Andrew Sullivan suggests it’s race: “liberal” voters under cover of the secret ballot went for the white woman. Odd for Sullivan, since he so ignores race in another context.
I think Tom Bowler has it about right: it’s the War on Terror, stupid. Democratic and Republican voters went for the person they perceived the strongest on security issues. And why shouldn’t they? Let’s be honest – the economy isn’t so bad and everybody knows it. The GNP continues to grow and an unemployment is low. No reason to panic – unless we don’t get our oil gluttony under control… which is all about national security, isn’t it?
I have no interest in anything Randy Andy Sullivan has to say any more.
Read his attempt to give Ron Paul and the Paulistinians the benefit of the doubt.
http://environmentalrepublican.blogspot.com/2008/01/andrew-sullivan-defends-ron-paul.html
Sorry Roger, I did not notice yo had already dealt with Sully’s defense of Paul.
Sullivan, a big Obama fan, will of course pin some degree of racism on white America. He receives far too much press from this site for someone who has been so very wrong in the past. Roger, he is not a conservative despite his book, his writings and his proclamations. Your fixation with what Andrew says should end.
Silly Sully is a mass of contradictions.
He was for the war in Iraq and yet supported Kerry. He says he’s for gay marriage and still remains a ‘devout’ catholic. He says he values privacy (he is against the practice called outing) and yet he said he didn’t find anything wrong with Kerry using Chaney’s lesbian daughter as a political ping pong.
I’m not surprised he likes a racist homophobe like Ron Paul.
JE, like it or not, Sullivan gets a lot of attention, pobably for much the same reason the NY Times publishes so many letters from it’s favorite “long time Republican”: the legacy media loves a “conservative” who hates the same people they do.
Given that, I don’t thnk he can be ignored, much as I’d love to.
“Andrew Sullivan suggests it’s race”
Conspiracy theories are inevitable because of the major screw up by the pollsters. Rightfully or wrongly, many blacks are likely to stay home if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party nominee. They will think that their guy was cheated by the establishment.
“I think Tom Bowler has it about right: it’s the War on Terror, stupid.”
In that case—the Republicans should easily win in November. The Democrats have no real answers to terrorism. they are now dishonest pacifists.
“…which is all about national security, isn’t it?”
Not really. I am all for cheaper energy. Unfortunately, we are going to continue positioning our troops in the Middle East for many years into the future. Energy independence will do little to change things for probably the next thirty years at the minimum.
> I am all for cheaper energy.
That would be coal, nuclear, shale oil, and drilling in Alaska and off the coast of CA and FL.
Obama proves that Colin Powell could have been president.
For those who complain I pay too much attention to A. Sull, mea culpa.
I will point out, however, that I haven’t paid much attention to him for a while until the Paul business.
Andrew Sullivan and David Brooks are two phony conservatives. Brooks, a captive of the Times and the Newshour, is a token “name only conservative, who mouths what is suppose to be a conservative alternative to that Democratic nutcase, Mark Shields, on Jim Lehrer’s Newshour. The old adage about lying with dogs applies; Sullivan with the Atlantic and Time, Brooks with the Times and Lehrer. Brooks, on air Newshour commentary, has become so whimpy, whiny and defensive that it is not worth the ten minutes to watch him soil his pants any longer.
I see many otherwise serious bloggers commenting on Andrew Sullivan saying this or that. I fail to understand why anyone would read him or take him seriously anymore. I used to be a daily reader of his Daily Dish and even a contributor. I thought he was original thinker (I still do think he was then) who had a lot of personal honesty and the ability to reflect and self criticize. I credit him with forcing me to rethink my views on gay marriage, an issue OI had little interest in, and I found his arguments in favor of it very persuasive from a conservative point of view (but then, I am not a fundamentalist Christian.)
But he lost me when he went off the deep end over the gay marriage issue back before the 2004 election, and suddenly the war, Bush and everything he had supported was now purely evil—but of course, it had nothing to do with the gay marriage issue. Utterly emotional and intellectually dishonest. He has lost every bit of the integrity, originality, ability to self criticize and, ultimately, interest he ever had. It’s perfect he supports Ron Paul. Next it will be Lyndon Larouche.
He should be ignored, not quoted aor argued with. He is no longer serious and hasn’t been for years.
Identity politics is a 20th-Century game, done and over with.
Obama reminds me of John P. Wintergreen,the Presidential candidate from the Gershwin musical Of Thee I Sing, who successfully ran on a platform of LOVE.
In 1972, Carrol O’Connor, of Archie Bunker fame,played Wintergreen in a TV special. As I recall, O’Connor did not have a bad voice.
One should not try to make analogies of life to the movies, but in this case, the shoe fits.
“I think Tom Bowler has it about right: it’s the War on Terror, stupid. Democratic and Republican voters went for the person they perceived the strongest on security issues.”
Any evidence, polling or otherwise, that Dems voted this way? Hillary certainly hasn’t been highlighting her 2002 war vote, or last year’s vote on Iran.
My take is that there was probably some sympathy for Hillary, some second looking at her once she started speaking with less entitlement and more passion. Also, a desire to take to take a slightly longer look at the bright shiny Great Black Hope, whom I still think is probably gonna win the nomination. If so, though, he’s got a huge learning curve in learning how to do this, which itslef is nothing compared to curve ahead of him if he finds away to get sworn in next January.
“Andrew Sullivan suggests it’s race”
Barack is pretty hip to the necessity of never mimicking the aspects of black culture that most non-blacks in the privacy of their own thoughts and ballot boxes find offensive or pathetic. He takes to pains to show that he’s smart and sober and as the campaign progresses, and if he gets better, he’ll do more of this. But he has to watch the preening and cockiness, which both he and his wife were slipping into this past week, when they thought he was about to be crowned. It’s one thing on the football field after scoring a touchdown, another thing when you’re trying to get people to take you seriously as a Chief Executive.
Mainly though, its not about race. To close the deal with Dems, he needs to assuage concerns about his experience and his policy ideas (or lack thereof). He’s gotta show that he’s a quick study.
“Andrew Sullivan and David Brooks are two phony conservatives.”
Can there be more than one garden variety of conservativism? Sullivan is a moderate libertarian, who mixes in neocon leanings in foreign/military policy with hostility toward traditional moral values rooted in orthodox religion. Brooks is your typical smarty pants neocon, ultra low tar version. Nothing phony about either, just two political junkies who write well enough, are well connected, and get to bloviate for a living.