Well, Well, Well — As John McClane would say: “Welcome to the Party Andrew”
Posted by WLS:
After spending months on his sactimonious soapbox lecturing the press and electorate in general, and conservatives and Republicans in particular, about why Barack Obama is simply the most transcendental political figure ever, and any attack on Obama’s “associations” is simply an effort to derail the campaign of a man with “popular policies and a brilliant speaking style” with meaningless distractions — it seems as if Andrew Sullivan has, as of about 5:55 p.m. eastern time, finally seen the light on Wright.
First, a couple things Andrew wrote yesterday and earlier today:
4/27/08 at 8:29 pm
The transcript is here. I found it moving in parts, and certainly a helpful counter to the notion that Wright is some insane anti-American demagogue. He has some views I don’t hold, but he seems a genuine Christian witness to me.
To be able to see how some of the more toxic events in this campaign can be turned into opportunities for dialogue and mutual understanding is an authentically Christian achievement. And not easy. Bitter is easy.
4/28 — 10:15 am.
The face of the GOP: And why so many of us find it a toxic place to be:
An entire election and an entire political season may be reduced by one party to three words uttered by a black pastor without context and conflated with the Democratic nominee. And it works in Mississippi primarily because the pastor is black and the candidate is black. Pure Rove….
The question, of course, is whether this kind of crude, content-free racial and ideological demagoguery will backfire outside places such as Mississippi. I don’t know. But if Republicans want to know why so many of us cannot stomach their politics any more, they don’t have far to look.
4/28 at 11:03 am.
Fifteen posts at the Corner this morning on the same subject. If only Jeremiah Wright was running for something … the GOP would have a chance this year.
4/28 at 1:41 pm.
That Crazy Corner [at NRO]: A reader writes:
The best part of the Corner’s coverage of Wright is that half of it is under the guise of “defending” African-Americans against Wright’s stereotyping of them. The chutzpah never stops, does it?
4/28 at 2:22 pm.
Isn’t it a relief, by the way, for the MSM to have a presidential campaign in which no issues are actually discussed? This Wright-stuff is amazing to me. It’s all the MSM seems to care about. Even coverage of McCain is now about his attitude toward an unhinged black pastor from Chicago. Hey: it beats discussing war, debt, the economy, torture, and terrorism. Because it enables America to return to the classic boomer racial-cultural wars that are all the MSM truly knows how to cover. There’s nothing to be done right now but to duck and cover. And emerge when actual questions of actual salience emerge.
But, sometime in the three hours that followed this last post earlier today, Andrew managed to actually consider just what it is that Obama’s spiritual guide and father figure has been really saying over the last 48 hours — rather than simply derisively dismiss the firestorm in the blogosphere today — and now he’s suddenly singing from a different transcendental hymnal:
I guess I am late to the party, am I not? I didn’t watch Jeremiah Wright’s National Press Club performance live this morning, as every other blogger seemed to. Wright is not on the ticket of any major party, he is not Barack Obama, and I’m not going to be baited into making this campaign about him, or the boomer cultural racial obsessions that so many want this vital election to be about.
But then I actually read what he said.
I knew he was an exhibitionist; many of his sermons at Trinity, read in their entirety, do fall within the tradition of some prophetic teaching; I can forgive occasional outbursts from fiery preachers; he has done much good in his own neighborhood and his interview with Bill Moyers struck me as defensible; parts of his address at the Press Club were completely uncontroversial and even contained some important truths.
But what he said today, the way in which he said it, the unrepentant manner in which he reiterated some of his most absurd and offensive views, his attempt to equate everything he believes with the black church as a whole, and his open public embrace of Farrakhan and hostility to
the existence of IsraelZionism, make any further defense of him impossible.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/wrights-poison.html
Maybe Andrew will dignify his former political fellow travelers with a little more judiciousness in considering their political views of the transcendental candidate whose one true promise to Andrew is to bestow upon him the holy grail of the “right” to homosexual marriage.
Update: In response to a couple of different comments, I have changed the spelling of the name of Bruce Willis’ “Die Hard” character in the caption. But come on — who looks up the spelling of movie character names???
Sullivan is nothing but a water-carrier for the Right-Wing Hate-Machine…
And he’s a racist. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/28/2008 @ 4:16 pmScott — nice to have him back, isn’t it???? LMAO.
WLS (68fd1f) — 4/28/2008 @ 4:18 pmSomething about blind pigs and squirrels…
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 4/28/2008 @ 4:21 pmAndy Sully is NOT part of the “Right-Wing Hate-Machine” now nor do I think he has ever been!
