Analyzing politcal blogs

The blog I chose to analyze was www.andrewsullivan.com. In this blog, entitled “The Daily Dish” , the author goes into detail about many different daily events. These events range from information about the Pope, to different interviews that are likely to happen on Fox News.
When reading some of the authors posts, it seems that he comments on events; not necessarily ones that are attacking a newspaper article, but also ones about announcements. For example, he writes about an announcement that says that a general and an ambassador are giving Fox News an exclusive hour long interview. He precedes to say that if they are agreeing to appear on Fox, then they should also appear on other than a purely Republican network. If these two individuals don’t, then they have to disclaim their neutrality.
To me, it doesn’t seem that he is pointing out fallacies of these events or newspaper articles. I think that he is relying on the fact that his readers understand what the fallacies are and understand the point that he is trying to make.
The only fallacy that is somewhat evident is moral equivalence. He talks about how descendants of Holocaust victims seem eager to support the “evils of totalitarianism.” He exclaims that he doesn’t understand how these two things are morally different, pointing out the fallacy of moral equivalence.
Another thing that Andrew Sullivan does is he cites different passages from some of his readers posts on his arguments. This makes him seem like he is trying to rope in some of the other readers into continue to write to him because he MAY or MAY NOT reference you in his blog.
Overall, Andrew Sullivan doesn’t really point out any flashpoints or fallacies, I think he expects his readers to be read on things like that and be in tune to the fallacies of news stations.