Andrew Sullivan endorses John Kerry.
Gee, now there’s a real shocker. I suppose he’d have endorsed McClellan over Lincoln too.
Here’s a nice refutation of Sully over at Ace of Spades HQ:
Worst. Hamlet. Ever.
Feces triumphs species.
Well the refutation ignores the fact no one is cutting and running. It also ignores the fact that the American public, not just Democrats have become increasingly tired of the stagnant nature of fighting insurgents in Iraq when a lot of Americans feel we had no business being there in the first place. As brave and strong and smart our military is, they aren’t making a huge dent in the insurgency. Will they win? I’m confident that we can get rid of the insurgents. That does not change the fact that this administration has done what is viewed by many Americans as a poor job. The whole eye off the ball argument isn’t helping either.
Will we win? Who’s to say. Even once the insurgency is eliminated, we won’t know if we’ve won til we know that Iraq will not become a hotbed of terrorist activity once we are gone. If that day ever comes.
All one can say is… Duhhh…
Hitchens is voting for Bush. Poor Old Andy… To be that wrapped up in bigotry and spite is a horrible way to live. I hope he gets over it soon.
In related news, the sun rose today, gravity kept us all safely near the ground, and we weren’t invaded by aliens from the planet Xzzrtxz.
he only surprise is that he pretended for so long that he was not sure which way he was going — bullshit.
glad he’s not a citizen and can’t vote.
I’m just happy we’re leaving Germany.
The beagle’s a Bushie.
Perhaps his endorsement will have the same effect on whatever’s left of his readership as the Guardian had on Clark County, Ohio.
I still contend that it is Johnny Edwards’ forelock that he fell in love with and that’s what turned him from a rational thinking entity to the opposite.
The essential point about Sullivan is that it is pretty damned obvious that ALL he cares about is gay marriage. That is primary to him and nothing else matters as much as that one issue. Now that strikes me as crazy, but I’m not gay and I don’t walk in his shoes. Also, there are all kinds of single issue people. You talk to one of them, you know what you are going to get. The problem is if they pretend they are something else.
What makes it sad is that Sullivan has chosen to be dishonest about this. If he just came out and said it, that would be one thing. He could have said, “I cannot support Bush because of his position on gay marriage, and I know that Kerry, whatever he may say, is not going to oppose it very much. So, I will make the most of Kerry.” Or prose of his quality along those lines.
But no. The whole tone of his writing began to change when it became clear Bush was not going to be at least neutral on the issue, and in fact was going to run by mobilizing his base of church-goers. Since that shift in his writing I have considered Sullivan dishonest and unreliable, whatever his other virtues, and have stopped reading him.
He has done himself and his readers a disservice by failing to be upfront about this.
Others may read it differently. But I see no other way to make sense of Sullivan’s behavior.
As John Cole would say — “No screaming eagle shit.” *g*
TO: Stephen Green
RE: Andrew Sullivan’s Penis…
…is more important to him than the fate of the nation.
Well, this will certainly come as a surprise to blind, deaf people living in isolation chambers on Mars.
Who the fuck cares what Andrew Sullivan thinks?
Will everyone please take it easy on Sullivan? I have great respect for the former Cart champ and Indy 500 winner. Even met him once, at his gleaming Lexus dealership in Jacksonville.
Let me get this straight — we’re supposed to fire the President for Abu Ghraib and replace him with someone whom Sullivan himself describes as “second-rate” and “undistingushed” for the sake of a “guess”?
At least the English waited until after World War II was over before they fired Churchill.
I am NOT voting for George W. Bush…but the idea that Kerry could in any we be preferable is utterly flabbergasting.
I will never again, under any circumstances, read anything Andrew Sullivan writes.
Andys endorsement of Kerry is as much a surprise as my endorsement of Bush and has about as much value.
I’ve always wondered why Sullivan was strangely silent on the marriage issue during the Clinton Administration, but during the Bush administration it became an absolute imperitive.