Jenfidel (1f5404) — 4/28/2008 @ 4:27 pmThe fact that he’s called a “conservative” by the Left is hilarious!
He’s one of yours, not one of “ours.”
Maybe somebody here can at last explain to me why it is important to anything about Andrew Sullivan, if he thinks what he thinks, or what he says.
I’ve pretty much written of anybody that spends much time writing about him and his queer ideas.
But every now and again I try, before I give up on an author that seemed to have something interesting to say.
Is just that it is a slow news day? A blank page would be better.
Larry Sheldon (c26cd9) — 4/28/2008 @ 4:36 pmBut don’t forget folks…
Wright Says Criticism Is Attack on Black Church
To paraphrase Sam the Eagle…
“You are all RACISTS!!”
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/28/2008 @ 4:38 pmSullivan has a very limited agenda.
1) get gay marriage recognized everywhere
2) prove that he’s a better Catholic than the Pope
3) attacking the administration’s record on civil liberties
Everything he writes is filtered through one of those three things.
His choice of Obama over Clinton boils down to the fact that she doesn’t support his agenda as aggressively as Obama.
His liking for Wright really comes from the fact that Wright’s church supports the gay agenda.
I do read his blog, for the sake of the various non political items his research assistant seems to come up with a regular basis.
kishnevi (3cf898) — 4/28/2008 @ 5:06 pmKarl at Protein Wisdom described Andrew as Keith Olbermann with an accent. It works for me.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/28/2008 @ 5:14 pmSo, you get a cushy job covering the news while covering your eyes and ears. I, myself, blog current events, and I never refuse to look at anything. Where does one get these cushy jobs?
Isn’t it a wee bit odd that a man paid to write is lazier than someone sitting in their living room researching topics?
I also wonder about Sullivan’s refusal to be “baited” into bringing Wright into the equation. I’m sorry, but the man he finally, today, read and is disgusted by was the 20 yr mentor of his man for president!!! How can that NOT come into play? I guess it’s more of that covering your eyes and ears when it comes to anything negative about Obama. (sigh)
Josh Bozeman (3ac031) — 4/28/2008 @ 5:17 pmkishnevi, I agree wholeheartedly. All of his filters are unbearably self-serving. When he redefined his special faith (coining the Christianist), which nicely dovetailed into his filtering system, this being late to the party comes as no surprise. It must be very hard for someone who is always front and center in his own eyes to remove himself from the equation and try to look objectively at an issue.
Dana (6506e6) — 4/28/2008 @ 5:19 pmHey Jen,
Mainstreet (d671ab) — 4/28/2008 @ 5:29 pmIt’s called sarcasm.
Yes, but what kind of person sits there for 20 years listening to this crap? And for what reason?
bill-tb (26027c) — 4/28/2008 @ 5:32 pmIf Wright has finally provided enough context for Arndrew Sullivan to denounce him, I would hope that should be enough for most people on the left.
stef won’t understand.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/28/2008 @ 5:40 pmI’m gonna help WLS out here and say that it’s John McClane.
ChenZhen (489b64) — 4/28/2008 @ 5:44 pmSullivan’s line:
I’m not going to be baited into making this campaign about him, or the boomer cultural racial obsessions that so many want this vital election to be about.
No, Andrew, you believe that it should be about the boomer cultural sexual obsessions that you want it to be about.
Let’s face it folks, Sullivan isn’t all that troubled about what Wright had to say. What bothers him is that all the working class white shlubs who he and Obama denigrate but whose votes Obama will need are bothered by it, ergo Wright has become an unacceptable distraction to the planned coronation of Barack Obama. Look for Obama to do what Sullivan counsels him to do and come out with a more strongly-worded denouncement of Wright’s spew. Then Sullivan can go back to his starry-eyed idolatry of Obama.
JVW (835f28) — 4/28/2008 @ 5:44 pmNo, Andrew, you believe that it should be about the boomer cultural sexual obsessions that you want it to be about.
Ooh…SNAP!
hanked (4d86d0) — 4/28/2008 @ 6:07 pmHomos like Andrew Sullivan have no business pretending to be conservatives. His game got discovered a long time ago.
Andy…take your milky loads over to the Huffington Post where you belong.
HandyAndy (9cef19) — 4/28/2008 @ 6:18 pm“Homos like Andrew Sullivan have no business pretending to be conservatives.”
Class.
Knemon (2d6880) — 4/28/2008 @ 6:26 pmBetter that you depart, “Handy”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/28/2008 @ 6:29 pmI guess the only “true conservative” has woken up from his Reality Based Community dream.
I have to think that HandyAndy is a Troll. Only a lib would have that little class.
