Sullying A Joke

Andrew Sullivan makes an argument that, in its generic form, is common yet (almost always) bad. It's part of an attack on "the theocon right (and fellow-travelers)" for defending their boy Mel Gibson. (Sullivan may have a point, though the examples he gives are pretty weak. If I were more important Sullivan might even attack me, even though I don't agree with the religious right and don't believe I defended Gibson.)

Sullivan writes "...David Frum...suggest[s] Gibson's anti-Semitism qualifies him to become head of the U.N. Can you imagine him taking such a jocular approach if, say, Louis Farakhan had been ranting similar things about Jews?" Yes, of course I can. In fact, mocking hateful people by saying they should be head of the U.N. or writing editorials for The New York Times is a pretty common gag among conservatives.

Has Sullivan gotten so pro forma in his attacks that he doesn't think about what he's saying any more?

Columbus Guy says: You're still reading Sullivan?

Columbus Guy steps on his joke: And aren't we theocons actually mocking the U.N. and the NYTimes, by strongly implying that they're run by hateful people? The hateful people themselves don't need mocking; they're already self-mocked.