Patterico's Pontifications

5/14/2009

Andrew Sullivan giving himself whiplash on Obama

Filed under: General — Karl @ 9:10 am



[Posted by Karl]

Is the thrill is gone for Excitable Andy?  Yesterday, he turned on Our President with a lengthy screed on the issue of — wait for it — gay rights:

Here we are, in the summer of 2009, with gay servicemembers still being fired for the fact of their orientation. Here we are, with marriage rights spreading through the country and world and a president who cannot bring himself even to acknowledge these breakthroughs in civil rights, and having no plan in any distant future to do anything about it at a federal level. Here I am, facing a looming deadline to be forced to leave my American husband for good, and relocate abroad because the HIV travel and immigration ban remains in force and I have slowly run out of options (unlike most non-Americans with HIV who have no options at all). (Emphasis mine.)

(Apparently, someone left the “for better or worse” out of his gay marriage vows.  But I digress.)

Anyway, that was posted on May 13, 2009, at 12:07 p.m.  Approximately one hour later, Sully was ripping Obama’s decision to fight the release of detainee photos, summarily dismissing the notion that their release would endanger the troops.  A half-hour later, he was calling Obama the “Neocon In Chief.” An hour and a half later, he was attacking Obama’s decision to curtail intelligence-sharing if the British High Court discloses new details of the treatment of a former Guantanamo detainee, writing “those of us who have tried to give Obama the benefit of the doubt must concede that there is no longer any benefit or any doubt.”

Just a day before his deportation diatribe, he was defending Obama’s decision to curtail intelligence-sharing.  What a difference a day makes.

When Sullivan turned on the Bush Administration with a vengeance, many said it was due to Pres. Bush deciding to publicly support a Constitutional amendment which would have limited marriage in the US to unions of one man and one woman.  Sullivan denied this, claiming that Abu Ghraib was what turned him.  Yet we now see him turn on Pres. Obama less than four months into his presidency, and it is just sheer coincidence that Sullivan is filled with personal pique over Obama’s failure to save Sullivan’s gay marriage. 

Sullivan likely realized how bad this looked (or got one of his famed e-mails tipping him to it), as he has since suggested that “it’s too early to write Obama off” on gay rights and that a “real judgment will be possible as his first term comes to an end.”  But considering that Obama is unlikely to be impeached over any of Sullivan’s hobby horses, what option does Sullivan really have?  It’s a non-concession concession. 

Meanwhile, Sullivan is spending one day warning Obama that “covering up war crimes, refusing to proscute them, promoting those associated with them, and suppressing evidence of them are themselves violations of Geneva and the UN Convention,” while the next day defending Obama, arguing that our “soldiers deserve a chance to do their astonishingly difficult job without inflaming those who might be inspired to kill and attack them.” He sees “no reason to suspect that Obama is not genuine” about someday divulging all info on the interrogations, though there is every reason to suspect Obama and Sullivan are not genuine about it, given that Sullivan excuses Obama’s renditions policy.  Apparently, it has not occurred to Sullivan that Obama may simply be caving to the CIA to protect himself and his party from damaging releases of information about their complicity in the interrogations.

I recognize that posts about the unhinged Sullivan usually prompt a smattering of comments wondering why anyone should care about his little rants.  Thus, it is worth noting that he has one of the biggest blogs on the Internet.  He accounts for well over half the traffic to The Atlantic’s website, which implies that he has hundreds of thousands of readers daily.  He is still taken seriously by the establishment media, despite trafficking in bizarre conspiracy theories for years.  And Pres. Obama reads his blog — and gets misinformed by it.  Indeed, for all we know, Sullivan may be desperately bidding for attention in the hopes that Obama or one of his flunkies will exert influence regarding his immigration status.  Regardless, it is worth noting the enabling of the Internet’s version of a sandwich board-wearing lunatic, spewing nonsense at random pedestrians.

