« The Only News Source That Matters | Main | Guitar Question »

October 13, 2007

Andrew Sullivan and "Honesty"

Earlier this week, I questioned Sullivan's publishing of the Elizabeth McCaughey article when he was editor of The New Republic. Classily, he sought to make my age, rather than the honesty of the piece he published and championed, the issue. I guess that didn't do the trick. Because now he's accusing me of seeking the "subjugation of free inquiry and free ideas" and calling my writing "chilling." I'll let the argument of the post in question stand on its own merit. But I will answer the basic smear, which is that I lack integrity as a writer, and sacrifice the truth in order to elevate an agenda.

So let's talk honesty, and commitment to speech, as that's the issue here. It was Sullivan, remember, who accused the anti-war left of mounting a "fifth column." Who went on a rip evaluating the patriotism of the war's critics. Who doesn't even allow comments on his site. Tell me again who's trying to marginalize speech. And it is Sullivan who brags, in his bio, of winning a National Magazine Award for the article written by Elizabeth McCaughey. Here's the letter from a National Magazine Award judge that The New Republic, under Sullivan, didn't publish:

April 27, 1995

To the editors:

I was on the panel of judges for the National Magazine Awards and cast my personal vote in the public interest category for the entry from the New Republic, “No Exit” by Elizabeth McCaughey. I did so because I thought it was the magazine article that had the greatest effect on public policy in 1994. I first read “No Exit” and McCaughey’s subsequent reply to administration critics of her article (the reply was also part of the entry) when they appeared in the New Republic. They were convincing to me during the judging of the awards. Perhaps I was right to be convinced, perhaps not. But I now know something for certain: I was wrong to believe the New Republic.

Your magazine endorsed Bill Clinton. The health care plan was a central, if not the central, piece of legislation of Clinton’s presidency. You put a devastating story about the health plan on the cover and then, a few issues later, heralded McCaughey’s reply to her critics with the cover line “Elizabeth McCaughey: White House Lies.” Lies! How could a magazine endorse a story and its author more strongly? As a reader I assume that such endorsement means, at the very least, that the basic facts in the article will be correct. Now I read Mickey Kaus saying in the New Republic that, among other important errors, McCaughey was wrong when she said that the Clinton plan would not allow a patient to pay his doctor directly for medical care but must allow the doctor to be paid by the government plan. Her errors, Kaus writes, “completely distorted the debate on the biggest public policy issue of 1994.” But where was Kaus when the story came in? Didn’t anyone there bother to check McCaughey’s citations to see if she was accurately reading and quoting the plan? It couldn’t have been that hard. If it turned out that you slipped up and McCaughey’s story was wrong, you should have said so yourselves back then rather than waiting for Kaus to shoulder the load at this late date. Then again, how does a reader know that Kaus is right? Did anyone there bother to check his story when it came in?

I am not talking about the difference of opinion between McCaughey and Kaus. A magazine is a chorus of many voices. There is lots of room for disagreement. But that’s not the problem here. Clinton’s plan says what it says. Any article on that plan must be based on accurate statements about what the plan says. Making sure that an article is accurate is one of the things an editor does. If you are not going to do that for a cover story on a central piece of legislation by a president that you endorsed, if you are not going to do that for a follow-up in which you call the administration liars, when are you going to do it? If Kaus was wrong and McCaughey is right after all, then how could you have published Kaus’s column? I can imagine a good magazine publishing neither McCaughey’s story nor Kaus’s story. But I cannot imagine a magazine with respect for its readers publishing both.


Gregory Curtis

Tell me again abut honesty, Andrew, and the pursuit of truth over ideology.

Here are some excerpts from a contemporary article by Mickey Kaus, one of Andrew's then-employees, and surely someone who explained McCaughey's failings to him:

Guess who just won the National Magazine Award for "Excellence in Public Interest"? We did! We won it for Elizabeth ("Betsy") McCaughey's articles on the Clinton health plan. McCaughey "waded through all 1,364 pages of the health care reform package," the judges said, then she "tore it apart." Her " carefully researched" pieces "transcended the coverage in most of the press. More than any other single event in the debate, what she wrote stopped the bill in its intellectual tracks."

