It may be childish and immature to call someone or some groups dumb although most of us, myself included, have hurled the dumb epithet at one time or another. Personally, lately I've mainly confined my allegations of dumb, stupid, inept, incompetent, etc. to politicians and their lackeys and always with bases in fact.
It’s one thing in casual conversation to call someone or some group dumb when they have acted or spokenly stupidly–Barack Hussein Obama and the Occupy Wall Streeters come to mind. It’s quite another when a formerly-respected journalist and national periodical label an entire political movement “stupid.”
The author of the "stupid" label in this week's Newsweek, which the magazine changed to "dumb" in its headline, was Andrew Sullivan, the conservative turncoat and exceptionally hate-filled homosexual and unabashed Obama-idolator known for his vituperative language. Sullivan is known, too, for his committment to the hackneyed Blame-Bush ruse, pinning all this president's failures on the previous administration.
Still, for Newsweek to publish its weekly featuring the headline, "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?" subtitled, "Andrew Sullivan on the Man with a Plan," is so far beyond the propriety pale that it suggests Sullivan has succumbed to dementia and that one of Obama's prime MSM publications has succumbed to bankruptcy and doesn't give a rat's ass what the public thinks of it.
Actually, Sullivan's dementia speaks for itself and Newsweek is on the verge of going belly-up.
Newsweek was sold in 2010 to billionaire businessman Sydney Harman by its parent company, the Washington Post, for the grand sum of one dollar and will probably shortly be as defunct as a dodo.
Harman was ripped off but, in the interim before its final gasp, Newsweek continues its extremist liberal advocacy in the person of Andrew Sullivan and others of his ilk.
Sullivan previewed his own article by conceding his motivations in attacking dumb, stupid Republicans, conservatives, and anyone else who thinks his hero is dumb, stupid, and inept.
He wrote of the president that "Nothing in his first term . . . can be understood if you do not realize that Obama was always planning for eight years, not four. And if he is reelected, . . . it will be a mandate for an eight-year shift away from the excesses of inequality, overreach abroad, and reckless deficit spending of the last three decades. It will recapitalize him to entrench what he has done already and make it irreversible." (http://bit.ly/wdSGoa)
A newsflash for Mr. Sullivan: Thinking Americans have always been aware of "the man with a plan's" long-term, socialist designs on America--as well as his radicalism.
However, Sullivan doesn't lay out Obama's big plan and instead resorts to misrepresentations of his "successes"--his unstimulating stimulus, his lies on cutting taxes, his passage of the most-despised legislation since the Eighteenth Amendment, and killing Usama bin laden, an accomplishment of Leon Panetta's, not Obama.
We could expect such revisionism from Andrew Sullivan given that he's Andrew Sullivan but what we couldn't have expected even from an Obama-worshiper is a confession that made MSNBC's Chris Matthews seem sane.
Matthews merely felt tingles up his leg in the presence of The Anointed One. Sullivan experienced an orgasm over Sarah Palin's reaction to his Newsweek cover.
In response to Palin's tweet that he was a “conspiracy kook,” Sullivan showed how manly he is by dropping a few F-bombs and showed how sick he is by commenting, “Palin’s tweet made me come in my pants. . . . I don’t give a damn about “reputation. . . . far too many journalists worry about their reputation.” (http://bit.ly/z67qhG)
Andrew Sullivan has as little to worry about his reputation as Newsweek has. Both have long since trashed any reputations they may have once enjoyed, Sullivan as an objective journalist, Newsweek as anything better than a colorful lining for bird cages.
What’s truly dumb is Sullivan thinking he’s a credible socio-political observer when he is nothing but a perverted hack and Newsweek pretending to be a reputable source of news.