–Karl

105 Responses to “Andrew Sullivan giving himself whiplash on Obama”

  1. Summer has arrived unusually early.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (75d84b)

  2. Depending on how this plays out, his attacks against Obama may have been his jumping the rainbow shark.

    Ray (9c6b5f)

  3. This pretty much confirms you are a homophobe.

    JD (1c1e84)

  4. Karl – He reads Andrew Sullivan so you don’t have to!

    Thanks for that last paragraph. I gave up on him so long ago, that I forget how influential he really is. Which is sad, given his diminished capacity for reason.

    carlitos (aa025a)

  5. I was wondering when Sullivan was going to say something about Obama’s lack of response regarding gay marraige. Whether one agrees with it or not, the recent bills in Iowa and Maine do represent a cultural benchmark that a supposedly progressive president would be trumpeting. Instead, the press gets a curt, milquetoast response from Gibbs when asked about it, and nothing at all from Obama himself.

    The only explanation for Sullivan’s and other lefties confusion on why Obama hasn’t addressed this is because they didn’t believe him when he said during the campaign that he believed marraige should be between a man and a woman. They believed he just said that to placate the “knuckle-dragging puritan rednecks,” and would quickly change his tune once in office. Considering his actions in regards to the economy when he essentially ran as a fiscal conservative on taxes and overall spending, their confusion is perhaps understandable.

    Now, it’s still early in his presidency, and if more states pass laws allowing gay marraige, I have no doubt Obama will see where things are heading and praise their passage–I do recall him saying that he felt the states should make that choice, after all. But I think this is a case where he is wary of pissing off his African-American constiuency–whose overall support for gay marraige is mild, at best and downright hostile at worst–and wants to see broader action nationwide before acknowledging it.

    Sullivan should understand that this issue is strictly political with Obama, but because it’s so personal with him, he uses it as a litmus test and clearly projects that onto his broader assessments of Bush and Obama.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  6. That his rantings find such a wide audience says much about the decline in the quality of intellectual thought in the U.S., and why we find ourselves in our present predicaments.
    We seemed to do much better when the nation-wide scold was Samuel Clemmens or Will Rogers.

    AD - RtR/OS! (be40b1)

  7. Could someone fill me in on why Andi is going to have to leave (divorce??) his partner and leave the country?

    Techie (9c008e)

  8. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth, Techie.

    Steverino (69d941)

  9. Techie,

    The Sullivan quote is “because the HIV travel and immigration ban remains in force and I have slowly run out of options.” Seems like the government is close to concluding he has overstayed his welcome.

    Karl (f07e38)

  10. “Sullivan may be desperately bidding for attention in the hopes that Obama or one of his flunkies will exert influence regarding his immigration status.”

    That is a probably another correct perception of yours, Karl.

    SarahW (fdd722)

  11. I second (or third) the suggestion: this is just Mr. Sullivan’s version of “Barack will pay my mortgage.”

    Or…

    Look at meeeeeee.”

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  12. Maybe he should write a note to the White House:

    “I won’t be ignored!”

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  13. Like a constantly – spurned lover, Andy keeps lookin’ for love in all the wrong places. And it was ever thus.

    Karl, at the risk of threadjacking, Ms. Botox now says that BUSH LIED! to her about the waterboarding.

    http://www.yahoo.com/?fr=fp-yie8

    Funny how their hallowed Sgt. Schultz – like explanations always come in handy, eh? “I know nooooothinnnnggg!”

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  14. Dmac, I don’t think that will wash. There were too many witnesses.

    But not to worry. There is plenty of room underneath the Barack Bus of Hope and Change.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  15. What’s that line from Ghost of A Flea, “Sarah’s doesn’t seem so bad now, does she” It was applied first to Hitchens, but it fits in his case.I know he’d never admit that, but she did makeaffirmative
    measures to protect gay marriage, despite her personal beliefs. Obama has come around to the right position, but without the legal
    justification.

    narciso (996c34)

  16. I’ve been saying for over a year that Sullivan would turn on Obama with a vengeance just like he did with Bush and Clinton — and even I’m surprised just how quickly this crush soured. Four months? That’s it? It took Sully almost 3 years to sour on Bush (sorry, the pun was unavoidable).

    Sean P (e57269)

  17. I thought the “whiplash” thing was another fellatio joke.

    Leviticus (793133)

  18. Barcky told them that he is a theocrat previously, that his religion informs his politics, and that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. Given the fact that his words cease having meaning the moment they pass over his lips, it is fair that Andrew is confused. It is his natural state.

