Posted by WLS:
And Andrew Sullivan laments that the reaction of the right to Obama’s speech merely confirms that he could never be a Republican again.
Hey Andrew — we were through with you years ago. Didn’t you get the memo? It came with the GOP endorsement of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
Powered by WordPress.
Andrew laments because Andrew feels good about himself by lamenting; it confirms his gobsmacking superiority.
ras (fc54bb) — 3/19/2008 @ 1:22 pmErr … who is Andrew Sullivan? Was he a Republican fund-raiser, precinct captain or Ward Committeeman or something?
nk (34c5da) — 3/19/2008 @ 1:28 pmI may be wrong about this, but I seem to recall reading some time ago how Mr. Sullivan did not care for people who were “one issue” voters. So this business of how gay marriage has become *everything* to him is Greek Tragedy.
Too often, we become what he abhor.
I sure hope that Barack Obama doesn’t alter his course on gay marriage, say, in hopes of attracting crossover votes in the general election. I suspect that Mr. Sullivan would explode.
Eric Blair (0211e4) — 3/19/2008 @ 1:47 pmI always found it annoying how everyone really loved Andrew back after 9/11 when the Iraq war was beginning. Just because he was a gay conservative, people thought that he was a great example of the inclusiveness wanted on the right.
I thought he acted ridiculously. He never criticized the left without making it personal. He kept up “awards” for those on the left that he disagreed with… and he used them over and over again for years like an obsessed troll. His argumentation was thin at best for his support of Bush. His positive and negative comments about anyone always found a way to be personal.
So when Andrew decided to become more palatable for his friends in the media establishment and became more critical of the administration (And obviously the gay marriage issue was a huge motivator for this), his arguments simply flipped. There’s no sensible way to follow him from then to now except that now Bush and the right are a bunch of doo doo heads and before the liberals were doo doo heads. You can’t understand our world in terms of the gravity of terrorism, Islam’s need to reform, the danger of NBC weapons in the hands of enemies, and then decide it’s just not as important as social issues that aren’t severe (anyone who thinks the average gay person does not have a good life is not paying attention… they are better educated and wealthier than the general populace even if our policies are prejudicial).
Andrew was a jerk when he was friendly towards Glenn Reynolds, George Bush, etc. But we all tolerated it because he was cute about it and he was a gay dude and we want to have diverse allies. That was stupid.
Jem (8b827b) — 3/19/2008 @ 2:11 pmMr. Sullivan should ask Rev. Wright to marry him to his boyfriend.
Rich Rostrom (7c21fc) — 3/19/2008 @ 2:12 pmHonestly, Sullivan’s hypocricy knows no ends.
When McCain shared the stage with that nutjob Hagee and issued a mealy mouthed condemnation he had this to say:
“Much, much milder than Obama on Farrakhan. And Farrakhan didn’t hold a rally for BHO. Can you imagine the vapid outcry if such a thing happened?” (source: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/mccain-on-hagee.html)
NOW, we have a guy who not only “held a rally for BHO” but has been his mentor/preacher/father figure for the 20 years and whose noxious bile is, if anything, more toxic than anything Farrakhan has said in the last 20 years, and Sully is indignation that anyone wants to make an issue of it.
“To see what is in front of one’s nose requires a constant struggle” indeed.
Sean P (e57269) — 3/19/2008 @ 2:18 pmOh and jem, there is a lot to be said about your argument that Sully makes every argument personal. Back in 2002-2003 he had a strong tendancy to lump the anti-american kook critics of the Iraq war (of which they were many) with those like Mickey Kaus, who offered a measured, levelheaded opinion that happened to differ from his own. And speaking of Kaus, why is it every time he ventures into the realm of sexual identity politics, Sullivan goes into Twister-like contrortions to decry Kaus’s comments as homophobic? What started the blood feud between those two anyway? (I have a good guess WHO started it…)
Sean P (e57269) — 3/19/2008 @ 2:31 pmHm. Shame that some of y’all (WLS, Rich) seem to think that gays don’t have any business in the Republican party.
