Updated: Andy Sullivan: Our Own Little Joseph Conrad

Update: More fun amid the madness via Ed Driscoll with additional links.

Good Lord, this is priceless. The Dish has gone silent. Shhhhhh.... Andy, the blogosphere's own little Joseph Conrad, steams along, deep into his own little heart of darkness to discover.... Dare we say it? "The horror! The horror!" 

Oh man. 'e's funally flipped 'is frickin' lid, mates. Wudnt'ya say?

ha ha ha What a freaking lunatic!!

Since the Dish has tried to be rigorous and careful in analyzing Palin's unhinged grip on reality from the very beginning - specifically her fantastic story of her fifth pregnancy - we feel it's vital that we grapple with this new data as fairly and as rigorously as possible. That takes time to get right. And it is so complicated we simply cannot focus on anything else.

Comments

[elmer phd]

be very, very qwiet, wer'e hunting palins...

[Jim Ryan]

Shorter Andy: I couldn't find anything wrong with the book, so in my twee rage I got very, very, very drunk and can't blog right now. Will fabricate some lunacy tomorrow.

[Jimbo]

I think Andy is trying to PROVE with GEOMETRIC PRECISION that there WAS A KEY to the PANTRY! And if I wasn't surrounded by DISLOYAL OFFICERS we would have found it!

In the last scene we'll see Andy rolling two steel balls in his hand, a defeated, bitter old sailor.

My apologies to Herman Wouk and Humphrey Bogart.

[GuyfromNH]

Hey Andy... how about giving us a rigorous report on your marijuana arrest on Federal parkland, and how the case was dropped by Obama's Department of Justice? That's a story worth looking into....

[Rokker]

Bring the fraud down Sully.

[elmer phd]

"Let justice be done though the heavens fall."---kevin costner, as jim garrison/jfk.

"Let justice be done so that milky loads may fall."---andrew sullivan.

[Sac town Ca]

Let me educate you on Andrew Sullivan from someone who knows. I live near Sacramento California. On KFBK there is a guy named Tom Sullivan, a very respected radio broadcaster. One day he was talking about how children living in the same family can turn out so different. He explained his bother Andy turned out so much different. Tom is a successful business man and accomplished radio broadcaster. Andy " could never hold a job, was prone to emotional fits and generally unstable". I wish I could find the recording of it.

[MDr]

It's entirely unfair to single Andrew out. He's a mainstream Democrat, afterall.

[Bob]

"He explained his bother Andy turned out so much different. Tom is a successful business man and accomplished radio broadcaster. Andy " could never hold a job, was prone to emotional fits and generally unstable". I wish I could find the recording of it."

So much for wing nut "facts." Tom Sullivan was born and raised in Seattle. Andrew Sullivan is English, grew up in England and has lived in the U.S. since attending college at Harvard. What other "facts" would you like to share with us, Sac town Ca?

Here's Tom Sullivan's Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_M._Sullivan

"A Seattle native, he moved to the Sacramento, California area in 1975, and now lives in the New York City area.

After graduating from Seattle University, Sullivan was a tax accountant for Price Waterhouse.

According to anecdotes on his radio talk show, he served with the Washington State Patrol before moving to Sacramento.

Sullivan is a managing director of The Sullivan Group, a brokerage he founded in 1980 and sold to Prudential Securities in 1986, so it is now is affiliated with Morgan Stanley.

Sullivan is widely recognized in the Sacramento area not only for his radio show, but for his work as financial editor for both KFBK and for KCRA-TV 3 dating back to the 1980's."

[O!]

Bob, thank you for that additional helping of Journolist/Axelturf talking point spam.

2010.

[syn]

Pope might want to have a personal conversation with devout Catholic Andrew Sullivan, let Sullivan know that his incessant butchering of Mother and Child out of his own personal unmitigated vile hatred for females is a hideously evil image for the Catholic Chirch to portray,

Especially since the Catholic Church already has a severe pedophilia PR problem.

To all those of the Catholic faith, how vile the taste it must to share the communal body of Christ with a man whose purpose is to savage Mother and Child; the one icon so near and dear to Catholic.

No doubt devout Catholic Peggy Noonan is orgasmic over Andrew Sullivan Catholic soul.

Now I understand the difference between left religious and right religious; one worships self, the other worships God.