    JD (f1dcf3)

  19. Perhaps the revelation that Obama reads Sullivan’s blog, or at least gather bogus quotes from there, has led Sullivan to direct any number of wayward thoughts Obama’s way in the hopes that he might gain attention.

    sierra (dfb2fa)

  20. How could Sully think that Duh-1 would extend any more consideration to him than he has his illegal-alien Aunt in Boston, or his half-brother in a Kenyan slum?

    AD - RtR/OS! (be40b1)

  21. The left has thought processes that are difficult for non-left (I call them “normal”) people to understand. They are obsessed with Republicans, for one thing. They WON THE ELECTION for chrissakes ! Now, go off and play with your own toys. Look at Washington Monthly’s blog. Every post is about Republicans. My personal favorite is calling us “sore losers.” My God ! They wrote the book on sore losers after 2000.

    Then the “teabagger” stuff about the tea parties. They were all giggling about the joke when the people attending the tea party rallies didn’t know what they were talking about. Obscene gay jokes are not something most of us are up to date on.

    Now they are defending Pelosi. They see no hypocrisy because only Republicans can be hypocrites.

    The mind of the leftist is a subject that a PhD in neuroscience could write a dissertation about.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  22. But Sullivan is a “conservative.” All the wire services say so.

    Mitch (890cbf)

  23. Mike K – that was a great link. Thanks. Olbergasm never seems to play well with others, it is his history.

    JD (99d9b9)

  24. He is a racist.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  25. Another Chris: I’m annoyed at President Obama over his foot-dragging on DADT, since repealing it was one of his campaign promises; but I’m willing to give him at least a year before getting pissed about it. As for gay marriage … I never expected him to make a federal issue of it, and I think his position on it is about what I expect of center-left politicians of his generation, so I’m not surprised. (I *would* like to see the federal immigration rules so that people who are in marriages which a state recognizes are treated as married for immigration purposes, but I think the push for that probably has to come from Congress).

    Basically, while I expect the Democratic party leadership in my state to support gay marriage, I understand that California isn’t necessarily representative of the nation, and don’t expect national-level politicians to do so until the issue is open for debate in more states.

    Techie: if he’s not legally allowed to stay in the country, he must leave … and the immigration rules don’t allow him to qualify for a spousal visa even if the state he lives in recognizes his marriage.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  26. and the immigration rules don’t allow him to qualify for a spousal visa even if the state he lives in recognizes his marriage.

    Which is stupid, and frankly I suspect that a Supreme Court case could be made for it.

    Frankly, I think Justices Scalia and Thomas would come down on Sullivan’s side… And god wouldn’t that drive Andy insane? :)

    And for the record, as a guy waiting to go to MEPS so he can go to Parris Island, I don’t really like DADT, and would have no problem if the US Military changed it’s stance regarding gays in the military. I’ll serve with anyone, regardless of gender, race, creed, or sexual orientation so long as they want to serve the United States and defend the Constitution, and if they don’t try to get in my pants…

    Ok, the hot chicks can try. They will likely succeed as well.

    So, it’s like I’m willing to meet half-way on the issue… :)

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  27. Scott, I’m sure that JD would denounce you for your heteronormative tendencies.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  28. Karl, at the risk of threadjacking, Ms. Botox now says that BUSH LIED! to her about the waterboarding.

    I am constantly amazed how a blithering retard like Bush was able to consistently and completely trick these people…

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  29. Racist homophobes, all of you.

    JD (99d9b9)

  30. Olbermann has always alienated everyone he’s ever worked with, beginning with his days at ESPN (when I really liked his work, believe it or not). He’s just a mean SOB, and he seems to specialize in humiliating the women he works with – just ask the very capable Suzie Kolber at ESPN. I see no difference between him and Franken’s days at SNL, except that Franken had a modicum of talent as a writer.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  31. Scott,

    I’ve been flamed here for saying that, but I agree. I didn’t know many people on active-duty who really cared. Most of us knew who was gay and as long as they were at least as discrete as the straights, it was ignored. DADT is a joke in theory and practice. Just my opinion of course, YMMV.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  32. Hell, I WANNA serve with the gay guys… More chicks for me when we go on leave, and if they have a crush on me, they might dive onto that grenade a little bit faster. :)

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  33. All non-citizens who have certain communicable diseases, including HIV, are inadmissible to the United States. They can be turned back at any port of entry. A waiver is available to spouses of U.S. citizens. That’s how I read the gist of Sullivan’s complaint. He cannot leave the U.S. without fear that he will never be allowed to return.

    nk (a1896a)

  34. Well said, Scott and Stash.

    JD (99d9b9)

  35. A waiver is available to spouses of U.S. citizens.

    And then the issue becomes, if they’re living in a state where their marriage is legal, should the waiver be available to them?