Leaves gays conservative on what *matters* (i.e. constitutional interpretation, national defense, limited government, economy) without a candidate for whom to vote. Or, rather, leaves gay conservative voters with a nasty dilemna: vote somebody who will f*ck the country over, or somebody who will happily f*ck you over on a personal level and tell you that you’re going to hell to top it off?
Would it be that hard to stick to the idea of a limited government? To believe that our government has more pressing concerns than trying to legislate morality?
I was (mostly) happy with McCain but he’s in his “pander to the right wing of the party” stage right now. I hope he gets over it soon–I don’t really like the options across the aisle.
The way I see it the conservative community in America is coming up to a crisis of political faith: if you can’t hold on to all your principles (and stay in power to *act* on those principles), what gets dropped? Somehow I don’t see the DoMA will make the cut.
Maybe not soon–but soon enough–the Republican party will have to grow up and realize there are more important things in politics. It looks like it may take a Democratic POTUS or two screwing the nation up to shake the GOP up. Unfortunate.
jm (5d215f) — 3/19/2008 @ 3:08 pmjm…
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 3/19/2008 @ 3:11 pmPoliticians of all stripes like to legislate morality. The GOP wraps theirs around religious belief, the Dems wrap theirs around their religious fervor for environmentalism and socialism.
(yeah, the first couple bits there don’t line up. Clearly a couple writers on a blog don’t define a party. I’m talking about the same attitude writ large: as a Texan I was disappointed to see Rick Perry explicitly reject the support of the gay GOPers and sign bills into law in churches.)
jm (5d215f) — 3/19/2008 @ 3:12 pmSure politicians do like to legislate morals. Doesn’t mean I have to like it. Lord knows I agree with the Republicans on far more (even moral!) than with the Democrats. I just think the GOP is coming to a time it will have to reject some of the elements of the religious right that Bush used to his political advantage if the party wants to stay in power.
Like I said, some things matter more than others.
jm (5d215f) — 3/19/2008 @ 3:17 pmWell, I’m sure that he has polling data that shows that those actions work for him. I don’t think that it would work nation-wide.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 3/19/2008 @ 3:19 pmBut, the GOP since Reagan has prided itself on being a large tent, that gives voice to many viewpoints, even those that are not endorsed by a majority within the party – unlike the Dems who banned a popular Governor from a large Eastern state from speaking at their convention because of his pro-life stance.
Oh, one more for the road:
Since we’re on the topic of gays (and gay marriage) and I seem to be the token defender, I should offer a pre-emptive defense: these questions are for State legislatures, not for the courts or the national legislature.
Thank you and good night.
jm (5d215f) — 3/19/2008 @ 3:20 pm(which I think answers your latest, Drew).
jm (5d215f) — 3/19/2008 @ 3:20 pm“…these questions are for State legislatures, not for the courts or the national legislature.”
See, jm, you are a Conservative Republican, after all.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 3/19/2008 @ 3:21 pmNever doubted the “conservative” bit.
The “Republican” part is what’s under discussion. But since it’s a (de facto) either/or and the alternative is the Democrats …
The Republican party (or parts of it) may be through with me, but I’m not through with the Republican party!
jm (5d215f) — 3/19/2008 @ 3:39 pmjm, I am thrilled to have gays in the Republican party. It is Andrew Sullivan’s antics I got tired of many years ago.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/19/2008 @ 3:39 pmSince we’re on the topic of gays (and gay marriage) and I seem to be the token defender, I should offer a pre-emptive defense: these questions are for State legislatures, not for the courts or the national legislature.
Except that the FFC clause makes that essentially impossible. Example, random activist gets married in massachusets and moves to kansas just to try and overrule their marriage laws. So you need either congress or the supreme court stepping in to say that Sstate A is free to ignore marriages from State B if they violate their statutes. The public policy exception is flimsy to say the least.
