Thursday, December 19, 2002
2:30 PM | Posted by
Anonymous
In a December 9 post, “Pledge Week Update,” Andy said, “Our goal was to have a core supporting readership of around 5,000 or more. If we get that, we can make this a professional enterprise, pay our expenses, hire an intern, and pay me a real salary.”
Today, in a post called “The Results,” Andy says he received “payments” from 3,339 people.
Since Andy fell 33% shy of his stated goal, I guess that means andrewsullivan.com is still not “a professional enterprise.”
Quod erat demonstrandum.
P.S.: Massachusetts tax authorities: Please take appropriate notice.
Tuesday, December 17, 2002
11:43 PM | Posted by
Anonymous
Is it just me or does Andy seem to be expressing lament in Wednesday’s post, “Don’t Miss,” about Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.)?
Andy writes, “He’s now more than embarrassment. He’s an obstacle to the Republican future.”
So is that a good thing or a bad thing?
If Andy is, as he protests, not a Republican and never could be, is this cause for rejoicing or sorrow? The tone of The Daily Dish lately would suggest the latter.
The question then becomes, Why?
Monday, December 16, 2002
8:23 AM | Posted by
Anonymous
I neglected to post the link to Andy’s regular Friday feature in The Washington Times because I assumed the latest round of disclosures concerning the loonies who dot the upper reaches of the paper’s masthead--exposed by Michelangelo Signorile in the New York Press: “That Other Times”--would have shamed Andy into severing the relationship.
Not so. Andy’s column appeared on Friday as usual, and you can find it here: “The Weekly Dish.”
So Andy’s still taking Moonie money.
Saturday, December 14, 2002
8:59 AM | Posted by
Anonymous
Aside from their conservative politics and mutually ass-kissing disdain for Howell Raines of the New York Times--yeah, the guy who fired Andy--what do Andrew Sullivan and Mickey Kaus have in common?
A propensity to edit their posts after the fact without alerting readers they have done so.
Thanks for that, Roger.