William Teach (5d9f94) — 4/28/2008 @ 6:32 pmPerhaps HandyAndy is a troll, perhaps not. Regardless …
The tribal divisions practiced by identity groups, particularly Black Separatism (Malcolm X/Elijah Muhammad/Farrakhan/Wright), Gay Separatism/Identity (Sullivan) and so on only worked so long as concessions could be easily extorted/intimidated out of the white majority. At little cost.
We are now coming to the limits of that identity politics/group identity/tribalism strategy. Concessions now on are too costly. Gain no benefit (from a prancing fool like Wright who’s tied to Obama like a boat anchor). Barack Hussein Obama mutated from the hip imaginary black friend to embarrassment to threat very quickly. He has Wright to thank.
And Sullivan’s larger agenda is going to get torpedoed as well. Gays can advance a political agenda only the tolerance and good will of larger groups. They don’t have numbers. Having earned political enmity from the majority group (various provocative acts too numerous to mention) and having pushed politics to a totally tribal direction, they along with other small groups will reap what they sowed.
Identity/tribal/group member politics. And gee oh gee, what group is the largest?
[Conservatives warned of this danger, including Dr. King. None were listened to and this genie is NOT going to go back into the bottle. Identity politics is here to stay.]
Jim Rockford (e09923) — 4/28/2008 @ 6:46 pmObama’s campaign will do for racism-baiting what the Feminist’s knee-jerk defense of Bill Clinton did for sexual-harrasment-baiting.
Heh.
Brad (e0e427) — 4/28/2008 @ 7:57 pmDid Obama or Wright say anything offensive about gay marriage around 4:30 PM ? Sullivan is a one issue guy. He was a Bush fan until Bush said the wrong thing about you-know-what.
Mike K (86bddb) — 4/28/2008 @ 8:11 pmHey, not to nitpick, but if you are referencing Bruce Willis’s Die Hard character: It’s John McLane.
Bubba Zanetti (5e3138) — 4/28/2008 @ 8:22 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_2PrLrVKZw
Leave Andrew alone. Hasn’t he suffered enough. Leave him alone. Do you know what he has been through?
Joe (8102a5) — 4/28/2008 @ 8:25 pmAndrew’s “real” issues include torture but not taxes? And no mention of energy independence or pollution (and my favorite issue: France’s proven solution to both)?
I am glad that gay marriage is not on the list, not that there is anything wrong with it (though arguably you should call both gay and straight marriage down at the courthouse “civil unions” or “zzrtts” or “yowza” – so that folks who enter into it understand that “marriage” as a legal matter boils down to boilerplate legal rights for couples, regardless of the semantics).
And actually, I really have no trouble with real gay marriage at the church or synagogue (or mosque provided the holier than thou Muslims attending do not stone the participants to death).
VoxClams (54fa93) — 4/28/2008 @ 8:27 pmI had never heard of Andrew Sullivan except that some bloggers think he is important. So someone clue me in: Why should anyone care one way or the other what he has to say?
Lou Minatti (2e29b3) — 4/28/2008 @ 8:33 pmAndy will get a nice BJ in a day or two and be back on the Obama train.
Gay men do not think with the head on their necks. They are emotional beasts guided by what side of the bed their prick wakes up on.
Dan Tana (983c73) — 4/28/2008 @ 8:39 pmAndy who?
Al (b624ac) — 4/28/2008 @ 8:44 pmOh
So now Obama has to back away?
SteveG (71dc6f) — 4/28/2008 @ 9:02 pmIsn’t it a little late?
Obama acts like he only just now noticed that Wright says outrageous stuff. Obama has backed away from Wright in direct proportion to the amount of sunlight Wright has had shone on his idiocy.
I’d like to see someone get Michelle Obama to answer a question or two about Wright and then watch Barack try to distance himself from her as incrementally as he has Wright
Why should anyone care one way or the other what he has to say?
Comment by Lou Minatti — 4/28/2008 @ 8:33 pm
I like the occasional comic relief provided when somebody links the idiotic crap he writes. I don’t read him myself, but apparently a lot of people do. Why, I have absolutely no idea.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/28/2008 @ 9:06 pmFixed that for ya, brother…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/28/2008 @ 9:09 pmSteveG – Maybe Barack can claim he slept through all those sermons during the 20 years he was in the church and that the only reason he was there was that Michelle kept dragging his ass every Sunday. If he does that though, he’d have other issues to deal with.
stef won’t understand.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/28/2008 @ 9:09 pmShe’s been dragging his ass since the day he met her.
SteveG (71dc6f) — 4/28/2008 @ 9:23 pmHe likes it.
Barack is a deft speaker/politician. He is not a leader.