Taltos (4dc0e8) — 3/19/2008 @ 3:46 pmExcept that the FFC clause makes that essentially impossible. Example, random activist gets married in massachusets and moves to kansas just to try and overrule their marriage laws. So you need either congress or the supreme court stepping in to say that Sstate A is free to ignore marriages from State B if they violate their statutes. The public policy exception is flimsy to say the least.
Exactly. Without DOMA, one state can dictate marriage laws for the other 49. And DOMA is subject to the whims of the Supreme Court.
aunursa (1b5bad) — 3/19/2008 @ 3:58 pmActually, last time I studied the law on the Full Faith and Credit clause, the public policy exception was pretty strong. I don’t think the clause would require a state to recognize a same-sex marriage even in the absence of DOMA.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/19/2008 @ 4:09 pmNormally I would try to argue this sort of statement, but realy, if you’re going to be an idiot about how we think AS is a douche, then I’m out.
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 3/19/2008 @ 4:13 pmjm, nobody here has said that conservatives shouldn’t include gays. People have only said that we should not have been so friendly to one particular gay person, Andrew Sullivan, who is a preening, narcissistic twit, who makes every single argument personal, and is an incurable drama queen.
It was a mistake to associate with him, not because he was gay, but despite it. Seeking out diverse viewpoints in the conservative spectrum is a good thing, but not at the cost of giving a dope like AS credibility. You won’t see anyone here criticizing GayPatriot or Classical Values like AS is being criticized, because they’re nothing like him.
Nobody here said anything about DoMA or the marriage amendment, except to talk about AS’s reaction to that issue. No one said they favored a marriage amendment, let alone that people who didn’t favor it shouldn’t be Republicans.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 3/19/2008 @ 4:59 pmDaryl/22:
I thought WLS’s post could easily be read to mean that gays generally weren’t welcome in the GOP. I don’t think jm’s interpretation stretches the words. (I’m not saying that was WLS’s intent.)
jm/multiple:
I’m with you on the basic issues. Gays in the GOP are good for the GOP. The gay marriage issue ought not generally be determined by the courts, but you can believe that there shouldn’t be a constitutional right to gay marriage and still support gay marriage.
Heck, you can believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and be pro-choice. And a Republican. I don’t think we want to throw everyone out who doesn’t toe whatever line it is we want them to.
–JRM
JRM (355c21) — 3/20/2008 @ 6:14 amYou can also not support Gay Marriage, but still support civil unions, and gays in general.
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 3/20/2008 @ 6:32 amAs seen on another blog, Andrew Sullivan is Keith Olbermann with an accent.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/20/2008 @ 6:38 amAm I correct to understand that that there are no “operational ties” between Barack Obama and Hiliary Clinton ?
Neo (cba5df) — 3/20/2008 @ 11:42 amI am a gay conservative, not particularly in favor of gay marriage, and I love to read this blog.
I am offended by the post. “We were through with you years ago. Didn’t you get the memo? It came with the GOP endorsement of the Defense of Marriage Act.”
Are you similarly through with any conservative who does not agree with you on every issue? What a bunch of crap. A mean post that only serves to alienate fringe conservatives who might otherwise be on board. Think a little bit before you post this garbage. Are you looking to grow the party? We might not have room for Andrew, but we should have room for conservative gays. Not only offensive but stupid – and I’m a fan of the site.
sbj (6cdbb4) — 3/20/2008 @ 11:57 amsbj, if you are going to take things out of context to be offended about, I don’t see that you are a “fan of the site” but I suppose that’s Patterico’s lookout.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/20/2008 @ 12:00 pmSBJ,
WLS said:
I sometimes can’t tell when people are being sarcastic online, but I’ve read WLS long enough to say that I’m sure he was being sarcastic here.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/20/2008 @ 12:09 pmsbj — No. When I wrote “We were done with you years ago” it was a comment on my part about his withdrawal from the GOP, which in my view was akin to Lincoln Chafee’s withdrawal — “What took you so long to take the hint.” Its about his heresey on all manner of GOP issues — which he just happened to find issue with only after DOMA was passed.