[MDr]

Syn

In a battle for the hearts and minds, it may be less than helpful, lumping all Catholics, "To all those of the Catholic faith, how vile the taste it must to share the communal body of Christ". Catholics, unlike some other groups in this country, are not a monolithic voting block. Disparaging all, may just push some, to the other side.

In case you missed it, as most Catholics did, but not all. When Teddy lay on his death bed, he decided to write the Pope, hoping for forgiveness. He got a response, but not from the Pope (he wouldn't dirty his hands?). Rather than the forgiveness he'd hoped for, he received a short missive, praying he had the strength to accept God's judgement.

Please think twice, before assuming all Catholics think & vote the same.

[Bob]

Nobody here ever addresses the substance of Sullivan's claims against Palin. Why is that? Sullivan analyzes the substance of Palin's claims and judges them on a factual basis. People here, on the other hand, try to refute Sullivan by making gay jokes, or saying he's insane, or that he's drunk. Then they often throw in some more lame homophobic humor. I'm just curious: has anyone here taken Sullivan's claims about Palin lying and tried to prove that he's wrong?

[mark l.]

"I'm just curious: has anyone here taken Sullivan's claims about Palin lying and tried to prove that he's wrong?"

hey, bob,

not a huge palin fan, but if the same scrutiny was applied to the messiah, using the same magnitude lens as we observe palin, he would be fried like a little ant.

this is like the guy has discovered something new.

[mark l.]

strangest coincidence?

obama relents to doing an interview with fox, on the same day that palin makes her appearance. not only on the same day, but within the same hour of palin's advertised appearance on hannity.

I think she is small potatoes, but the wh is trating her like the opposition. looks and smells like fear. irrational fear.

[john]

Bob,

No one listens to Sullivan because he has completely delegitimized himself in the eyes of most bloggers, that is to say he's a laughing stock.

If you'd like a few reasons for the inability of people to take him seriously just let me list some:

-His birtherness (As in he believes Trig ain't Palin's kid)
-His rabid anti-mormonism
-His hatred of women (e.g. Ann Althouse)
-His attacks on those who don't agree with him on gay marriage 100%
-His hatred of southerners

And that's not even getting into his repeated claims about Catholicism and conservatism.

[xax]

"People here, on the other hand, try to refute Sullivan by making gay jokes, or saying he's insane, or that he's drunk."

Because calling him drunk is better than calling him insane. I, on the other hand, am convinced that he is insane. If he still believes she didn't give birth to her own child, he's insane. And you can't address the rantings of an insane lunatic without shock therapy or a lot of pills. Plus I've looked at his claims, and most of the time, he links to himself as the source. And even in doing that, he often contradicts his Palin claims in his own "reference" posts. But only reasonable people can see that. Insane people tend to think that it's ok.

Also an internet search could easily destroy Sullivan, but if you're not willing to do it Bobby-boy you're just as nuts as Sully. Have fun bouncing off the walls. By the way, he's is pretty darn gay last time I checked.

Drama, drag queen gay.

[Bob]

"No one listens to Sullivan because he has completely delegitimized himself in the eyes of most bloggers, that is to say he's a laughing stock."
--john

Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish, is rated at #20 on Technorati's top 100 blogs. Riehl World View isn't even on the list. The Daily Dish won last year's Weblog Award's "Best Blog." Do you guys even think when you make these assertions of yours that can be so effortlessly proven false?

"Plus I've looked at his claims, and most of the time, he links to himself as the source. And even in doing that, he often contradicts his Palin claims in his own "reference" posts. But only reasonable people can see that. Insane people tend to think that it's ok."
--xax

But in fact you can't prove anything, and are afraid to even try, right? Or would you care to give us an example of what you're referring to? Again, nobody here even has the capacity for such analytical thought. You're too busy expressing your "feelings" to worry about facts. Wing nuts are the BIGGEST drama queens of all. Melodrama, empty posturing and substance-free hyperbole is virtually all you ever do.

"Drama, drag queen gay."

See, just like I said.

[Bob]

"not a huge palin fan, but if the same scrutiny was applied to the messiah, using the same magnitude lens as we observe palin, he would be fried like a little ant."