In the 10,000 years since the ice age ended and modern human civilization has taken place around the globe, not one civilization in that time has sanctioned what we would call gay Marriage. Gay relationships sure, but actual marriage has always meant something else, one might even say marriage is considered a somewhat “sacred” event to each civilization.
For the record and just to be clear, I dont care either way. I think “The State” has very little to say about what is and is not marriage and its been a mistake to cede that decision from religious law into secural law. So long as the state is not allowed to tell churches who they can marry and why, Im not sure I care. As soon as the state starts trying to tell the catholic church that it has to allow marriage beyond what the church itself defines, then I have a problem.
Frankly, Zsa-Zsa Gabor, Britney Spears, Elizabeth Taylor and Mickey Rooney have done as much to lower the standards for entry into the franchise as any recent activism by the alternate lifestyle community as done to raise it. We did it to ourselves folks, they didnt do it to us.
But I am curious as to why the issue which has been in place for 10,000 years everywhere on the planet needed to be solved right here and now. Can it be that we have solved all the other “civil rights” issues that the left has used to divide the conservatives and this is just one more attempt to divide the populace?
I actually support Andys positions more often than not, but I find his bigotry towards the people in ‘flyover country’ to be more than a little distasteful. For someone who belongs to a persecuted minority to find it so easy to make fun of people in the small towns of America of which the President can be said to be a poster child, is simply beyond me. How he thinks that Kerry will represent his side of the argument better is beyond comprehension. For the right votes from a larger constituency, Kerry will sell Andy and the entire gay community into purgatory. Kerry cares nothing about anything but Kerry, and Andy Knows This...
To read the Sullivan writings on character of 1999 and compare those posts to the man we see today is to see the shell of a man dealing with his mortality.
Sullivan is man in a hurry, he has an agenda and he doesnt care what twists it takes to justify it. He has my sympathy, but his reasoning is less than sound and had I made the same type of error in 1999 to justify support of Clinton, he would have said the same about me.
Good luck Andrew. Oh, its ok with with you if we agree to disgree, right?
Scientists prove ice cold, water wet.
why no anger over the fact that daniel drezner is voting kerry? he didn’t change his mind because of the FMA.
Wait a second! Andrew Sullivan is gay?!
“why no anger over the fact that daniel drezner is voting kerry? he didn’t change his mind because of the FMA.” — catherine
He’s a Twenty-something libertarian who, like Vox Day, reminds me of Emperor Claudius muttering to himself, “Let all of the poisons of the earth hatch out,” while penning the final chapter of his history of the early Roman emperors.
He’s doing it to cause our contemporary Roman empire to burn down in the aftermath of a Kerry administration.
Being a ‘libertarian’, one would expect him to vote for Badwhatzizname. But no. He wants all fellow libertarians to vote for Kerry, knowing that will have a greater chance of getting Kerry into office than voting for his regular candidate.
And like Vox Day, I think this shows definite suicidal tendancies. It’s a shame they affect the rest of US as well.
Oh yeah…I used to read him.
P.S. This thread is about Andrew Sullivan. No one mentioned Drezner until you just did. Or did Stephen start a thread on Drezner that I missed?
I used to enjoy reading Andrew Sullivan, but he has turned deaf, dumb, and blind.
This article pretty much what we’ve come to expect, but it is stunningly wrong in so many ways.
First of all, I don’t see how he can possibly look at Senator Kerry’s record and find a man who is capable of running the Presidency. Mr. Sullivan refers to Kerry’s poor record as a legislator, and wonders about the risks. President Bush hasn’t been that great, but as a popular governor of Texas and as President he has demonstrated leadership and organizational skills that Kerry can’t. Furthermore, the Kerry administration will be filled with ex-Clinton officials who will want Senator Clinton to succeed a failed Kerry first term. One look at how Kerry has organized his campaign will tell you that a Kerry Administration will be the biggest mess since the Carter Administration.