So why don't I feel more like celebrating? Is it because, as a New Yorker editor publicly complained, the McCaughey articles seemed to have been " nominated for buzz"? Perhaps. But does The New Yorker not care about buzz? (Tell it to the Easter Bunny.) Is it because my colleague Michael Kinsley, in this space, denounced the initial McCaughey piece as a "screed," and James Fallows, writing in the Atlantic, said its claims were "simply false" and Theodore Marmor, professor of public policy at Yale, told me his fellow health experts of left, right and center consider McCaughey's articles " risible"?

[paragraph after paragraph dismantling the McCaughey article]

I don't mean to leave the impression that McCaughey's efforts were worthless. She did unearth some juicy provisions, like one steering medical training slots to "racial or ethnic minority groups" (though, like a good GOP apparatchik, she called this inchoate preference a "quota"). She got some things right. But she got a lot wrong. In the process, she completely distorted the debate on the biggest public policy issue of 1994. Give her a medal.

Andrew sought, earlier this week, to explain why he published this article. He explained that it was "provocative." Full of lies, to be sure. Lies, in fact,that were exposed at the time, and not only by Andrew's employees, but publicly, by James Fallows and the White House, and many other. But no matter. The article was "provocative." And that's what mattered. Not honesty. Not impact. But provocation.

It's a peculiar quirk of Washington that repeatedly being wrong doesn't harm your reputation for accuracy or prescience. Indeed, if you leverage your poor predictive abilities correctly, and always stay in a safe mainstream, they can even do something more important: Make you seem courageously honest.

Sullivan hangs his hat on a reputation for honesty that comes because he constantly shifts his opinions as each, one after the other, is proven flagrantly incorrect, and the mainstream moves to reflect that. Then Sullivan spends a lot of time writing about his anguished evolution, and eventually settles in the new center. This was true of Bush, true of Iraq, true of some of the largest issues of our time. It's telling, though, that when wrong opinions serve his career, as happened in the case of No Exit or The Bell Curve, then honesty is subsumed beneath a higher value: "Provocation." Sometimes the truth is dull, or politically marginal. At those times, being honest and being provocative conflict. And we've seen which Sullivan chooses when pressed. It makes him, to be sure, a fun and interesting writer. One I rather like to read. But it doesn't leave him in a position to throw stones at the integrity of others.

October 13, 2007 | Permalink


Have you gotten permission from Matt to write this post? You're making things uncomfortable for him. It could be dangerous.

Posted by: pivot | Oct 13, 2007 2:07:52 AM

You are writing at cross-purposes. Yes, Sullivan does say, as a throwaway line "It makes Sidney Blumenthal seem intellectually honest.".

And you can focus on that, if you wish.

But that isn't really his argument, but more of a flourish.

The argument - such as it is - is this:

"It is a full-throated and not-even-regretful support for the subjugation of free inquiry and free ideas to the demands of political organization."

And this:

"This isn't narcissism; it is the duty of any writer and thinker to state his own views as best he can without concern for how the world might greet them, who might use them unfairly, or who might expropriate them for insincere purposes. Without this independence, a writer is merely a hack"

So - Sullivan's argument is, you demand purity, and you are wrong in calling Cohen narcissistic.

The "honesty" thing is bait. Don't take it. It makes you look as if you can't address his argument head on.

Posted by: JC | Oct 13, 2007 2:27:13 AM

Of course, perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps I'm acceding to having the debate on the grounds Sullivan wants.

For example, he cherry-picks that particular post of yours, without addressing the evidence that Cohen makes statements that are smears.

Right in that previous post of yours, you offer evidence of Cohen's statements that are smears, and it's persuasive. So Sullivan coming back, after cherry-picking your psychological argument, and then states "He has arguments to make, arguments that can be agreed with or disagreed with, but that have merits of their own that should be addressed regardless of the arrangement of political power at the time."

But you DO address his arguments, in that post. For him to claim you don't, is ludicrous. You just went beyond, to make an observation in alignment with the "seriousness" of all these beltway pundits.