In other words, I'm right that nobody here even has the guts or the attention span to tackle the merits of Sullivan's claims. When pressed, it's like the best you can come up with is, "Oh yeah, well Obama's one too!" So much for wing nut "principles."

[john]

Bob,

So he doesn't think Palin faked her 5th pregnancy?
He didn't spend 2007 attacking Mitt Romney for being a Mormon and 2008 attacking Mormons who supported Prop 8?
He hasn't regularly attacked Ann Althouse for absurd reasons (e.g. her marriage)?
He didn't attack Glenn Reynolds for not supporting gay marriage enough?
He didn't claim that a "southern climate of hate" was responsible for the death of a census worker before any investigation even occurred?

The fact of the matter is you asked why we don't address Sullivan's arguments and I pointed out that we don't take him seriously (as far as I am concerned he has pissed away any credibility he once had and addressing him is on par with addressing Alex Jones).

That has nothing to do with the number of people who read his blog (unless you're arguing that numbers are indicative of accuracy). They have every right to read his rants and I have every right to consider him a bigoted, misogynistic, psychopathic, walking, talking, joke of a human being.

[Bob]

"That has nothing to do with the number of people who read his blog (unless you're arguing that numbers are indicative of accuracy). They have every right to read his rants and I have every right to consider him a bigoted, misogynistic, psychopathic, walking, talking, joke of a human being."

What, Sullivan isn't allowed to take on any public figure he disapproves of? The issue is not whether he takes them on, but whether he does it in an honest way. Again, you provide not one shred of evidence to prove that Sullivan's claims are wrong. And again, you fall back on substance-free name-calling rather than proving with examples that your accusations have any merit.

[john]

No evidence that his claims are wrong?

His claims are simply opinion that Palin is lying/delusional/deranged, there is no substance to the post except his overly dramatic assertion that his blog "is going silent" out of fear for our nation's future. You cannot disprove such a post as it is mere opinion (and narcissism).

When he finishes reading her book and makes a claim then perhaps we can address it. Until then I am going to ridicule Sullivan for the bigoted drama queen that he is.

Unless you are arguing that his claims regarding Palin's child are true; in that case I'm just wasting my time.

[Kevin]

Bob,

You are a Martian. Please provide one shred of evidence to prove that my claim is wrong. Once you have done that, I'll respect your quasi-defense of Sullivan's bizarre birtherism.

[mark l.]

sorry bob,

there are guys who pick their shots wisely, and then there are guys who swing their arms like a little girl, constantly, trying to hit anything...

sullivan has been flailing about, so much, that even if he hit a nerve, he remains the little boy who cried wolf on 'anything' palin.

he's not exactly a go to guy, except for losers.

sorry, that is the way it is.

[mark l.]

one other, rather objective point...
(i'm not a birther OR a trig truther)

andy was demanding a paternity test to 'prove' palin was lying about trig.
birthers are just requesting documentation, to prove that the law is being followed.

guess who is bottom rung on the repsectability ladder.

[mark l.]

"People here, on the other hand, try to refute Sullivan by making gay jokes, or saying he's insane, or that he's drunk."

can't make a case for the drunk part, and i kinda like seeing c hitchens when he is lit, but...

sullivan is 'insanely gay'.

It's one thing to be playing the field, but "milky loads" is simply over the top. I tend to think that not all gay men are this flamingly neurotic about their sexual predilections.

If I had a sister who was seeking heterosexual companionship, and her ad featured the "milky loads" fetish, I'd think that she was f**king nuts. Mocking someone for being gay is one thing, mocking someone for being psychotically gay is something completely different.

dude needs help, instead he gets a soapbox.

[Jim Treacher]

I don't know if Sullivan is a drunk, but there's empirical evidence that he's a pothead.

"Nobody here ever addresses the substance of Sullivan's claims against Palin. Why is that?"

The same reason he can't grasp those wisps of smoke from his bong. They look so enticing, seem so solid, but his fingers just pass right through.

"What, Sullivan isn't allowed to take on any public figure he disapproves of?"

He's not a public figure himself? Those who disapprove of him aren't allowed to say so?

[Anon]

Sullivan is insane when it comes to Sarah Palin.

At one time, way back during the campaign I took a look at his 33 documented "lies" and as I remember I only found one actual "lie"...all the rest were things that were taken out of context or the typical politician exaggerating his or her record or a "lie" that comes from splitting semantic hairs.

