From Andrew Sullivan, someone we’ve long known cannot be trusted with simple mathematics let alone the complexities of microeconomics (And please, will someone finally steer this ignoramus away from Catholicism and theology? Just because the average newspaper editor knows nothing of either doesn’t mean there’s no one else out there who doesn’t know a great deal about both.), today we read, under the heading “Krugman Blames Tax Cuts,” the following: “That’s the entire reason for the deficit. Yeah, right. But how can he ignore the obvious place of exploding domestic discretionary spending under Bush? Well, we have long learned about the fragility of his intellectual honesty.”

Pot, kettle, black. Teakettle, doily, lavender.

“His”?

Really, Andy, “his”?

Do you mean “his” as in New York Times columnist and Princeton University economics professor Paul Krugman? Or do you mean “the fragility of his intellectual honesty” in reference to President George W. Bush?

Unbelievably, and unbearably, it goes on.

Sullivan: “The lesson for Republican presidents: you will never get credit for spending, so don’t do it. Cut taxes; reduce spending. It’s the only governing philosophy that conservatives ever have a chance of winning with. But they never learn, do they?” [Ed.: Tortured syntax in original.]

“They”?

Really, Andy, “they”?

Do you mean “they” as in “liberals” or “the left” or “the fifth column” or “the traitors”? Or do you mean “they never learn,” referring to Republicans, who for the past 25 years, and who by virtue of the idiots in the punditocracy, of which you were plainly in the vanguard, earned an entirely unwarranted reputation for fiscal restraint? I mean, where the hell were you?