"Andrew Sullivan" on first reference, please. Surely someone can arrange a sit-down between Kirckick and a high-school journalism teacher to review the fundamentals of reporting. Please? Even if this is a blog entry, if a freakin' candidate for president of the United States has to be identified by first and last names, then so does the blogger with whom the author is engaging in a masturbatory public feud.

... I should add that Andrew Sullivan needs to be identified with both names on first reference especially in a case like this, where the author refuses to link directly to anything Andrew Sullivan wrote. Otherwise the reader may have difficulty finding the other side of this feud -- "Andrew who?" -- which actually tends to render Kirchick's post a bit dishonest. If you want to have a public feud with something another blogger wrote, then you link to what you're disputing when you bring it up. If you don't trust your readers to judge for themselves, then your readers shouldn't trust you.

Rhubarbs writes:

-- Otherwise the reader may have difficulty finding the other side of this feud ... which actually tends to render Kirchick's post a bit dishonest.

James Kirchick makes a living off this type of dishonesty

hey guys and gals:

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.../kampeas-retract.html