There is basically no substance to Sullivan's claims about Palin and the fact that he still CANNOT let go of the Trig Palin story is proof enough that he is not credible. Period.

[Mike2Cents]

I agree that AS's post here is worthy of mockery.
The high drama ,martyr-esque tone of 'I'm on an important case' is just silly -
as is his agenda.
Ironic that it be pointed out here, as it instantly reminded me of this whole ridiculous episode:

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/08/note-to-readers.html

Maybe Dan and Andrew have a lot more in common than they'd like to admit...

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish, is rated at #20 on Technorati's top 100 blogs."

And The Corner at NRO is rated #8, Hot Air is rated #10, and Michelle Malkin is rated #18.

But of course, you scream and wet yourself that those numbers mean nothing because said bloggers are conservative and actually criticize your Barack Obama.

Paid whores like yourself love Sullivan, Bob, because he, like you, worships Obama and hates Bush in every respect. Sullivan is another example of an intellect-free liberal who merely repeats talking points, including Barack Obama's insane assertion that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy and that Trig Palin is not her child.

[Mike2Cents]

Bob - you're being paid?
Dang.

[Bob]

"His claims are simply opinion that Palin is lying/delusional/deranged, there is no substance to the post except his overly dramatic assertion that his blog "is going silent" out of fear for our nation's future. You cannot disprove such a post as it is mere opinion (and narcissism)."
-john

Still no examples to support your "case," john. Your criticisms are absolutely fact-free.

"sullivan has been flailing about, so much, that even if he hit a nerve, he remains the little boy who cried wolf on 'anything' palin."
-mark

Can you provide an example of "flailing" and explain with facts and evidence that he's wrong? Otherwise it's just more fact-free assertions on your part.

"There is basically no substance to Sullivan's claims about Palin and the fact that he still CANNOT let go of the Trig Palin story is proof enough that he is not credible. Period."
-anon

So then prove with FACTS that his claims are false. Otherwise, you guys all just keep saying things like "he is not credible" over and over without providing a shred of proof for that assertion.

"But of course, you scream and wet yourself that those numbers mean nothing because said bloggers are conservative and actually criticize your Barack Obama."
-North Dallas Sociopath

Just the usual negligible histrionics. Yawn.

To summarize: Not a single one of you even tried to refute Sullivan's claims with factual evidence. It's pure ad hominem. Absolutely, 100%. I think you know deep down that people like Sullivan are correct when they point out Palin's lies. Most of you, however -- like a majority of right wingers -- aren't really interested in facts or truth, anyway. It's so obvious. Right wing politics consists of almost nothing else but various kinds of bigotry. Anti-gay, anti-poor, anti-immigrant, anti-liberal, anti-women when it suits your needs, anti-ethnic-group when it suits your needs, etc. You don't care about or need facts when all you're doing is engaging in prejudice. In fact, facts just get in the way.

[Bob]

"Bob - you're being paid?
Dang."

Dang, I WISH!! Mike, let's just say that NDT seems to have a little problem about treating his fantasies as facts, and leave it at that. I guess he's afraid that limiting his arguments to things that are actually true might not allow him the "latitude" -- shall we say -- to create his hermetically sealed little wing nut bubble.

[Mike2Cents]

Bob -
I would offer that the onus is actually on AS bring forth proof on his Trig Palin theories - and until he actually has proof, to shut up about it. It just unseemly the way he gleefully throws out twisted 'possibilities'. And even IF there was any truth to it, would there really be any pleasure in the knowing of it?
Why should his 'asking the questions' (as Riehl likes to say/do) mean others are required to prove that this conspiracy is NOT true?
I don't have strong feelings about AS either way - smart guy and I enjoy some of his writing.
But this Trig story needs to go away. It pains me to think of what it's like for the Palin kids to have to deal with this aspect of their mom's political life. None of us can imagine what it must be like for them to be aware of many of the tabloid-esque rumors and accusations about their mom. Without some glaring proof, we can and should only assume that they are are loving family that cares for one another.
I've certainly seen many indications of that - and we should want and hope for nothing but the best for all of them with respect to Trig.
I'm obviously no fan of Palin, in the political sense.
But AS's personal animosity towards her is as unappealing to me as Reihl & company's over inflated enthusiasm - and using - of her.

