I know, I know, I’m violating the moratorium again, but this is just too much. Sullivan says he’s not a hypocrite for protesting that people are criticizing his book without reading it (a sentiment I do have considerable sympathy for) even as he criticized Ramesh’s book without reading it. He says he merely posted other peoples’ comments. He writes :
[Ponnuru] claims I have indeed criticized the contents of his book, while not reading it. He links to three posts, all of which merely cite others’ views, mainly fellow conservatives John Derbyshire and theocon Mark Stricherz. His own links disprove his argument.
Now it’s true that Ramesh didn’t cite the best posts by Andrew to prove his case, but Andrew is being beyond slippery, he’s being outright slimey. Because A) he knows that he agreed with, and celebrated the wisdom of, all of these third-party attacks on Ramesh B) he has consistently said that Ramesh’s intent is “partisan” and based in a bad-faith desire to expand Republican power. How does he know this without having read the book? ESP? And most importantly C) Andrew flatly admitted that he was in fact attacking the book without having read the book. These are his words:
I should say I will read this book as soon as I get a chance. It isn’t fair to keep commenting on it without reading it. Today, I finish the copy-edits on my own. So time will open up, I hope.
Now, Andrew may or may not have a case that the three posts Ramesh linked to don’t support his case that Andrew’s being a hypocrite (though Sullivan’s not fooling anybody). But Andrew’s own words support Ramesh’s complaint. And even if Ramesh didn’t point to Andrew’s admission that he was being unfair, Andrew presumably knows what he himself wrote. And here he is calling Ramesh slippery. Please.