In an altered state of conscious (we can only presume), Eric Alterman has launched an ugly personal attack on Andrew Sullivan. We can only presume he got his "substance" from other anti-Sullivan articles, since an honest and thorough reading of this "vanity" blog would have addressed half his issues and shown most of the others to be ridiculous. 

In the first paragraph, the Nation writer offers false pity for Sullivan and his difficult circumstances, almost wondering aloud how he even deals with being a gay Catholic Republican. A quick read of Sullivan's commentary shows that Sullivan confronts the troublesome stuff honestly and hopefully, while dismissing as nonsense that which is nonsense. And revealing why a lot of Sullivan's thoughts represent where the slightly more libertarian wing of the party is headed anyway. 

Alterman offers the canard that influential Republicans blame Sullivan's gay lifestyle for 9/11. This is like saying Bush blames all Muslims everywhere - i.e. it is a load of crap. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, a pair of sickos that have never spoken for me or for 80% of Republicans, found out that they spoke for virtually no Republicans at all when they made the repulsive post-9/11 comments. Every respectable Republican/conservative organ, starting with National Review, drummed them out of the movement. Has Eric Alterman yet denounced Chomsky, Sontag et al? Alterman here engaged in stereotyping of the ugliest of sorts. He should know better. 

In the next paragraph, Sullivan is discussed as a controversy magnet. The last time I looked, the Nation loved people who engendered controversy. But I guess only if the dreaded right-wingers are the ones upset. Either Alterman isn't playing fair or we also have to denouce: Martin Luther King - bad guy, got things stirred up. Rosa Parks - why didn't she just sit at the back? Noam Chomsky - he may have degrees, but he's just too controversial. (Okay, I'll buy the last one.) Controversy proves nothing, but it doesn't keep Alterman from bringing it up. (Maybe he needs a better editor.) 

Alterman throws in a cheap shot at Camille Paglia, proving again that the left can't stand a feminist who doesn't think of women as victims first. But since Paglia's shown up in the pages of Salon, I don't see how she could possibly be that terrible for a committed leftist. Next will he mock NPR for putting Garrison Keillor on the air? (Non-sequitur, I know, but it amused me.) Finally, Alterman notes that many gays are upset by the conservative ideas Sullivan pushes. Aha! Now we see the problem. Paglia: strong feminist. Sullivan: conservative gay. How is the left supposed to minister to these people if they won't stay in the right cubbyholes? By the way, we're not even touching the question of why "allegedly gay Democratic politicians, including Clinton Cabinet members, along with liberal talk-show host Rosie O'Donnell" go in the same category for Alterman. 

Most of the rest of the piece is about how a guy with a website is crushing dissent. Wow! I wish I knew Sullivan's secret. Apparently he's ruling the world, and meanwhile I can't even get a discount at the local McDonald's. 

But let's look at some of the dissent Sullivan is crushing. Ted Rall? Sullivan's victim. Tom Daschle? Victim of Sullivan. (Now we know why Bush won't tell him anything.) Hillary Clinton? Victim of Sullivan. (No wonder that lightweight Lazio beat her for that Senate seat.) Paul Krugman? Another innocent Sullivan victim. (the poor guy had to keep the 50K and the NYT column, God how I feel for the guy!) Granted, Rall fell. But a lot of people were involved in pushing that idiot out. But most of Sullivan's other "victims" are alive and well and in the media making fools of themselves just the same as always. 

This brings us back to paragraph three. Alterman will later salute Mickey Kaus and Josh Marshall for "responsible" blogging, though mainly to prove he's not anti-blogger, though the rest of his piece indicates he is. But in the third graf, while mocking personal items that Sullivan brings up on his site, he makes his main argument, that the problem with andrewsullivan.com is that it needs a good editor. To which we can only say, so does the Nation, and how.