Mr. Sullivan asks us to look at the DNC convention and accept that Kerry will fight the War on Terror. Right, let’s forget about what the man has done his entire life and judge him by what he says in an extended infomercial. Even worse, neither Kerry nor Mr. Sullivan understand what the War on Terror is really all about. It isn’t just fighting Al Qeada: it means directly challenging radical fundamentalist Islam. That is the root of the problem. You can dispose of Al Qeada, but if you don’t put an end to the radical fascist philosophy that Al Qeada is supporting, new terrorist networks will just grow back.
Here is pure stupidity: “Besides, the Democratic Party needs to be forced to take responsibility for the security of the country that is as much theirs as anyone’s.” The Democratic Party, the party that I was once a proud member, has not demonstrated in recent history that it is willing to take responsibility for anything. How can we force them? Mr. Sullivan proposes that we punish the DNC in general and Kerry in particular for their wrong-headed ideas by giving them the Presidency.
Mr. Sullivan tells us that Kerry will bring in new international help to Iraq. What drugs is he on these days? In the past few days Kerry’s foreign policy has come apart like so much wet tissue. The UN can’t send troops and can’t send election officals because it isn’t safe. France and Germany have already indicated that they won’t cooperate. Kerry’s original proposal to send Indian troops was withdrawn when someone reminded the Senator that sending peace-keepers from a Hindu country to a Muslim country was not a good idea. Russia has joined the Bush re-election effort. Oh, yes, and Iran has already trashed Kerry’s plan to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
Here’s the good news: if Kerry gets elected, the violence in Iraq will end. First of all, the bad guys will be partying for days. They also know that Kerry will pull the troops out of Iraq ASAP. Why fight? They will get what they want be not fighting. (Of course, once the foreigh forces leave, the violence will start all over.) Besides, they are wasting valuable assets fighting soldiers in Iraq. It’s much better to send trained operatives into the US and Western Europe to build bombs there.
Yes, we are running up a debt. The economy has started to recover, and tax receipts are up. But here’s a news flash: we are at war, people. That’s expensive. You know what will really hurt the economy? Failure. Try showing weakness to a determined enemy. Consider the economic impact of a few suicide bombers in shopping malls or elementary schools or groups of people waiting outside a club or sporting event.
In 1996 a group of extremists declared war on the United States. They are determined, they are without conscience, and they are a significant threat.
Kerry wants to finish up Al Qeada, finish up in Iraq, and go home. He is a product of Vietnam, where we won every battle and lost the war. “Peace with honor” is not a winning strategy. Wars are won by the side that keeps coming. We have superior resources: we can grind our opponent to pieces and give the moderate voices in the Arab Street a chance reassert themselves.
Kerry is a loser. It pays to be a winner.
Sullivan has BDS to a crippling (to his credibility) degree. I view him as the Internet version of Maureen Dowd, only with fewer wrinkles.
For him to announce that he supports Kerry due to “the war” is hysterical. Like far too many bloggers and commentators, he’s fallen prey to the “Movie of the Week” view of war- it has a clearly defined beginning and a tidy end where all of the plot threads and loose ends get squared away; can be run without a single defect or mistake (unless the plot demands it); and lasts a maximum of two hours including commercial breaks.
I used to enjoy reading Andrew regularly and found his view interesting and even sometimes refreshing, especially his writing in the post-9-11 aftermath.
But I stopped reading him regularly when he became a one-note bore.
The irony is that John Kerry has so badly painted himself to into the anti-gay marriage corner that even he won’t be able to flip-flop out of it. So Andrew will have to wait Kerry’s successor to hear them wedding bell blues.
“If Kerry gets elected, the violence in Iraq will end.”
I disagree. I think Kerry’s president-elect period will be uneventful. Once he takes office I think our enemies are going to start probing attacks to see whether he really has the stones for a fight. Kerry doesn’t so he will use the increased bodycount from these attacks to reduce moral at home and speed up military withdrawl after the elections. Then he will slash the military budget when they need it to repair/rebuild after the war in order to pay for his social programming.
Is it just me? Or did Andrew Sullivan not say before the Democratic Convention that he could NOT support George W. Bush for reelection, on account of his gay marriage position? And wasn’t there some discussion before he did that that he had already said as much as soon as Bush came out in support of FMA?