    I suspect that a Supreme Court case could be made for it.

    eventually it will be.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  36. A waiver is available to spouses of U.S. citizens.

    And thus, since he is legally married – at least in the state he currently resides in – Sully should get a wavier.

    At least that’s my view of it, and no fan of Sullivan’s am I.

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  37. Scott: I suspect that DOMA precludes that.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  38. Comment by Dmac — 5/14/2009 @ 11:46 am

    KO pulled the same stuff here in L.A. when he was the sports guy on one of the network outlets.
    Some of us were quite pleased when he left for back east.

    AD - RtR/OS! (be40b1)

  39. aphrael, California has a Republican governor and just passed a proposition that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. That sounds pretty “representative of the rest of the country” to me. Excluding New England, anyway.

    Olbermann really is a sexist jerk.

    carlitos (aa025a)

  40. Good post.

    Like NK, I thought Sullivan was referring to the fact that if he leaves, he may not be able to gain re-entry because of his HIV status. Presumably that status could have kept him from re-entry in the past but apparently it hasn’t, even during the Bush years.

    However, it appears Sullivan now believes his HIV status will prevent him from returning if he leaves the US. Maybe the laws have changed, or maybe he knows/believes he won’t be granted a waiver, or maybe it’s something else. But it doesn’t sound like Sullivan is going to be deported, only that he is worried he will be denied re-entry.

    If this is the case, I can’t help but wonder: Why is foreign work and travel so important that Sullivan is willing to give up living with his husband in the US?

    DRJ (f55947)

  41. aphrael, California has a Republican governor and just passed a proposition that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. That sounds pretty “representative of the rest of the country” to me. Excluding New England, anyway.

    Olbermann really is a sexist jerk. For instance.

    carlitos (aa025a)

  42. Carlitos: I don’t think you could get 46% of the country to vote for legalizing gay marriage if there were a nationwide referendum. And certainly you couldn’t get 60%+, which is what happened in the counties in my region of the state. Furthermore, domestic partnerships have now become completely uncontroversial, which isn’t true in much of the country.

    Also, I think you’ll find that most conservatives think our Republican governor is a RINO; on most issues he’s at the leftmost edge of the Republican party.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  43. DRJ, I find that interpretation hard to square with “facing a looming deadline to be forced to leave my American husband for good, and relocate abroad”. I read that as saying that there’s some date at which he has to leave the country.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  44. Furthermore, domestic partnerships have now become completely uncontroversial, which isn’t true in much of the country.

    They certainly aren’t in Alaska… :)

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  45. Basically, while I expect the Democratic party leadership in my state to support gay marriage, I understand that California isn’t necessarily representative of the nation, and don’t expect national-level politicians to do so until the issue is open for debate in more states.

    What really tubed gay marriage in CA was the big turnout of blacks for Obama. You would expect them to vote left but they don’t on this issue. I don’t know if the Hispanic turnout was as much above normal but they probably are also anti-gay voters.

    Scott, on the DADT issue, what a lot of people fear is aggressive testing by gay activists who may also plan to go after churches that decline to perform gay weddings. I could see attempts to have gay bars, etc. The active duty troops are probably not going to be the problem. The people who used to invade mass at St Patrick’s Cathedral in NYC are the type to force every issue.

    Why, for example, was that gay retired general at the Obama rally protesting ? I can see he was really discriminated against. Only one star. The urge to test the system is the enemy of the people who just want to be left alone.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  46. I didn’t know he had an immigration problem. Is that why he got married?

    Also, if this “visiting in the hospital” is such an issue, why aren’t hetero couples outraged about this? Fewer and fewer people are getting married all the time.

    Patricia (94c68d)

  47. One of my favorite thought exercises is the “how would they have reacted if Bush said that” exercise. Just imagine Bush stating that his religion informs his politics, leading him to believe marriage should continue to only be between a man and a woman.

