What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Guest Post: Keith Pavlischek on the Andrew Sullivan anti-Semite slur against McCain campaign

From Keith Pavlischek:

In a blog post titled, The Education of David Brooks Andrew Sullivan comments on Brooks’ editorial piece in last Friday’s New York Times: “As David concedes, the reason we don't have Lieberman is because David's party is a religious organization that would not accept a pro-choice Jew on the ticket. So the first reason we have Palin is the Christianist veto...."

I’ve read and re-read the Brooks piece, but the closest I could come to finding evidence for such anti-Semitism was this comment by Brooks: "Before the convention, some McCain aides wanted to sunder the links to the past in one bold stroke: Name Joe Lieberman as the vice presidential nominee, promise to serve only one term, vow to take a hiatus from partisanship and work by compromise to get things done. That proved to be a leap too far. So McCain was pulled back."

Maybe Sullivan meant to say that the Republican Party would not accept a pro-choice Protestant, Catholic, Jew or Atheist or Hockey mom on the ticket. But that wouldn’t have the same slanderous rhetorical effect, would it?

This counts for civil discourse over at The Atlantic these days.

Comments (7)

David Brooks doesn't even claim that it's because Lieberman is pro-choice. The only thing one can glean from Brooks is that it would have been a "leap too far" for the Republicans to nominate a Democrat.

Sullivan seems to be (badly) misreading Brooks in an unfair way, but as I'm inclined to read the portion of Sullivan's piece under discussion, he's not being anti-Semitic. He seems to be accusing Republicans of being anti-Semitic. At least as I read him (but isn't the natural way?), Sullivan is claiming that among the reasons Lieberman wasn't chosen are that he's pro-choice and he's Jewish, and therefore wouldn't fly in the Republican party. (He was subject to the "Christianist veto.") I don't see how that makes Sullivan anti-Semitic. He may be wrong in judging why Lieberman wasn't chosen, he may be too quick with insinuations that others are anti-Semitic (though there seems to be plenty of that going around here!), and he definitely seems to be over-reading Brooks -- who, in context, seems just to be saying that choosing Lieberman would be going too far *in the direction of non-partisanship*. Overall, a pretty lame post by Sullivan. But anti-Semitic? What am I missing?

Keith DeRose, as I read it the post title "Anti-semite slur" means "slurring with accusations of anti-semitism."

Also, I'm not sure there's good reason to tar the whole Atlantic Monthly because of Sullivan's unedited and unhinged comments. Are any other Atlantic bloggers acting half as bad as he is?

I'm sorry: I think I see it now. Sullivan isn't being accused of anti-semitism, but of saying the Republicans are anti-Semitic, and of baselessly implicating Brooks in making the same slur? If so, yes, that seems right. Sorry, Frank, Keith P. My bad.

I read the title the same way, Kevin.

The only thing one can glean from Brooks is that it would have been a "leap too far" for the Republicans to nominate a Democrat.

Yes, but that means they wouldn't nominate a Democrat Jew, woman, gay guy, or black person, which implies that they are a bunch of Christianist, sexist, homophobic racists.

You have to learn Sullivan logic to make sense of Sullivan posts.

Consumer output safeness Commission, in teamwork with the stubborn named beneath, today announced a discretionary nullification of the following consumer product. The revocationed notebook computer epitomes are the VAIO VGN-TZ100 series, VGN-TZ200 series, VGN-TZ300 series and VGN-TZ2000 series. Consumers should plug up using the recollectioned notebook computers right now and phone Sony to end if their notebook is affected. Computer gear Disposal - Recycle, supply Or Do Nothing? These days, any computer that is more than 3 years old discretion be noticeably slower in its execution than a computer that has been manufactured in
the after few months. This in apply has led to the puzzler of what one should do with the in a flash growing stockpile of old computers and other electronic appurtenances. Computer outfit that isn't entranced circumspection of by an authorized computer recycler is most seemly to end up in landfills and grace toxic computer waste. A archevariety sized cathode ray tube (CRT) praepostor contains more than two kilos of foremost - the toxicity of which has been manifestly known for centuries. Apple, Dell, Gateway, IBM, Lexmark, Hewlett Packard, Epson, NEC - are management some standard of computer recycling program. The mark of the c
omputer recycler calling form is that of decision-making destruction. There discretion for the most part be a fee charged by these recyclers to assent to old computer tackle (surprisingly when it comes to tire pressure monitors
praepostors) but the expenditure of disposal choice be significantly less than the price of not disposing of the computer ironmongery, both in terms of train trade expenditures and latent tariffs to the environment. IBM has done it by selling super PVA lcd monitors trade and relying on services. And Apple shook things up with the iPod and
now the iPhone. If Dell can continue the lessons of squeezing the tariffs from a low-scope calling like edifice computers and transcribe that into plateful increase, set forth and perform clouds most efficiently, it could win. GE sells billions in tackle and services to providers. The ladle came from the WSJ, which reports sources saying Dell is approaching knit manufacturers

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.