Posted by: JC | Oct 13, 2007 2:33:45 AM

I just read that post of Sullivan's and honestly I just lost a lot of respect for him. It's like he's tacitly acknowledging that you've got him cornered on the McCaughey article, that his conduct was genuinely indefensible, and yet rather than admitting this, he reflexively moves towards the ad hominem. His method: well, I don't know for sure, but I can see him just going to this site, going page by page, looking for a post that he could have a hysterical reaction towards, laughably call "chilling," and fit into his inconsistent framework of a world populated by hordes of partisan apparatchiks [uh, sure] on both sides with only a few brave 'skeptical' types above the fray. I'm not going to say that there weren't some issues with the post he quotes, and I even sort of agree with him, but he's clearly not concerned with what you actually think about Roger Cohen and liberal hawks and is just looking for something, anything, to bludgeon you with rather than actually admit his mistakes. It's sort of interesting how genuinely repentant he seems about the Iraq War and how frequent his ministrations on that subject are in contrast to the sort of crap we've seen from him recently -- perhaps 10 million more uninsured and he'll be writing homilies about how blind and callous "we" all were.

Posted by: Zack | Oct 13, 2007 3:11:41 AM

Agreed with JC that the “honesty” thing is bait. Having said that, let’s also say that Sullivan has a weird reading of your Roger Cohen piece--namely, that you’re demanding conformity and political subjugation from pundits. You made no such demands. Instead, you called out Cohen for lending support to the neoconservatives, and you talked about the consequences of his writing.

This back-and-forth thing between you two is turning into a pissing match, and I think that Sullivan’s intellectually dishonest schtick is simply his way to escalate it.

Posted by: tb | Oct 13, 2007 3:24:00 AM

These people aren't honest. Not honest. Stop pretending that they are, they aren't.

Posted by: Oliver Willis | Oct 13, 2007 4:04:44 AM

Another killer post.

On Sullivan: I read him often, and find him to be one of the rightwingers whose writing I can still stand. But periodically---in "No Exit", in the fifth column post, etc---he does something pretty awful. And, at some level, appears to later realize how awful it was. But rather than apologizing for the error, he tries to divert and attack.

Posted by: JoshA | Oct 13, 2007 4:09:51 AM

"Having said that, let’s also say that Sullivan has a weird reading of your Roger Cohen piece"

Nah, I dont think so. How many ways can you interpret stuff like "Who he empowers, and which actors in American politics find their ideas legitimized by his columns, is all that matters"?

Now, I get the sense that klein does think other things like 'honesty' ect matter and has just run afoul of letting his writing serve the device rather than having the device serve his writing. But as a reading of the text itself I think sullivan's is just about the only one you can make.

Posted by: pimp hand strikes! | Oct 13, 2007 5:47:38 AM

Gen. Joe Ralston: Lies, Lockheed and the PKK. How Bush burned his own mediator in Iraq.

If you don't know who Joseph Ralston is, then George Bush is likely very, very happy. Because Joseph Ralston is the former NATO Supreme Commander who was supposed to prevent America's exploding crisis with Turkey from happening.

Bush appointed the former NATO Supreme Commander Ralston to be his special mediator working with Turkish, Iraqi, US and Kurdish authorities to end PKK incursions into Iraq in May, 2006. . Ralston is retired and works for a high-powered firm that includes former Clinton defense officials. Ralston didn't make a dent in ending PKK terror in Iraq and Turkey. Seems General Ralston did sell a lot of Lockheed planes to Turkey about the same time.

Lockheed, of course, approached the Turkey sales job like professionals. Bush not so much...

How serious was Bush about ending the PKK threat? Not very.

According to some, the process had been doomed right from the beginning. Assuming his job last year Ralston, who lives in the distant Alaska state, had no constant office or staff directly reporting to him. In his part-time job, he had been working on an on-and-off basis with State Department and Pentagon officials who were already dealing with Turkish matters.

Ralston lasted longer than his Turkish counter-part

Oct 11, 2207
Ralston and his Turkish counterpart, retired General Edip Başer, met several times between last fall and March this year in an effort to develop an anti-PKK strategy of tripartite cooperation among Turkey, Iraq and the United States, but this mechanism has never become effective, causing frustration in Ankara.

The Ankara government fired Başer in May after he vocally expressed his frustration and replaced him with senior diplomat Rafet Akgünay. But Ralston and Akgünay never met face to face.

In his last public appearance in Washington in early July Ralston said he would resume his work after the Turkish general elections on July 22, but this did not happen.

Sources here said that Ralston had failed in his efforts to urge the Washington administration to apply larger pressure on Iraqi Kurds who control northern Iraq to take measures against the PKK.

