24 thoughts on “How Could Newsweek…?”

  2. Why doesnt Andrew just ask “Why are all of Obama’s Critics big, dumb, mean ole poopy-paints?” and finalize the decent of himself and newsweek into the realm of 2nd grad scatological playground thought?

    They are gonna end up there evnetually if they don’t die or go out of business first so why not just cut to the chase?

    1. Hmmm, if you read beyond the cover you would see that he discusses how President Obama lures his critics into making fools of themselves. As the update from Politico states

      [[[[T]he president begins by extending a hand to his opponents; when they respond by raising a fist, he demonstrates that they are the source of the problem; then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue or a divider. This kind of strategy takes time. And it means there are long stretches when Obama seems incapable of defending himself, or willing to let others to define him, or simply weak. I remember those stretches during the campaign against Hillary Clinton. I also remember whose strategy won out in the end.”]]]

      Given the knee jerk response by the anti-Obama blogsphere his article seems right on target.

      1. Why reward their stupidity by reading beyond the insipid, hypocritical and insulting cover when a hearty “Fuck You Newsweek!” is the only response necessary?

        If they want me to come thru the door, insulting me at the doorstep is not the way to accomplish it.

  3. They really seem to have outdone themselves here. I don’t know which is worse: that Newsweek would publish a magazine with that rather childish title on the cover, that Newsweek would think anyone still cares about anything Andrew Sullivan has to say, or that Newsweek would put that unattractive image of Obama on their cover and think anyone would still actually buy the magazine.

    1. I think they’ve gone to the point where they’re just trolling for eyeballs with gimmicks like that rather than offering any serious content.

    2. Andrew who? I seem to vaguely remember hearing his name somewhere, but I why I should care about his opinion?

  4. “[T]he president begins by extending a hand to his opponents; when they respond by raising a fist, he demonstrates that they are the source of the problem; then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue or a divider.”

    He forgot the part where the Obama will give a big speech or press conference and rattle off a long list of insults the day before extending his hand to his opponents asking them for help.

  5. “[T]he president begins by extending a [finger] to his opponents; when they respond by raising a[n eyebrow], he [deigns to allow the press to say] that they are the source of the problem; then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of [illegal dictates] and [calls opponents sub-human racists] without being [able to see irony or find a clue with spectacles, both hands, and the entire staff of Google].”

  7. I think 40-50% of the public exactly agree with everything in that article. The “cover” in lib thinking was pulled off by the publication of “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” where the author says fly-over folks are so stupid they vote against their interests.

    It’s only gotten worse.

  8. I see Andrew is projecting.

    If you want to see Newsweek go under; tell your doctor, dentist, and barber to quit blindly ordering the rag for the waiting room. For that matter, tell them that magazines are unnecessary.

    1. I’m sure it doesn’t, Bob-1. Newsweek engages in a lot of bait-and-switch. I’m also sure I no longer care.

    2. how could such an incompetent be a threat to anyone?

      That’s your flag right Bob? Hitler->Evil. Three Stooges->Harmless entertainment. You just haven’t repeated it enough. Keep at it.

      As far as the article “not saying what I think it says”, AS hasn’t been coherent enough to “say” anything worth “thinking” about in a very long time. He’s not going to increase his near-zero batting average with this one.

      1. Ha!

        Try reading the article again, maybe slower this time, and you’ll see that it still doesn’t say what you think it says. Hint: Sullivan is not calling Obama incompetent. (And I don’t think Obama is either, so perhaps you misunderstood my recent comment about the three stooges as well.)

        Karl: I don’t read Newsweek, but I’ll take your word for it. My guess is that Sullivan would have preferred that Newsweek summarized his article differently on the cover.

        1. How the heck would you know what I think the thing says? In order for me to have an opinion in the first place I’d need to have a positive level of give-a-shit.

          Sullivan is not calling Obama incompetent. And I don’t think Obama is either.

          Not exactly a ringing endorsement there Bob. “Our President Is Not Calling Himself Incompetent”.

          1. How the heck would you know what I think the thing says?

            Don’t you know that all Leftists have the power to know what conservatives are thinking? When you say you don’t like Obama, they know you’re thinking racist thoughts and don’t like him because he’s black. When you say that we can’t keep running trillion dollar deficits, they know you’re thinking that lettting the poor, sick and elderly is a neat idea.

    3. Bob-1,

      Good try, but the anti-Obama folks aren’t interested in facts, they enjoy hating him too much. And if anyone dares says anything good about him, they are just added to the enemy list.

      1. Thomas, in order to make the enemy list, you first need to get off the dull list. Good luck with that.

  10. The problem is that Newsweek, although seldom bought or read, is often placed near cash registers where it is visible. Thus people will subconsciously absorb everything they see on the cover. Since it is subconscious, they will not question it and will believe it for life.

Comments are closed.