I was a big Andrew Sullivan fan, and I remained an Andrew Sullivan fan even after he started to go off the reservation on some GOP issues. I didn’t blame him for his critique on the execution of the war that he initially supported because I think many people who supported the war could find fault with the way it was executed.
Where I parted ways with Andrew was over the fact that when his view on DOMA lost out in the conservative debate, he took his ball and went home on a whole range of conservative issues, while still proclaiming in public that he remains a limited government, small “c” conservative — just not a Republican.
I agree with a poster on The Corner who called him really a romantic liberal at heart. He wants small government in all those areas except where he wants big government. How else to explain his swoon over Obama whose policy pronouncements to date would result in a huge expansion of government power of the everyday lives of Americans.
Its not the fact that Sullivan is gay, its the fact that he is a hypocrit. Just Google “Andrew Sullivan Hypocrisy” and you’ll find dozens of examples from both the left and right.
WLS (68fd1f) — 3/20/2008 @ 12:25 pmI understand two ways to look at it. (1) We’re through with Andrew because he’s a one issue ding-dong. (2) The sarcasm thing.
Either way, I find this sarcastic joke about the defense of marriage act offensive. Although you might agree with what the act purports to do, I doubt that you would put it in the face of a gay acquaintance in an effort to make a joke: “Ha ha! There’s the proof that us conservatives hate you! Just kiddin’, SBJ. You know I love gay people.”
You might think your sarcasm to be funny, but nine out of ten conservative gays would think it unwise to joke in this way about a sensitive topic. Although I don’t seek the right of marriage, I do seek equality – and this issue hits close to home. A little sensitivity, please, or not – it’s your decision. I’m offering perspective. You can discount it, or question my motives, but that’s what I hope you take away from my comment. I look at it in this way, although I have no great respect for criminal behavior, I think jokes about prison rape are not appropriate or particularly helpful.
I don’t feel that I am overly sensitive. Can’t you accept the idea that a gay conservative would not appreciate this sarcasm?
sbj (6cdbb4) — 3/20/2008 @ 12:37 pmTo be clear, I think Andrew Sullivan is a moron.
sbj (6cdbb4) — 3/20/2008 @ 12:39 pmSBJ,
No one appreciates it when a point hits close to home but if we eliminate every topic that someone is sensitive about, everything would be off-limits.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 3/20/2008 @ 1:31 pmQuite right, doctor. No need to make the topic off-limits. Merely a note from someone who is of the gay persuasion that such sarcastic jokes seem less than sensitive. No one has to be sensitive, and I do not suggest that anyone not joke about anything they want to. I guess the point was, if you want to attract gays to the conservative party, then you should be sensitive to their sensitivities.
Perhaps I’m off-base. Anywho – no big deal.
sbj (6cdbb4) — 3/20/2008 @ 1:47 pmI’m not a doctor, SBJ – those are my initials – and I don’t think it’s off-base to raise the issue.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 3/20/2008 @ 1:52 pmMaybe my eloquence is less than perfect.
I did NOT intend to suggest — and I apologize that I took it that way — that DOMA was intended to run gays out of the GOP, or to suggest to gay conservatives that they were not needed.
What I intended by the comment was to simply skewer Andrew Sullivan individually because the timeline of his estrangement from the GOP is strangly symmetrical to the timeline of the Bush Administration’s move in favor of DOMA.
Rather than be honest and say “I’m a one issue voter/pundit, and that issue is gay marriage”, Sullivan ginned up a whole host of policy disagreements with the GOP about which he had NEVER before expressed reservations, then goes out and writes self-congratulatory tome like “The Conservative Soul” to point out why it is that he is right and the GOP is wrong on all those issues.
My point was meant to suggest that given Sullivan’s history, GOP conservatives could have predicted that Sullivan would run shrieking into the night if DOMA passed. We didn’t care.
WLS (68fd1f) — 3/20/2008 @ 2:24 pm