You know, I used to like Andrew Sullivan. He was witty, well-spoken, and clear on his position in the War on Terror. Now I’m convinced that he’s either being paid off by the DNC or his dislike of the President on gay marriage has completely clouded a judgement. Right now Sullivan is spending his time blowing kisses to John Kerry while trying to whitewash his absolute fecklessness on the war on terrorism.
If he thinks that John Kerry is a conservative in any way, shape, or form he doesn’t have a clue what conservatism is. If he thinks Kerry’s supposed strength on the war is anything but a façade he’s decieving himself. If he thinks that a return to normalcy is what this country needs while Iran develops nuclear weapons and al-Qaeda continues to plan their next move, he’s incredibly naïve.
Sullivan has abandoned his principles and is throwing out arguments that are patently contradictory to his own position. It’s sad to see someone who was once willing to see the big picture abandon that common sense for one issue. Kerry won’t support gay marriage any more than Bush will. Kerry will not pursue this war with the vigor that Bush will. Kerry’s Quixotic attempts to curry favor with the EU are doomed to failure before they’ve begun – Sullivan should well know that the EU is trying to restrain this country, and Chris Patten, Romano Prodi, Jacques Chirac, and others have all said so very openly.
Is gay marriage worth a US constrained by the same organization that supported Saddam Hussein and now supports the murderous genocide sponsored by the Sudanese government? Is it worth the Middle East falling into shari’a? Is it worth another 9/11?
Sullivan’s crush on Kerry is both intellectually dishonest and entirely inconsistant with his previous beliefs. If Sullivan wants to punish Bush for his position on gay marriage, he should come out and say it rather than offering asinine excuses for Kerry’s feckless foreign policy.
I agree. Sullivan should just publish in large letters that his animosity towards Bush on gay marriage colors his commentary on every other issue.
It’s so transparent I can’t believe Sullivan is fooling anyone anyway.
Gosh, I guess the President declaring war on one’s sexual orientation in order to curry the vote of bigots might leave a bad taste in one’s mouth.
Jay, were you going to link to the article or just remove any ability for us to decide for ourselves? Just curious.
Done.
“bigots” is the name calling necessary? I understand if name-calling happens in jest but I don’t think it was in jest in this case.
What Sullivan and others won’t accept is that there are perfectly decent and loving people out there who are not homophobic but who do have a problem with the concept of gay marriage. Moreover, there are more people out there who have nothing against gay marriage, but who support the FMA or some variant because they don’t like the idea of a few judges deciding the issue for the whole country.
Sullivan is guilty of what the homophobes are guilty of: trying to demonize those who differ from his orthodoxy.
Hmm… it’s Sullivan’s ability to change position that is something sorely lacking in the blogosphere. Keep in mind, he was a reluctant Gore supporter through much of the 2000 campaign, until he switched his support to Bush. He doesn’t adore Kerry. He provides thoughtful analysis of not only politics, but of his own opinions. Though I frequently disagree with him, his is the finest blog on the web, if only for the glimpse it provides of a man with a very interesting and conflicted mind. How does one reconcile being Catholic, Gay, and Libertarian? Sullivan never has a clear answer to this problem, but it’s the struggle that is valuable.
Nicholas: I too have enjoyed Sullivan’s blog very much over the last two years.
However, what I don’t like about his commentary now is that he allows his viewpoint on the gay marriage issue to cloud his commentary on Bush and Kerry.
Absent this issue, I think it’s safe to conclude that Sullivan would be far more pro-Bush and far more anti-Kerry.
While Sullivan still takes his digs at Kerry, he is a lot kinder towards him than before the whole FMA issue came up.
You are right in that he is conflicted; but it is that conflict which is tainting the credibility of much of his commentary.
[qs]“bigots” is the name calling necessary?[/qs]
I guess I felt that “bigot” was the appropriate name for a person who opposes civil benefits for others that would cost them nothing.
[qs]What Sullivan and others won’t accept is that there are perfectly decent and loving people out there who are not homophobic but who do have a problem with the concept of gay marriage.[/qs]
Well, a “phobia” is what we call an irrational fear. And how else might we refer to someone so irrationally afraid of homosexuals that they refuse to grant them equal protection under the law?
Listen to the rhetoric of FMA supporters. “The American family is under attack…” That’s homophobia because the fear that gay marriage will mean the end of the American family is simply irrational.
[qs]but who support the FMA or some variant because they don’t like the idea of a few judges deciding the issue for the whole country.[/qs]
Oh, really? Like a few judges deciding the issue of interracial marriage? Like a few judges deciding who the President is?
That’s judges doing their jobs under the US Constitution. If you don’t like gay marriage then you shouldn’t have allowed the 14th Amendment. If Massachusetts didn’t want gay marriage then they shouldn’t have put “equal rights for all” in their constitution. What you apparently don’t like, though, is when the Constitution won’t let you discriminate.
Oops somehow I forgot that I wasn’t on a UBB forum. 🙂