The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Who Is James Wolcott? And Why Would Anybody Want to Know? Or Care?

Posted on | March 5, 2012 | 79 Comments

Pamela Geller’s commentary about Sandra Fluke has caused a conniption on the part of — you guessed, didn’t you? — Charles Johnson. Mr. Jazzy McBikeshorts then got into a Twitter colloquy with the infamously boring James Wolcott, who decided to bring my name into it. A commenter informed me about this, prompting my Twitter reply:

News Flash: James Wolcott, who for years has had a Vanity Fair column nobody reads, now has a Twitter account nobody follows.

Because you have probably never heard of James Wolcott, it is necessary to explain that he is a cadaverous-looking college dropout who spent years as an unpopular media critic at the Village Voice before becoming an unpopular columnist at Vanity Fair. His knowledge of politics is extremely limited, as I noted in April 2008:

If James Wolcott is being paid by the word, his 3,700-word screed in the June issue of Vanity Fair is the Crime of the Century. The article is presented as describing the “vicious Clinton-versus-Obama rupture at Daily Kos” and thus an analysis of “a party-wide split” among Democrats, but it’s really nothing of the kind. In fact, it’s nothing at all. There is no reporting and very little that could be called research. Just massive paragraph after paragraph of florid prose.

So far as anyone can tell, Wolcott never ventures outside Manhattan and can’t be bothered to do any actual reporting. He has attempted to remain “relevant” by adding a blog that nobody reads to his duties at Vanity Fair, whose publisher apparently hired him as a favor to Wolcott’s wife, an editor for the magazine.

Wolcott’s most memorable contribution to the online world was a 2004 post in which he cheered for killer hurricanes — “Mother Nature’s fist of fury, Gaia’s stern rebuke” — to hit America, and thereby inadvertantly helped re-elect President Bush. 

Last year, Wolcott somehow inveigled Doubleday into publishing his memoir. Nobody read that either, mainly because the author is so notoriously dull, but perhaps also because readers had been warned via a New York Times review that Wolcott “devotes 50 genuflecting pages” of his 258-page memoir to film critic Pauline Kael.

No, I’m not kidding. Really.

To the extent that most blog readers nowadays have any inkling who James Wolcott is, it’s because he has occasionally attempted to generate traffic by taking cheap shots at Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom. Is anyone therefore surprised that a pompous nobody like Wolcott seems to have found a kindred spirit in Charles Johnson?

Readers may be wondering why I would devote an entire 500-word blog post to a couple of windbags like Johnson and Wolcott, but I mainly wanted to use this as an opportunity to point out that Pamela Geller is always interesting, which is why those irrelevant losers hate her so much.

Anyway, the two latest polls — one by Marist and another by Reuters — both show the Ohio Republican primary a dead heat, and I’m thinking about heading to Columbus for the big showdown, which should be a lot more fun than sitting around blogging about James Wolcott.

UPDATE: The Man Who Named the Blogosphere observes that the list of Things Which Are More Fun Than Sitting Around Blogging About James Wolcott is quite long, and welcome, Instapundit readers!

As to the absurd “controversy” that briefly permitted Wolcott to indulge his delusions of relevance, Rush Limbaugh explained his apology to Sandra Fluke today on the World’s Biggest Radio Show.

Category: Atlas Shrugs, Charles Johnson, James Wolcott, Journalism

Comments

79 Responses to “Who Is James Wolcott? And Why Would Anybody Want to Know? Or Care?”

  1. Bob Belvedere
    March 5th, 2012 @ 7:58 am

    The only ‘Wolcott’ I know is: F. S. Wolcott’s Original Rabbit’s Foot Minstrels.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rabbit%27s_Foot_Company

  2. Obi's Sister
    March 5th, 2012 @ 8:03 am

    Wolcott?  I thought he was dead….

  3. Joe_Detweiler
    March 5th, 2012 @ 8:08 am

    I have to admit I hate this guy because every time I see his name I think I’m gonna read something about Alexander Woollcott….who was infinitely more interesting….and then I’m disappointed.

    Which raises a point. Our “elders” understood things better than we do. Woollcott was, in may ways, much like Bill Maher; liberal, witty and acid-tongued. So they let him write about celebrities and didn’t treat him as anyone of any great importance. If we were as wise then Maher and his ilk wouldn’t be nearly so annoying…..