Top Turkish military officials and diplomats in on-the-record remarks have accused Iraqi Kurds of providing the PKK with shelter, arms and logistics.

Fox buried the Ralston resignation story in a corner of a bigger article. Confronted by questions about Ralston State tried to pretend as recently as October 3rd that Ralston was still on the job.

Finally after much digging the real story emerges:

The United States, which considers the PKK a terrorist organization, has said repeatedly that it wants to help Ankara and Baghdad, as well as the Kurdistan regional government in northern Iraq, to solve the problem.

The Bush administration appointed a special envoy to deal with the matter a little more than a year ago. But the envoy, retired Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, resigned last month, frustrated with the Iraqis' lack of will to act against the PKK. Colleagues say he was also troubled by Washington's reluctance to put more pressure on the Iraqis — especially the Kurdistan government, which is privately sympathetic to the PKK's goal of an independent Kurdish state.

"The argument that we have [too many] troubles in Iraq for our forces to start fighting the PKK is a valid one, but we don't have to fight them," the former senior U.S. official said. "We can help the government arrest people."

Why would Bush keep the PKK around?

...Washington has its own considerations in northern Iraq, where it has indirect links with Iranian Kurdish dissidents in the mountainous Iraq-Iran border area through the PKK. It would like to use the Iranian Kurds against the Tehran regime at the right time, and a Turkish operation in northern Iraq would seriously dent the alliance...

We do know Turkey isn't going to stand for it.

America's Top Negotiator with the Kurds, Turkey and the PKK quit working for Bush three months ago because he couldn't get his job done. Now the wheels are coming off. It's another story of greed and incompetence. No staff, no office, no support. Smoke and mirrors from Bushco. Ralston did, however, did secure an additional deal for Lockheed-Martin before walking away from the Bush mess.

We know Ralston wasn't the only unhappy military man working for Bush in Iraq. But the Ralston scandal is at the very center of the crisis with Turkey and some folks wish Ralston would just go away.

As for Andrew, he's a Harvard Ph.D who can't drive to the corner store. Should you ever wish to hear from him, just rattle Cheney's zipper. His master's voice.

Posted by: kidneystones | Oct 13, 2007 6:56:39 AM

If provocation was the goal, they sure could have accomplished that without distorting the facts. Healthcare is a controversial topic, and of course the Clinton bill was far from being perfect, Enough room for provocational coverage. Citing 'provocation' as a reason for distorting the facts is dishonest and pathetic.
I thought Sullivan had changed, but obviously he's still just another columnist who would go to every lying length to avoid having to admit he had been wrong. Hacks like Sullivan are responsible for the horrible state of political disourse that's crippling US politics for years now. More honesty, less spin, pls pls pls!

Posted by: Gray | Oct 13, 2007 7:28:17 AM

Damn, that's a killer post.

I think you would have been in a stronger position to (a) leave out the "fifth-column" thing and (b) to leave out the nastiest paragraph from Matt's review of the Conservative Soul.

The point here shouldn't be that Andrew Sullivan is a worthless bag of crap, which is what this post verges toward. The point should be that Andrew Sullivan published a bucket of lies, many of which he knew to be lies, and instead of apologizing for it, he takes pleasure in it. Just stick to that one story, that one narrative, and hammer it home. The rest is window-dressing.

Posted by: DivGuy | Oct 13, 2007 7:46:13 AM

Ezra: at least Andy hasn't expressed any fear (as yet) that you'll give him cooties.

Yes, he "provocatively" made that "money quote" about Hillary on Chris' Matthews weekend show a few months back.

All the Washington Apparatchik Journalists on the panel (not thinking about those "who might expropriate" Andrew's words "for insincere purposes") shared a "a full-throated" laugh with him at Senator Clinton's expense.

"Well, it's just really, really depressing", but they all made "Sidney Blumenthal seem intellectually honest".

Posted by: frank | Oct 13, 2007 8:45:09 AM

While I feel Ezra Klein often lacks any real self-reflection, that he never attempts to understand the reasons why he holds some of the positions he does, I don't think he's really a dishonest person.

But at the same time, I think that same dynamic is involved in a lot of what Andrew Sullivan does. He isn't really 'lying' most of the time, he just doesn't really acknowledge why he holds the positions he does. He doesn't understand the degree to which his personal ideology colors his interpretations of events. He just doesn't understand himself.