[Anon]

Sarah Palin doesn't have to prove she gave birth to Trig Palin, and neither do I. If Andrew Sullivan thinks that she faked the birth, that the doctor and hospital are in on the conspiracy and that her daughter had what would be I guess back-to-back pregnancies...then it is incumbent on Andrew Sullvan to offer proof.

Blogging over and over again that all Palin needs to do is show him he's wrong isn't proof...it is evidence that he is extremely disturbed when it comes to Sarah Palin.

I'm surprised Bob that you being a good liberal would diverge from the "innocent until proven guilty" belief system where all guilt must be proven and the accused doesn't have to "prove" anything...oh wait, no I'm not...because all the liberal tenants are suspended when it comes to conservatives. So, Palin is guilty unless she proves herself innocent.

Hypocrisy, they name is "liberal"

The only one of his "lies" that I remember is the Alaskan bridge "lie". Which isn't a lie. She was against it, she was publicly against it and there are numerous articles from Alaskan media and elsewhere that document this. So when she says she was against the bridge to nowhere it is IMPOSSIBLE that its a lie.

If you want to say she was disingenious about it becuase before she was against it, she was for it, that is different thing..If you want to say she was being misleading, then that's fine, but it wasn't a lie. As I'm sure you know, lots of politicians change their votes and views on policies, but its only Sarah Palin who gets called a liar for it. No one called Obama a liar when he changed his position on gun control and the death penality.

[Bob]

We all know how the regulars here feel about Sullivan. But as is virtually ALWAYS the case here, their feelings only ever seem to involve knee-jerk hostility towards anyone but the most extreme radical conservatives. Even moderate conservatives like Sullivan are treated as de-facto communists and America-hating anti-semitic homosexual Eurotrash Nazis. My own point is not to address Sullivan's specific claims, but to point out that nobody here -- even up until the present moment -- has even attempted to factually refute a single one of Sullivan's charges against Palin. Not once. My point is that this proves that you're not interested in facts, but only the exercise of political prejudice. That's ALL you ever do.

As far as the substance of Sullivan's charges are concerned, I suspect that most of his questions are legitimate. Perhaps the Trig Palin issue is his own particular obsession, but he's documented lots of other cases -- I think he's up to 30 or so -- that definitely DO pass muster, such as the famous "Bridge to Nowhere" claims that she made. She DOES have a problem telling the truth sometimes, and I've never once seen a commenter here try to prove that Sullivan was factually wrong about any of that.

So, anyway, fine: go ahead and hate Sullivan because he's a gay critic of Sarah Palin. But don't pretend that there's any more to it than that.

[O!]

Bob, thank you for that additional helping of Journolist/Axelturf talking point spam.

2010.

[Bob]

And the icing on the cake is for O! to weigh-in with his regular pointless, childish post. That says it all. Wing nuts are not interested in facts or ideas, only in their empty-headed displays of solidarity with other wing nuts. O!'s only message, apparently, is that he's a mindless slogan machine, and proud of it. How typical.

Childish defiance and irrational hatred is all you guys have at this point. Whether it's mocking gays or pretending that Barack Obama is somehow not a legitimate president who won the election fair and square, your only form of political discourse is reaffirming your own delusions. Facts just don't matter to you.

[Anon]

I just did weigh in on exactly the bridge to nowhere which doesn't really qualify as a lie since she was against it and she did help kill it. And yes, I know she was for it before she was against it, but CHANGING from position A to position B doesn't make her a liar. It might make her a misleader or a disassembler, but not a liar.

Bring over his 33 lies and I will go through them. I no longer read his blog because his Trig Palin obsession has proven him to be a nut job and becuase his blog mostly consists of links to other more substantial pieces, he rarely has anything of substance to say.

[O!]

Bob, thank you for that additional helping of Journolist/Axelturf talking point spam.

2010.

[Bob]

"I just did weigh in on exactly the bridge to nowhere which doesn't really qualify as a lie since she was against it and she did help kill it. And yes, I know she was for it before she was against it, but CHANGING from position A to position B doesn't make her a liar. It might make her a misleader or a disassembler, but not a liar."