I used to read Sullivan. He used to make a lot of sense. Then Dubya came out agaist gay marriage, and Sully went off the rails and hasn’t come back. The poor guy’s politics are pure emotionalism. Bush was doing everything right in the war on terror and Iraq, until that fateful day. With 48 hours, everything Bush had done and would ever do was a failure, a conspiracy, “pure Rove”. He’s a very childish person.
Craig (c89002) — 4/28/2008 @ 9:45 pmGod damn Andrew Sullivan!!!
Rev. Wright (452bfe) — 4/28/2008 @ 9:46 pmI think you’re getting my drift SteveG.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/28/2008 @ 9:50 pmRight on, Craig.
Steve Levy (e8228e) — 4/28/2008 @ 10:13 pmMy church attendance has been sporadic (some might say “checkered”.. I repudiate them)
SteveG (71dc6f) — 4/28/2008 @ 10:31 pmIn the midst of all that repudiation and checkeredness are times when I was too lazy to go, too into stuff that wasn’t real churchy, too disconnected from the teaching.
There were also times when by going I felt like a drowning man grabbing the rail on a waverunner.
In a church of 2000 people I could produce 30 people who’d tell you I’ve called pastors, emailed them, had coffee with them and otherwise told pastors I did not agree with their tone on issues… “where’s the love of Christ in that?”
So where are Obama’s witnesses?
Surely the people closest to Michelle Obama can tell stories about how she ripped into Wright, or how Barack had Sunday dinner with them after a service and how he was livid… right?
Right?
WLS,
Super post and links. Well done.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/28/2008 @ 10:48 pmComment by Craig — 4/28/2008 @ 9:45 pm
Your comment is exactly right.
I even feel foolish for having read Andy back then.
Topsecretk9 (0d5dad) — 4/28/2008 @ 11:33 pmAgree with Craig and others. Andrew was a good read until sometime in 2003 or 2004 when he went completely off the rails. Gay marriage and Gitmo just plain drove him insane. His brain is now like a black hole; stuff goes in but nothing ever comes out. I’m astonished at the waste of his talent because he did have it.
And no, he was never a conservative. Only a lefty would claim so. Being in favor of the U.S. defending itself was not, is not and should never be “conservative.” That’s where all lefties do go off the rails.
Peg C. (b50956) — 4/29/2008 @ 2:01 amI believe Andrew is a worthwhile read occasionally, mostly because he is the canary in the coal mine. If conservatives want to gauge the “emotional” response from the Left-of-center metro/gay crowd, then read where he is at today.
R. Ford Mashburn (3b071d) — 4/29/2008 @ 2:49 amIt doesn’t matter where he was yesterday, because he’s a measure of the toxicity, not rationality. And by this column, the toxicity of Obama/Wright just went Lethal.
Time to call the EPA (or the Wolf, if you get my drift….)
it sure shows obama’s lack of judgment with people, no?
john marzan (032f1a) — 4/29/2008 @ 3:00 amI used to read Andrew Sullivan like it was a religious ritual.
Andrew got tagged as a conservative because he was (mildly) pro-Bush after 9/11. Of course, so was 90%+ of the country.
He left the fold immediately after the right derailed gay marriage. He was shocked–shocked! that conservaties would oppose gay marriage.
That pretty much tells you everything you need to know about Andrew’s judgment.
I stopped reading him when he ceased being a “pundit” and became a “gay pundit.”
wwwd (8bd5b3) — 4/29/2008 @ 3:56 am__________
I’m sorry? Andrew who?
Al Maviva (89d0b6) — 4/29/2008 @ 4:14 amPeople on the right read Excitable Andy for they same reason they read the DU, Kosbat, HuffPost, etc: comic relief.
William Teach (5d9f94) — 4/29/2008 @ 4:26 amDidn’t you know, the only decent and thoughtful point of view is whatever view Andrew Sullivasn holds at the moment, no matter how recently he held the exact opposite.
Mike G (8e4cd0) — 4/29/2008 @ 4:59 amIt still astonishes me. Obama sat in his pew for twenty years – for a thousand Sundays! – listened to this vitriol, and never once spoke up against it, never once admonished the speaker, never once became disturbed enough to perhaps look for another church (or even, God forbid, take up golf). Amazing. And to think that there’s a good chance this man will be elected president. Amazing.
Brown Line (954f15) — 4/29/2008 @ 5:17 amRev Wright is not running in this election but his ideas and views are in the race in the person of his follower Barack Obama.
Dennis D (ae900a) — 4/29/2008 @ 5:23 amActually it’s not John McClane either. It’s Simon Peter Gruber.