  4. SDN
    March 5th, 2012 @ 8:13 am

    “which should be a lot more fun than sitting around blogging about James Wolcott.”

    The list of thing less fun is pretty damn short, and all of them involve impromptu surgery without anesthetic….

  5. Joe_Detweiler
    March 5th, 2012 @ 8:28 am

    By the way…..the “Pamela Geller is always interesting” link doesn’t work.

  6. PhillyCon
    March 5th, 2012 @ 8:49 am

    You are right.  Have no clue who this person is, nor care.

  7. ThePaganTemple
    March 5th, 2012 @ 9:11 am

     He’s evidently the person who pissed in Stacy’s cereal this morning.

  8. TC_LeatherPenguin
    March 5th, 2012 @ 9:13 am

    Wolcott was an ignominious POS back in the CBGB days when we’d roll his fat ass down Bowery just for the lulz….

  9. Starhawk
    March 5th, 2012 @ 9:14 am

    The link to Pam in the next to last paragraph is not working, FYI.

  10. ThePaganTemple
    March 5th, 2012 @ 9:21 am

    Robert Stacy McCain you seriously fucked up, or maybe you just don’t know that much about Twitter. Instead of this-

    News Flash: James Wolcott, who for years has had a Vanity Fair column nobody reads, now has a Twitter account nobody follows

    You should have done this-

    News Flash:   @JamesWolcott, who for years has had a Vanity Fair column nobody reads, now has a Twitter account nobody follows,
     
    Assuming that his right Twitter handle. That way he’d be sure and see it, unless he has you blocked.

  11. Joan Of Argghh!
    March 5th, 2012 @ 9:22 am

    I never miss an opportunity to remind Wolcott of how Velociman scorned him with a blithe toss.

    “Wolcott, who hides behind a firewall so dense I cannot fathom his email address for a remonstration, is Burr to my Hamilton. Poor Sully, lying prostrate upon the fainting sofa with smelling salts wafted under his nose, is Salieri to my Mozart.”

  12. JeffWeimer
    March 5th, 2012 @ 9:43 am

    I think if Stacy had Tweedeck, he wouldn’t have overlooked that.

  13. timb116
    March 5th, 2012 @ 9:48 am

    I’m betting both Johnson and Wolcott have larger readership numbers than you do, RSM

  14. DANEgerus
    March 5th, 2012 @ 9:54 am

    He still looks like a child molester.  Oh wait…  he just calls people child molesters.  But he really does…

  15. Degrees of Fun | Daily Pundit
    March 5th, 2012 @ 10:11 am

    […] of Fun Posted on March 5, 2012 7:11 am by Bill Quick Who Is James Wolcott? And Why Would Anybody Want to Know? Or Care? : The Other McCain Anyway, the two latest polls — one by Marist and another by Reuters — both […]

  16. Passer
    March 5th, 2012 @ 10:29 am

    Ace has some terrific Wolcott takeddon

  17. Kevin R.C. O'Brien
    March 5th, 2012 @ 11:00 am

    Naw, he looks like an extra from the set of The Walking Dead.

  18. Dave C
    March 5th, 2012 @ 11:07 am

    Nah, he only looks it.

  19. Dave C
    March 5th, 2012 @ 11:09 am

    I only knew about him because of something I saw over at Little Miss Attila’s..

    She seemed to think he was ‘somebody’..  but then she appears to keep up with lots of those obscure writers.

  20. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 5th, 2012 @ 11:15 am

    The Cthuhu of Vanity Fair ?Another link (I am at six or seven…I may have lost count)

  21. Bob Belvedere
    March 5th, 2012 @ 11:43 am

    ZING!

  22. Kathy Kattenburg
    March 5th, 2012 @ 11:49 am

    “Pamela Geller is always interesting,”

    “Sorry, 404 Page Not Found.”

    Gee, I wonder why. ROFL.

  23. Bob Belvedere
    March 5th, 2012 @ 11:49 am

    So?

  24. robertstacymccain
    March 5th, 2012 @ 12:00 pm

    No, PT, the omission was deliberate: I did not wish to direct anyone to Wolcott’s account. Why should I, with more than 10,000 followers on Twitter, help promote him?

  25. robertstacymccain
    March 5th, 2012 @ 12:05 pm

    The broken link has been fixed. My apologies for the bad code.