Posted by: soullite | Oct 13, 2007 9:01:06 AM

Is there anybody in the business of political commentary with a worse track record than Sullivan? I doubt it!

Accordingly, the man can't keep a job!

Sullivan should stick to writing about fact-free subjects like religion.

His epistle with Sam Harris was arguably the world's second-longest greeting card after 'Bridges Of Madison County'. Sullivan's writing is big, billowy, and colorful. Just like cotton candy!

And like cotton candy, once chewed upon for awhile, one realizes that it's just a bunch of spun sugar and hot air.

Posted by: JoeCHI | Oct 13, 2007 9:21:01 AM

"While I feel Ezra Klein often lacks any real self-reflection, that he never attempts to understand the reasons why he holds some of the positions he does, I don't think he's really a dishonest person."

You sure you ain't talkin about Sullivan here?
Ezra? Lack of self reflection? Doesn't understand the reasons why he holds positions? Come on, soullite, you must be kidding...

Posted by: Gray | Oct 13, 2007 9:22:54 AM

"Is there anybody in the business of political commentary with a worse track record than Sullivan? I doubt it!"

Uh, Krauthammer, Safire, Glenn Reynolds, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh...

Posted by: Gray | Oct 13, 2007 9:24:45 AM

soullite: Exactly! Sullivan isn't a liar, he's just a moron. Everyone quit picking on him!

Klein slips in a bogus word here: feels. Cohen doesn't feel he is a liberal hawk; he believes he is.

See, a liar would be smart enough to realize that that's just too stupid of an argument to rely on when sliming someone. It's so obviously wrong that no one with a wit of intelligence could buy it. But a moron, on the other hand, would think of that and immediately put it to paper. "Wow! I am so smart! I have decisively refuted that young whippersnapper Klein boy, and can safely cease worrying about whether or not I am a sleazy hack whose arguments are useful only as a barometer of elite opinion."

feel (fēl) pronunciation

v., felt (fĕlt), feel·ing, feels.


1. To perceive through the sense of touch: feel the velvety smoothness of a peach.
2. To perceive as a physical sensation: feel a sharp pain; feel the cold.
1. To touch.
2. To examine by touching. See synonyms at touch.
3. To test or explore with caution: feel one's way in a new job.
1. To undergo the experience of: felt my interest rising; felt great joy.
2. To be aware of; sense: felt the anger of the crowd.
3. To be emotionally affected by: She still feels the loss of her dog.
1. To be persuaded of (something) on the basis of intuition, emotion, or other indefinite grounds: I feel that what the informant says may well be true.
2. To believe; think: She felt his answer to be evasive.

Posted by: George Tenet Fangirl | Oct 13, 2007 9:26:40 AM

I've never been under any illusions about where Ezra is coming from regarding his politics soullite, and I'm sure Ezra isn't either. Unlike Sullivan, who has often been a contrarian sort when it comes to what he advocates and is unwilling to own up to his past deeds. Your armchair psychoanalysis is pretty lame too, BTW.

Posted by: David W. | Oct 13, 2007 9:28:06 AM

Nah, I dont think so. How many ways can you interpret stuff like "Who he empowers, and which actors in American politics find their ideas legitimized by his columns, is all that matters"?

Suppose I said I think invading Iraq is a great idea, and Bush uses that as an argument to invade Iraq, does so, and it turns out terribly, and I say that I really meant that it would be a great idea if a competent liberal president were in charge and invaded Iraq.

I guess if Andrew is right that "it is the duty of any writer and thinker to state his own views as best he can without concern for how the world might greet them, who might use them unfairly, or who might expropriate them for insincere purposes" then I'm in the clear.

Which means I guess that all those people talking about how awesome Communism would be if it weren't ruined by every single Communist government that has ever existed are in the clear with him. If you think that Communism sucks because guys like Stalin inevitably end up on top, I guess you're just a dishonest hack, activist, or apparatchik.

In reality, the actors who will implement your policy recommendation are a fact of the world that must be taken into account when evaluating your recommendations.

You can look at Cohen's piece and see that Cohen really does feel he's a liberal hawk--there's no intellectual argument or belief, just emotional posturing, name dropping, and MoveOn bashing. It's about what he feels and who he hangs out with, not about what actually improves life for either Americans or Iraqis. At the end of the day, all Cohen is pissed off about is that people are mad about invading Iraq even though the invaders had the noblest of intentions. Which is ultimately the exact same thing all the neocons are pissed off about, so it's not clear what separates him from them.