    JD (99d9b9)

  48. I wonder whether he was never a green card but was istead L or H visa and has now run out of extensions. He may be over-dramatizing the HIV part and maybe not — grounds of inadmissibility extend to granting of immigrant status. H1s and L1s can convert to green card after a certain period of time without benefit of a spouse but not if they have certain communicable diseases. And, then, green cards can be excluded because of a communicable disease without a waiver. Considering that this is Andrew Sullivan one thing we know for sure — we don’t know all the facts.

    nk (a1896a)

  49. aphrael,

    You certainly may be right, but that implies he fears deportation and his other comments don’t square with that either. As NK’s last comment notes, there may be several layers to this story. My point was that it’s not clear whether Sullivan is being forced out of the country, or that he feels forced out because his choices have been limited.

    DRJ (f55947)

  50. I guess we should be happy that for a couple of days Excitable Andy is not obsessing over Trig Palin’s lineage.

    JD (99d9b9)

  51. This is sad for Sullivan.

    Even if the tragedy is invented in his head, feeling like you can’t live in America would really suck for someone who loves to express dissenting views and has a relationship with an American.

    Andrew’s a jerk and a dishonest editorialist, but it’s still too bad he’s miserable. And I didn’t know it was confirmed he had AIDS… which does make it plausible as hell that his mental strangeness was assisted by his medicine.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  52. aphrael, you are right and of course I was just teasing you a bit about California. Once you get outside of the big cities though, it isn’t a super-liberal place, if I remember the electoral red/blue county map.

    carlitos (aa025a)

  53. I think it speaks volumes that the president is angering both the far left (Sullivan) and the far right (this site, talk radio, etc.)

    That tells me he is steering a middle course the rest of Americans will like.

    Chris Matthews said something about extremists on both sides I’ve found instructive. He said they are like two little dogs carried under the arms of their owners. When the owners pass on the street, the two dogs bark at each other.

    There are entire “controversies” that basically amount to a back-and-forth between the true believers on both sides but do not concern 85 percent of the rest of the country. I have certainly taken part in a few of these narrow debates.

    True leadership means ignoring the barking sometimes and doing what’s best for the country. The president’s attempt to block the release of those interrogation photos is another example.

    Myron (98529a)

  54. What really tubed gay marriage in CA was the big turnout of blacks for Obama. You would expect them to vote left but they don’t on this issue. I don’t know if the Hispanic turnout was as much above normal but they probably are also anti-gay voters.

    This is true. Blacks overwhelmingly voted for Prop 8. Most blacks and Latinos are socially conservative. It is a rift in the Democratic Party that Republicans could exploit, if not for other issues that make the party unappealing for minorities.

    That said, I have noticed strong conservative support for Rubio in Florida, who will be taking on Crist.

    And of course, Steele was overall a good choice, but he must be cut loose and not be seen begging forgiveness from the likes of Rush. That sunk him in the eyes of blacks, to be seen cow-towing to Rush in an era of a black president.

    Myron (98529a)

  55. I suspect that your benign interpretation is not widely shared here, Myron – specifically because many of the things that Obama campaigned on have now suddenly become open to his whims and/or political expediency. No one knows what the man truly thinks about anything at this point, other than big gov’t can solve all of our problems indefinitely and that the US should immediately apologize for all of it’s sins to the rest of the world. BTW, using the infamous “got a thrill up my leg” Chrissy is a highly debatable choice for an analogy – no one was more in the tank for Teh One than Chrissy, so anything his guy does is easily explainable and excusable.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  56. Myron — it simply means that he was an equal-opportunity liar.

    Shipwreckedcrew (7f73f0)

  57. Myron, there is no “middle course” being steered. Rather the President is telling people what he thinks he needs to, with little intention of being committed thereby.

    SPQR (72771e)

  58. Myron,

    The course Obama is steering is whatever increases his own power.

    Karl (f07e38)

  59. Dmac: Do you think the U.S. is flawless?

    Myron (98529a)

  60. Myron pushes the same memes every time he graces us with his wisdom. There is nothing centrist about taking over healthcare. There is nothing centrist about using government money to take over private industry. There is nothing centrist about global warming alarmist theories and institution of cap and trade. There is nothing centrist about bullying auto makers. There is nothing centrist about rewarding the UAW at the expense of the people who had invested in a company. There is nothing centrist about racking up 4x the deficits in a few months that were so evil when Bush did it. There is nothing centrist about redistribution of wealth, transfer payments, and class warfare. Kudos to Barcky for the couple issues where he has done the right thing, despite the Left spending years lying about those same issues to gain political points.