This would seem to be the third time by my count that he’s said that he can’t endorse Bush.
If Kerry gets elected, the headcutters and planecrashers will have PROOF that increased violence against American targets can pay them political dividends and that highly public violence will alter the American political landscape.
If Kerry is elected, the violence will INCREASE.
Pop me into the “I no longer read Sully” bucket. I gave up as soon as he started equating gay marriage rights to interracial marriage rights .
He’s imprisoned by his circle of friends, all of which would never let him vote GOP.
As is the case with Kos, Atrios and Willis, it’ll be fun to watch Sully twist and seethe after Bush clears 300 EV.
I would like to thank Andrew for helping me see the light about the wot, But ever since Bush came down on his pet issue he lost it. So good luck at The Nation Andrew since Bush has been in the white house their readership is up 45% maybe they need a former advocate for the war to start writing for them since Hitch left.
RE: Yes, Indeed
“If Kerry is elected, the violence will INCREASE.” — DaveP
But remember, the blood will be on the hands of those who pulled the lever for Kerry.
As for the scenario with Bush, I’m willing to accept that blood on my hands. It’ll be considerably less than with Kerry.
Furthermore, the Kerry administration will be filled with ex-Clinton officials
IMO, that’s one hell of a good reason not to vote for Kerry- Clinton’s foreign policy was a disaster… and the people who made it that way is who Kerry would be recruiting from for his administration.
Ick. Carter II, indeed…
I read Andy (briefly) a couple of years ago and maybe it’s just me, but it seemed I often agreed with him, he seemed to lean right on economics, maybe past the right…libertarian almost. And then, grief, oh you’re gay Andy? ok, so be it. Oh, you’re gay again, so be it, get off it now. He’s just become a 1 tune crooner…how anyone, left, right, agnostic, how do you read that shit? Even if you smoke cock…doesn’t it get old reading about smoking cock?
Open up Sully’s page these days and…MEGO.
Andrew Sullivan? Didn’t he used to be a blogger?
RE: More on the violence in Iraq if Senator Kerry wins
As I recall, the al-Zarqawi memo from February lamented that the insurgents had been unable to get the Americans to leave. If his goal is to get the Americans to leave, then continued fighting in the streets of Iraq is counter-productive. If the enemy simply waits, President Kerry will declare victory (or “Peace with honor”). America either leaves or leaves behind a token force as part of a United Nations deployment. That way the enemy doesn’t have to take on Marines — just Iraqi security forces and maybe some UN forces in pretty blue helmets.
Al-Zarqawi said, “It [America]is looking to a near future, when it will remain safe in its bases, while handing over control of Iraq to a bastard government with an army and police force that will bring back the time of (saddam) Husayn and his cohorts.” Obviously he is very afraid that the US and its allies will remain in Iraq in relatively secure bases, influencing the region but limiting our exposure. And the enemy responded to that threat by taking the fight to the streets.
At the second debate, President Bush talked about building bases in Iraq. Kerry responded by saying that he did not want those bases built.
It seems to me that Kerry is prepared to give al-Zarqawi what he wants without having to fight for it.
OK, you convinced me – Andrew Sullivan has lost it, ever since he became a single-issue cipher over the issue of gay marriage.
Jimmy lileks just kicked the snot out of Andys endorsement:
Andy also has hitch endorsing Kerry, but I cant see how that squares with this:
unless somethings changed in 4 days…
I told Lawrence Simon to ignore Sully and he went off on me but I still think its a good idea.
I guess it did not like my html:
I also read Sullivan unti he became a one issue guy. Now even if someone links to him, and it looks as though it may be interesting, I am loathe to click and give his blog the hit.
The dishonesty in his saying that his endorsement of Kerry has to do with the war is particularly bothersome. Maybe after he got so angry about the gay marriage issue, he managed to truly convince himself that the war was going badly. . .
| VIEW MOBILE SITE
Copyright © 2005-2015 PJ Media All Rights Reserved. v1.000049f