  26. scarymatt
    March 5th, 2012 @ 12:05 pm

    Is that a Fat Liberal joke?  The sarcasm detector is on the blink today…

  27. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 5th, 2012 @ 12:16 pm

    http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/03/from-andrew-breitbart-with-love.html
    I linked you there and I linked you here.  http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/03/james-wolcott-speaks.html

  28. frank
    March 5th, 2012 @ 1:16 pm

    RSM – If you do come to Columbus, let me know and I’ll buy you lunch and a brew.

  29. RichFader
    March 5th, 2012 @ 1:26 pm

    Wolcott to the WYB…”Get. In. Mah. Belly!”

  30. Carl Olson, Jr.
    March 5th, 2012 @ 1:32 pm

    I wholeheartedly agree with The Pagan temple, RSM you are seriously fucked up.

  31. Wes
    March 5th, 2012 @ 1:54 pm

    Right wing morons: James Wolcott is a well-known critic who works for Vanity Fair. You have an f-ing blog that no one outside of your bubble reads except when it shows up on memeorandum because you … mentioned James Wolcott. 

  32. MarkJ
    March 5th, 2012 @ 1:59 pm

    James Wolcott: Proof positive the living dead really do walk the earth….

  33. Adjoran
    March 5th, 2012 @ 2:10 pm

     Alexander Woollcott was a member of the legendary “Algonquin Round Table” with Peter Benchley, Dorothy Parker, Heyward Broun, and George S. Kaufman.

    No relation, I presume – that was a group with brains.

  34. Adjoran
    March 5th, 2012 @ 2:11 pm

     Only from the neck up.

  35. Adjoran
    March 5th, 2012 @ 2:11 pm

     Maher isn’t witty, though.  Perhaps half-witty.

  36. Adjoran
    March 5th, 2012 @ 2:12 pm

     I envy you.

  37. Adjoran
    March 5th, 2012 @ 2:16 pm

     You lose as concerns CJ.  LGF is now ranked in 93,000 range of blogs, TOM is some 20,000 places ahead of him via traffic.  LGF still ranks highly in links, which can only be explained by some pretty active incest over there.

  38. Adjoran
    March 5th, 2012 @ 2:18 pm

     Left wing scum:  Wolcott mentioned McCain first, you idiot.  And if you think Vanity Fair has a large readership, buy stock in it, dumbass.

  39. TB
    March 5th, 2012 @ 2:20 pm

    because before posting about someone’s irrelevance, he would be wise to be mindful of his own irrelevance. You know, pots and black kettles…

  40. K-Bob
    March 5th, 2012 @ 2:22 pm

    Do people actually read Vanity Fair? Maybe they put it on their coffee table to show off how “retro” they are to still get magazines.

    When Hitchens let loose the bonds, etc, I’m guessing the IQ of that masthead dropped a full 80 percent.

  41. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 5th, 2012 @ 2:23 pm

    Wes:  Wolcott is a odd gelatinous fish.  Don’t you watch Animal Planet?  

  42. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 5th, 2012 @ 2:24 pm

    James Wolcott’s rig…

  43. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 5th, 2012 @ 2:25 pm

    James Wolcott’s rig.

  44. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 5th, 2012 @ 2:26 pm

    I suspect he would lose as to Wolcott too.  

  45. Wombat_socho
    March 5th, 2012 @ 2:33 pm

     The Elder Gods are not pleased by this comparison. You will surely be the last to be eaten.

  46. Wombat_socho
    March 5th, 2012 @ 2:34 pm

     More like the ultimate in easy targets. Whatever Wolcott writes is almost certainly wrong, and hilariously so. You’ve been around here a while, you should know that.

  47. Wombat_socho
    March 5th, 2012 @ 2:35 pm

     ICE BURN!

  48. Wombat_socho
    March 5th, 2012 @ 2:36 pm

     We’ll take your money, fool. You know where the tip jar is, HIT IT.

  49. Wombat_socho
    March 5th, 2012 @ 2:38 pm

     I link them occasionally for the hot babe on the cover, but they haven’t had any content worth reading in decades – unless you want a target for mockery.

  50. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 5th, 2012 @ 2:57 pm

    Vanity Fair is about 95% ads.  The only reason to get it was for Hitchens.  Now there is no reason.