    JD (d48a30)

  61. Dmac never stated or even implied that the US is flawless, Myron.

    JD (d48a30)

  62. SPQR: Have you heard that quote: “I change my mind when the facts change, sir. What do you do?”

    Some of his changes have been related to getting in there, reading intelligence briefings and being the person responsible for the whole shebang. For instance, he recognized he could not withdraw troops from Iraq as dramatically as he intended — again to the anger of the left.

    There is not a president who did exactly what he said he would on the campaign trail. Remember when Bush 43 vowed he would never engage in nation-building? We’re building two nations, as we speak, or trying anyway.

    Myron (98529a)

  63. JD: I agree that YOU post the same criticisms, CLAIMING that I post the same “memes.” I believe one of my first set of posts I was arguing against the denigration of FDR. Now, how is that the same “meme” as what I’m writing here? Explain, please.

    Myron (98529a)

  64. Rush, calling this site an example of the “extreme right”, spewing standard Leftist canards … YMMV

    JD (d48a30)

  65. Myron, not a single fact has changed for each and everyone of Obama’s flip flops.

    Except that he does not need your vote any longer.

    If you are claiming that Obama’s positions before inauguration were based on his ignorance, I’m tempted to agree with you.

    But we both know that is completely false. Obama’s positions were based on what he thought he needed to say to get elected and nothing more.

    SPQR (72771e)

  66. I suspect that your benign interpretation is not widely shared here, Myron

    Of course not, dmac. In my original post, I listed this site as one of the barking dogs.

    If the president saved a woman from a burning building and she bruised her leg, people here would attack him for bruising her leg.

    Myron (a5d1ef)

  67. I should add that this site is by no means the most doctrinaire out there … If it was all just ranting, I would never drop by and give you all a collective thrill up your legs.

    Myron (a5d1ef)

  68. Dmac never stated or even implied that the US is flawless,

    I was just reacting to the (drumroll) meme, oft-repeated, that Obama is on an apology tour, when he is merely acknowledging that the U.S. is not perfect. You might be surprised at the amount of goodwill such a simple sentiment can inspire among other nations, who, like it or not, we will have to work with going forward.

    Myron (a5d1ef)

  69. Myron, not a single fact has changed for each and everyone of Obama’s flip flops.

    So: You believe that if you sat down with our best minds in intelligence and the military, who told you some of your plans would have to be modified for the sake of our troops or for the war effort, you would ignore them and go forward with your plans anyway? I’m glad you’re not the president. We just had one like yourself, and that didn’t work out too well.

    The president has always aid he would listen to the commanders on the ground.

    And as for Andrew Sullivan’s initial complaint, I don’t recall Obama promising to make any big move forward on some big push for gay marriage. He, in point of fact, stayed away from the issue.

    Myron (a5d1ef)

  70. That’s “has always said” btw.

    Myron (a5d1ef)

  71. So, myron admits is it just here to give people a thrill up their legs. I suppose myron can show us the tangible benefits of Baracky “apology tour”, as he called it.

    You will note that I commended him for changing to Bush’s position on many issues, so the idea that we would criticize Baracky for anything exists only in your head.

    JD (e5f48b)

  72. Some of his changes have been related to getting in there, reading intelligence briefings and being the person responsible for the whole shebang

    Oh, of course those are the underlying reasons for his abrupt about – face on those issues – except he was a sitting Senator, for goodness sake! Ignorance is no excuse for at least trying to do the basest level of your job -that explanation doesn’t wash in the slightest.

    In my original post, I listed this site as one of the barking dogs.

    And you point to this with some sort of pride on your behalf? That’s what you consider to be your exemplar of insight and acumen, yes? And you also expect to be treated with a degree of respect after that lovely preamble? Sheesh.

    Please try harder next time – this was really a weak effort on your part.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  73. That is not at all what Baracky has always said, Myron. Go look at his responses in the Philadelphia debate.

