self-revealing drum again: “Is Bush Still Too Dumb to Be President?”
Chait, unlike Djerejian and Sullivan, was never a high profile supporter of the invasion of Iraq. Until recently, he wasn’t a high profile supporter of anything, but his “The Case for Bush Hatred” piece of September, 29 2003 in The New Republic gave him a little platform. (He still hates Bush, as he quite readily admitted in my most recent interview of him.)
“The trouble is,” Chait proclaims from the editorial pages of the country’s worst-run major paper, “that Bush isn’t just a nonintellectual, he viscerally disdains intellectuals.”
Blind pig. Half an acorn.
I report. You decide. On the “unhinged” part, that is. There’s no debate about what Sullivan wrote in March, 2003 and what he writes now.
Jonathan Chait brands me “deranged.” The reason: I didn’t credit him with being for the war before he was against it! Now, I am uncertain as to the effort Jonathan brings to reading closely or even in casual fashion text that is not his own, but my point was that he was not “high profile” prior to his “Bush Hatred” epic. I apologize for not alerting the audience to his 180 on the war, which would have been yet another exhibit in my list of 180s –had I or anyone noticed or cared at the time, or now.
I note that Jonathan apparently did not read “blind pig” in the manner Andrew purports to have read it.