But Alaska never returned the funds. How can Palin claim that she said, "Thanks but no thanks" if she kept the funds anyway, without even building the bridge? Here's what Wikipedia says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_palin#Bridge_to_Nowhere

"As governor, Palin canceled the Gravina Island Bridge in September 2007, saying that Congress had "little interest in spending any more money" due to what she called "inaccurate portrayals of the projects."[110] Alaska chose not to return the $442 million in federal transportation funds."

Even allowing that you yourself might choose the enormously charitable viewpoint of not considering that a lie, the point is that Sullivan would also be perfectly reasonable to call it a lie himself. The facts are pretty clear about what went on, and no Palin supporter could possibly claim that she comes out vindicated in any way. So Sullivan's point is perfectly respectable. You may not agree with it, but the tone of commentary here about Sullivan is way more unfair to him than anyone could claim he is towards Sarah Palin.

[O!]

Bob, thank you for that additional helping of Journolist/Axelturf talking point spam.

2010.

[Bob]

O! long ago gave up trying to earn respect. He's down to impotent displays of childish defiance. Pretty fricking pathetic.

[O!]

Bob, thank you for that additional helping of Journolist/Axelturf talking point spam.

2010.

[mark l.]

bob luvs "milky loads".

[Bob]

"bob luvs "milky loads"."

Are you guys proud to be so childish? What does that say about how seriously to take your political opinions that all you have is childish taunting and juvenile queer jokes? With responses like those, I figure I've won the debate hands down. You've admitted your own defeat. LOL.

[Anon]

She said she killed the bridge to nowhere and she did. So, her saying that she killed the bridge is a lie is in fact, not correct. The point of the bridge to nowhere was that it was a waste of money...so if Alaska used the money for other more useful projects, then what is wrong with that?

It can't be a "lie" if the interpretation is debatable? It is not a LIE that she was against the bridge and in fact that she is the one who ultimately killed it. So when she said she was against the bridge to nowhere how can that be a LIE??????????????????????

It is not perfectly reasonable, it is unreasonable and it is taking a VERY LOOSE interpretation of the meaning of the word lie.

The majority of his other 33 documented lies were exactly the same..all about interpretation or arbitrarily choosing a particular chunk of time and omitting what came before or after.

There are a lot of reasons not to think that Sarah Palin is someone who should be running for president, but her being a "delusional liar" as Sullivan likes to say, is not one of them.

I remember during the campaign that most of the "LIES" Palin allegedly told were not lies, the reporting was either totally wrong...like her cutting the budget for needy children and her banning books from the library...or they were semantic gotcha games or most often they were the typical political exaggerations that are done every day...but when Palin did them, they became lies. Just like anything and everything that McCain or Palin said about Obama that was negative became racist.

I'm sorry, Andrew Sullivan is off his rocker when it comes to Sarah Palin. He should have cut his losses and admitted he was wrong about the Trig Palin fiasco...the very fact that he found the story AT ALL CREDIBLE..that a sitting governor would fake a pregnancy and that her daughter who was ahem really pregnant would be able to hide it for 9 months and all of the doctors and staff would go along with it....shows that he's not wired too tightly to begin with. The fact that to this day he refuses to admit he was wrong and he continues to bring it up as is if could be/might be true shows that he's just a freak not to be taken seriously.

He has put himself in the category of tin hat wearers.

[Bob]

"I'm sorry, Andrew Sullivan is off his rocker when it comes to Sarah Palin."

Whether you agree with him or not, his claims are factual and you can try to prove or disprove them based on the available facts. The difference between him and Riehl is that Riehl doesn't even provide facts that could be proved or disproved. It's all petty mockery as it always is, and it usually revolves around Sullivan being supposedly crazy or obsessed with Palin because he's a silly gay man. Find me one salient fact in Riehl's post at the top of this thread. Find me one verifiable factual claim by any of the other posters in this thread. After all this time, you're the only one who even tried to address an actual claim of Sullivan's and you only did so in a very vague and general way. Given the petty, personality-based nature of the commentary here, I don't see how anyone can claim that they live up to Sullivan's level. When, for example, do you think Dan's blog is going to win the "Best Blog" award? People should at least have enough class to acknowledge on some level that Sullivan's blog beats this one in every possible way.

[O!]

Bob, thank you for that additional helping of Journolist/Axelturf talking point spam.

2010.

[Bob]

You're very welcome, O! Have a lovely evening.