    JD (e5f48b)

  74. You might be surprised at the amount of goodwill such a simple sentiment can inspire among other nations, who, like it or not, we will have to work with going forward

    No doubt – but please read the enclosed link from the respected historian Victor Davis Hanson on how well that “apology tour” has worked out so far, and please get back to us with your comments:

    http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=N2RhYmQxNDVmYzY3N2JiMjZmOGYyYTAwZjEwYWZkODQ=

    Of course, Hanson’s not at the level of that worldly and respected commentator Chrissy Matthews, but he’ll have to suffice for now.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  75. Beldar’s got a great post up today about Obama and the Kewl kids acting like tots in a candy store trying to transform the country. No discipline, just ideology!

    http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2009/05/obamas-budget-smart-people-decided-what-we-need-to-do-with-no-limits-and-no-concern-about-revenues.html

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  76. Daley – That was an excellent post by Beldar. Thanks for the link.

    JD (410197)

  77. When Sullivan turned on the Bush Administration with a vengeance, many said it was due to Pres. Bush deciding to publicly support a Constitutional amendment which would have limited marriage in the US to unions of one man and one woman. Sullivan denied this, claiming that Abu Ghraib was what turned him.

    Ohhh, so that’s what happened.

    He was jealous.

    N. O'Brain (51f22b)

  78. daleyrocks – While I respect Beldar and think find his post illuminating as to the beliefs of those commenting on the supposed budgeting process, I find that Karl’s link at NRO is actually a better explanation for the actions of the White House. I don’t believe ideology has much to do with it.

    “It’s not personal Sonny, It’s just business.”

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  79. By the way, I agree with JD that it’s a good link (and should have said so), I just think that there’s a danger in misinterpreting what the Obama Administration is trying to achieve. The pursuit of power at any costs, to me, explains the mish-mash of actions taken by the White House far better than the pursuit of a single ideology.

    And the idea that there was any attempt to solve the economic problem is laughable. They just can’t allow it to implode, as that can reset everybody’s clock. But a permanent crisis state…?

    The left will get some of their wishes, unless those wishes make it dangerous for the Obama administration.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  80. Apogee – I like daley’s anaolgy of letting the kids loose in a candy store, unsupervised, and with no rules.

    JD (410197)

  81. I also agree that power is the ultimate goal. Note how the standard canards of consolidation of power, power grab, etc … have not been uttered by the Left since Barcky won. A clearer case of projection may never have been seen.

    JD (410197)

  82. Aphrael: As for gay marriage … I never expected him to make a federal issue of it, and I think his position on it is about what I expect of center-left politicians of his generation, so I’m not surprised.

    That is presuming, though, that Obama is in fact a center-left politician. I’ve seen very little in the way of his policies or actions to indicate he is anywhere near the center. His whole political background is one of a rabble-rousing self-interested ward heeler, not a practical politician.

    Apogee: The pursuit of power at any costs, to me, explains the mish-mash of actions taken by the White House far better than the pursuit of a single ideology.

    One should consider, though, whether those are linked or not. If the naked pursuit of power is a keystone of the single ideology, that makes the end results far more sinister, imo.

    Another Chris (a3bb8f)

  83. Myron, #71, those commanders were always available to any senator who wanted to talk to them … ie., were not busy campaigning instead of doing their jobs as senators. I repeat: not a single fact has changed for each and everyone of Obama’s flip flops.

    SPQR (72771e)

  84. Myron writes: You might be surprised at the amount of goodwill such a simple sentiment can inspire among other nations, who, like it or not, we will have to work with going forward.

    I would indeed be surprised if any significant positions changed in the world. Because the world does not operate on good will. It operates on interests. And the world’s interests did not change because Obama was elected. That’s just one of the many naive illusions held by Obama voters.

    SPQR (72771e)

  85. Another Chris – If the naked pursuit of power is a keystone of the single ideology, that makes the end results far more sinister, imo.

    Yes, except that that is not an ‘ideology’ that can be sold to the voting public. “Vote for us, we want to accumulate infinite power!” Although it may be the reality of political interaction the selling point is always the ‘helpful’ angle. The Democratic line has always been “we’re accumulating power to help the little guy”, and the Republican line has been “we’re accumulating power to help keep the government off your back and out of your wallet.” In practice, neither party has been effective in achieving either their goals or outcomes.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  86. That is presuming, though, that Obama is in fact a center-left politician. I’ve seen very little in the way of his policies or actions to indicate he is anywhere near the center.

