-
Japanese Tea Party Leaders Embrace Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan
February 10, 2012 | 4 comments
-
How Mitt Could Be Beat
February 8, 2012 | 12 comments
-
Charmaine Yoest's Victory for Life
February 2, 2012 | 0 comments
-
Florida Republican's Ad Depicts Children Enslaved by Obama
January 24, 2012 | 3 comments
-
Rick Perry Declares 'Strategic Retreat,' Endorses 'Visionary' Gingrich
January 19, 2012 | 7 comments
The Spectacle Blog
"Like
his marriage to Laura Jacobs, [James] Wolcott's liberalism is
incestuously convenient. Vanity Fair is basically a
fashion/celebrity magazine, and the inclusion of ignorant
political commentary is therefore not necessary to the magazine's
stock-in-trade. Yet New York being New York, and the magazine
business being the magazine business, if Vanity Fair is going to
feature ignorant political commentary,
you can bet that it will be ignorant liberal
political commentary."
View all comments (11) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Robert Stacy McCain
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/04/11/the-unnecessary-idiocy-of-jame
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Facing Up to Darwin
- Current Wisdom
- Madison vs. Obamacare
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 4.11.09 @ 4:20AM
The Unnecessary Idiocy of James Wolcott : But As For Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.11.09 @ 6:37AM
Short Takes | The Return Of Scipio links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
WendyG| 4.11.09 @ 9:54AM
Wolcott is like Frank Rich and Roger Ebert. An arts critic who became terminally infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome. Suddenly they all became political pundits. And of course all liberal. And angry, angry, angry.
Vanity Fair became unreadable in the process, led by the endless harping-on-Bush by Graydon Carter, editor of Vanity Fair. Every month the same old same old. ENOUGH ALREADY. So I stopped buying the magazine. Which is a shame because I had enjoyed it for years. These people don't seem to understand we don't want to be lectured to ad nauseum. That there is a wide swath of people who want read Vanity Fair yet who are offended by their GOP-bashing. So we take our business elsewhere. Does anyone wonder that the newspaper and magazine business is suffering? Why should I spend my money on Vanity Fair, when I can read Big Hollywood and Am Spec and watch Red Eye on Fox, etc. and get great movie reviews, social commentary and humor, without the GOP-bashing.
And naturally they are all making fun of Tea Bag Parties. Cause only lefties and libs are allowed to protest. HOW DARE CONSERVATIVES PROTEST!!! It's an outrage!
Alan Brooks| 4.11.09 @ 11:57AM
DUBYA WAS THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN TO CONSERVATISM.
GET OUT OF DENIAL
Alan Brooks| 4.11.09 @ 12:13PM
do you know what the Bush family is/was?
the afterbirth of Reaganism.
The Bush family are/were the abortionists of Reaganism, they have made a bloody mess of conservatism--FOREVER!
vanderleun| 4.11.09 @ 8:42PM
Well Alan I'm pleased to see the soporifics kicked in an turned off the caps lock key. Please take a few more and turn yourself off.
Thank you for listening.
WendyG| 4.12.09 @ 9:24AM
Wolcott has yet another anti-GOP article in VF this month. Now it's anger that Republicans are even daring to go on TV at all. Why don't all those nasty GOPers just disappear?
Ran| 4.12.09 @ 8:22PM
**wha-?** Dubya was a conservative? Oh, man! Had me fooled. I thought he was a mildly religious statist. C'mon, that "No Kid's Left Behind Act" and the lazy veto pen and the new Meds Entitlement and pork out the wazoo and the TARP sham... all that was conservative? [Seriously, it was a miracle that we ended up with Justices Alito and Roberts.]
So what's twisting Wolcott's panties? Republicans are too conservative?
Frosty| 4.12.09 @ 10:49PM
Wolcott's a liberal--their panties are in a perpetual pinch. That's why they're so nasty all of the time.