Posted by: Consumatopia | Oct 13, 2007 9:39:32 AM

Somewhat off topic, but I was surprised to learn that Sullivan supported John Kerry in his presidential bid and also supported the Democratic takeover of Congress, not to mention he's a foreign born alien resident homosexual.

Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 13, 2007 9:40:46 AM

Sullivan is a creature of his meds, whose obviously reduced his heavy testosterone intake.

But as for honesty, let's get back to S-CHIP and the planned debate. I propose Ezra Vs. Ezra because Ezra has a completely opposite position then Ezra, so he really needs to debate himself.

On one hand, he claims the Frosts cannot afford to pay for their insurance, BUT on the other hand he claims we collectively can afford their insurance.

So lets put all of us in a room with the Frosts making approximately the average US income. Thus, every person making less then the Frosts also cannot pay for health insurance based on Ezra's own claim that if the Frosts can't and shouldn't have to figure out how to pay for it, then certainly nobody making less and having fewer assets then the Frosts would have to either.

So now you have 1/2 the population paying for the other halfs health insurance, BUT, since only half are contributing anything, the price for those people will obviously double since they are paying for another half of the country. So if the cost was 1,000 with everyone, Ezra just made everyones cost go to 2,000.

But of course as the cost goes up , you have more and more people who can no longer afford it. So say another 25% can't afford the doubled premiums so now we have to move them into the Frost category of not being able to afford the cost.

So now Ezra has 25% paying for 100 percent of the health insurance. BUT, that means the price burden on them has also now just doubled because we had to move the last 25% who couldnt afford the last doubling.

And so on, now with the price doubled again, more and more will move to the side of not being able to afford the cost for carrying everyone else.

Bottom line: Ezra's own argument and debate is with himself, UNLESS he will concede the point that people in the Frost range of income and assets and below SHOULD be able to pay for their own insurance.

But once you concede that point, then you have to concede that asking the question if the Frosts fall into the ones who could pay ,then becomes a legitimate point of inquiry.

Gee, Ezra, you just lost your debate with yourself and provide Michelle's point, the Frost ability to pay is a legitimate question.....

Posted by: Patton | Oct 13, 2007 9:44:33 AM

I think Soulite got pretty close to the actual picture. Or another way to read soullite's comment would be: to hell with Andrew Sullivan, Ezra, you would be a much more interesting and valuable pundit and source to us liberals if you would question your own assumptions.

Sullivan is an asshole but I think pimp hand is right about the implications of that one sentence alone stripped from the rest of the text.

Posted by: feh | Oct 13, 2007 10:12:47 AM

Patton, all that fancy-footwork just to avoid looking at the real problems. Your post is stunning in its obfuscations. Even more stunning in its complete hostility towards people who don't behave as you think real and deserving poor folks should.

Posted by: little tragedy | Oct 13, 2007 10:14:01 AM

Sullivan exposed his true character once and for all when he wrote that 5th-column-in-the-decadent-enclaves column. That piece said everything you need to know about Andy Sullivan, dishonest political thug.

1) He didn't have the integrity to avoid jumping on the Iraq bandwagon even though he was putting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people at risk just so he could go along with the popular crowd

2) Having made the gigantic and immoral error on Iraq, to then proceed to attack those who had the moral fiber to stand up to the powerful faction in their country that was forcing this disaster upon us and to accuse of us of treason! Holy shit, what an asshole! What a complete and total asshole!

Is there any question at all that if Andy Sullivan had lived in Nazi Germany that he would have been one of the most enthusiastic of the Hitler Youth and would have proudly turned in Jews to the authorities? I don't think there is any question at all.

Posted by: Junius Brutus | Oct 13, 2007 10:18:33 AM

Actually, I think this throwaway from Ezra nails it:

Who doesn't even allow comments on his site. Tell me again who's trying to marginalize speech.

Bingo. Yeah, it takes some labor to take care of a comments section. Progressives think it's worth it. Big Media Matt thinks it's worth it. Benedict, The Married Man, doesn't. What does that say about Conservatives and their precious movement?

Posted by: lambert strether | Oct 13, 2007 10:20:29 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.