    I’m pretty sure that it wouldn’t take too much arm twisting to get the guy now in the Oval Office to change his tune and become a — if not big supporter then certainly a — lukewarm supporter of same-sex marriage. However, there is a small possiblity that some of his personal history with Islam — which has more of a pro-machismo, anti-Western-decadence kick to it — may be subtly affecting his opinion on such matters. If so, then good for Islam, good for Barry. And an example that even a broken-clock religion like the one founded by ruthless, pro-assasination Mohammed will tell the correct time twice a day.

    As for Andrew Sullivan, there’s a possibility the HIV virus he’s carrying may be gnawing away at portions of his mind — eg, it is known that he has been on the hunt for guys to have unprotected sex with — making him more and more schizoid and nonsensical as each day goes by.

    Mark (411533)

  87. “I don’t believe ideology has much to do with it.”

    Apogee – How do they decide what needs to be transformed?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  88. “In practice, neither party has been effective in achieving either their goals or outcomes.”

    Apogee – How long has it been since the Democrats sontrolled both houses of Congress and the Presidency when they have prscticed this little restraint? Of course they are not going to call it the outright pursuit of power or fascism or whatever as a mechanism for the government to force its solutions down everyone’s throats. It’s social justice or shared sacrifice or saving the earth from the made up doom of global warming or some other bullshit.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  89. “While I respect Beldar and think find his post illuminating as to the beliefs of those commenting on the supposed budgeting process”

    Apogee – I found the direct quotes from somebody intimately involved in the budgeting process very illuminating, especially when they compared it to other budgets.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  90. It shows a complete lack of anything resembling restraint.

    JD (410197)

  91. I liked the Beldar link, too. Thanks, daley (and Beldar).

    DRJ (f55947)

  92. Some of his changes have been related to getting in there, reading intelligence briefings and being the person responsible for the whole shebang

    Well, then.

    While he’s out apologizing to various countries that hate us, perhaps he can spare an apology for George W. Bush?

    Mars vs Hollywood (788077)

  93. Who is Andrew Sullivan and why should anyone care what his opinions are?

    mhr (489902)

  94. Who is Andrew Sullivan and why should anyone care what his opinions are?

    Someone is incapable of reading an entire post…

    Scott Jacobs (2899a7)

  95. And of course with respect to Myron, I have not even begun to reference Obama’s little comments about the evils of deficit spending ….

    SPQR (72771e)

  96. SPQR – But Bush had deficits, therefore Barcky has to spend four times as much in deficit to fix those little deficits Bush left him because of crony capitalism and deregulation !!!

    JD (26bc30)

  97. JD, the problem with your parody is that its exactly what we hear from Democrats.

    SPQR (72771e)

  98. And, it makes not a lick of sense no matter who types it … 😉

    JD (26bc30)

  99. daleyrocks – How do they decide what needs to be transformed?

    That’s my point. It seems to me that what seems to be schizophrenic decisions from an ideological viewpoint – about face on FISA, NAFTA, GTMO, DADT, Photogate etc. – are more logical and direct when viewed through the lens of accumulation of power. How do they decide? They ‘transform’ that which gives them greater power.

    Sorry for the late response – I couldn’t pass up good jazz last night.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  100. Apogee – The FISA flip flop was last year. Nothing has happened that I’m aware on DADT. Congress has to act, not Obama, although he can elect not to enforce its provisions as CIC. Flip flops on Gitmo and Photogate came after the budget and were the result of initial decisions driven by pure ideological immaturity rather than common sense.

    The want to “tranform” America. That’s the giveaway word and it’s too bad you can’t see it. It’s been an essential part of the Obama mystique all along. They are the ones they have been waiting for.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  101. Transform

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  102. daleyrocks – We both agree that they want to transform America, we just differ in what way. My opinion is that their ‘transformation’ is a self serving power grab, and has very little to do with an actual ideological push. Any bone thrown to their supporters is strictly appeasement, not policy, IMO.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  103. Also, what you see as a ‘giveaway’ I see as a ‘sales pitch’ to the rubes.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5204 secs.