Silly Shit Andrew Sullivan Says, Ctd.

 

First, a little reminder of Mr. Sullivan's very own Rules of Pundit Accountability :

Holding Pundits Accountable, Ctd

... The removal of one clown and one huckster [Dick Morris and Karl Rove] is a good thing."

-- Andrew Sullivan, December 5, 2012

Second, to repeat what I wrote last December when comparing and contrasting Mr. Sullivan's reaction to Dick Morris and Karl Rove with Mr. Sullivan's reaction to his friend Niall's last public screw up:

Mr. Sullivan somehow forgot to add his permanent caveat that the purging of clowns and jokers should be confined to individuals who A) are not his personal friends (emphasis added)

Ferguson Returns Fire

Niall defends his article and, on the CBO Obamacare numbers, claims that I don't "understand the issue that well." He says that none of the critics have addressed the substance of the piece - and that it's all a liberal lynch mob. That's insane. He's right that calls for him to be fired are egregious and over-the-top. But the criticism we've run on the Dish is entirely devoted to data.

...

and/or B) have no prospect of helping to advance his career and/or C) can in no way damage his career.

With Mr. Sullivan, safe, soft targets need only apply.
 

Third, it looks like Mr. Sullivan's friend Niall has fucked up well and good in public yet again (via Digby):

[Ferguson:] Keynes was a homosexual and had no intention of having children. We are NOT dead in the long run…our children are our progeny. It is the economic ideals of Keynes that have gotten us into the problems of today. Short term fixes, with a neglect of the long run, leads to the continuous cycles of booms and busts. Economies that pursue such short term solutions have always suffered not only decline, but destruction, in the long run.

And it looks like Mr. Sullivan's friend Niall has had to apologize, yet again. 

So good for him. 

And yet, it also looks like this is not the first time that Mr. Sullivan's friend Niall has floated his rustic theories about homosexuality in his books here and here.

And Mr. Sullivan has once again dealt with his friend Niall's latest public cratering exactly as you might expect:

I am obviously an interested party to this. I’ve known Niall as a friend since we studied history together at Oxford. This has not deterred me from criticizing his public arguments on the merits, so I’m not a suck-up. But I have known the man closely for many years – even read Corinthians at his recent wedding – and have never seen or heard or felt an iota of homophobia from him. He has supported me in all aspects of my life – and embraced my husband and my marriage. He said a horribly offensive thing – yes, it profoundly offended me – but he has responded swiftly with an unqualified apology. He cannot unsay something ugly. But he has done everything short of that. I am biased, but that closes the matter for me.

And ends on this rhetorical note:

And one other small thing: if he really believed gay men had no interest in future generations, why would he have asked me, a gay man with HIV, to be the godfather to one of his sons? And why would I have accepted?

Why?

Golly, Andy, maybe for the same reason my bigoted stepmother gave  when explaining the existence of her lone black "friend".

Because you're "one of the good ones".