Alan (f1706f) — 4/29/2008 @ 5:49 amI’d say it’s safe to say that Wright is a bona fide racist, but that would miss the real point. Don’t send your time thinking gangsta, when you should be thinking huckster.
You have to realize that pastors of black churches often think of their congregants in a niggardly or “less than” terms, its part of the huckster role that demands “no noise” or “paper-only” in the basket. Meanwhile in order to maintain the “cash cow,” they preach a doctrine that keeps blacks from moving to a better place, with ideas like the anti-middleclassness until he eventually retires to a 10,000 sq ft mansion in a gated community of more than 90% white neighbors. His form of racism is a tool of a black pastor to keep blacks down using whites to triangulate while he plays a Moses who has no intention of getting them to the promise land.
When you finally realize that Obama’s 20 year apprentice in hucksterism at Trinity Church was to gain “street cred” and train his skills at manipulating, starting with the black community, it becomes clear why he spend 20 years there becoming a modern day carpetbagger. There only real major difference between Wright and Obama is that Wright thinks within the confines of a pastor, while Obama is trying to expand to a whole country.
Neo (cba5df) — 4/29/2008 @ 5:52 amWe know what’s going to happen now, don’t we? St. Andi is going to claim he always thought that Wright was indefensible, and when his earlier posts are brought up, he’ll get all pissy and attempt to change the subject.
OregonMuse (ed6577) — 4/29/2008 @ 6:05 amWright’s claim that the US government invented AIDS to off black people wasn’t enough to alienate Sully?
Alan K. Henderson (6ab1fc) — 4/29/2008 @ 6:22 amLou Minatti: “Why should anyone care one way or the other what he has to say?”
Craig: “The poor guy’s politics are pure emotionalism. . . . He’s a very childish person.”
Couldn’t agree more; whether he agrees or disagrees with me on a particular issue, I can’t take Sullivan seriously.
Person No. 85 (7b1a1b) — 4/29/2008 @ 6:33 amLet’s at least give Mr. Sullivan props for being willing to change his mind. That’s a rare trait.
He’s still an intellectual lightweight, and rarely worth listening to, however.
Bill Peschel (a77370) — 4/29/2008 @ 7:07 amNote to self, get more popcorn.
jim2 (a9ab88) — 4/29/2008 @ 7:19 amIt’s John McClane.
Chris (1e0cf4) — 4/29/2008 @ 7:29 amUnless it’s some kinda dig at John McCain… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 4/29/2008 @ 7:46 amSully has been a parody of the self – loathing type for quite awhile now. I used to read him back in the day, but his manic – depressive mood swings on nearly every subject (“I love him…no, wait – check that, now I HATE HIM!”) eventually tired me out. Not to mention his fraudulent fund drive a few years ago, conducted under the header of keeping his web site going. Once he raised the stated amount ($150K!) from his frantic sheeple, he promptly announced that he was quitting and taking a well – deserved sabbatical. Shortly after many recriminations, he suddenly came back about a week later. Completely bi – polar.
Dmac (9dd3a1) — 4/29/2008 @ 8:12 amIn the Context of right it’s John McSain.
NT (3d3202) — 4/29/2008 @ 8:12 amSullivan is a witless puke. If Obammy has lost even the witless pukes the pooch is well and truly screwed. Hilarious!
megapotamus (17c12e) — 4/29/2008 @ 8:28 amCompletely agree with Dmac, but this was the funniest line of the day:
😀
AllenA (18aa58) — 4/29/2008 @ 8:36 am“I have to think that HandyAndy is a Troll. Only a lib would have that little class.”
– William Teach
Sure, Willy. Keep telling yourself that. Keep telling yourself that morons like HandyAndy don’t represent a significant portion of your ideological demographic. They’re all just liberals pretending to be Republicans.
Leviticus (35fbde) — 4/29/2008 @ 8:53 amAnd we’ll presume that you tell yourself absolutely nothing to the mirror each morning, save for your preening moral rectitude and awesomely fabulous powers of prognostication.
Dmac (9dd3a1) — 4/29/2008 @ 9:18 amBack in the days when I used to read Andrew, and contribute, I actually sent him an e-mail asking if he was having trouble with his meds after serious one logical lapse. It was like he was getting “chemo-brain.” I got a very nasty reply and left soon after. He has problems.
Mike K (86bddb) — 4/29/2008 @ 9:19 amSure, Willy. Keep telling yourself that. Keep telling yourself that morons like HandyAndy don’t represent a significant portion of your ideological demographic. They’re all just liberals pretending to be Republicans.
It’s possible that HandyAndy was on the up and up, but I think he was probably a troll. As for Leviticus, sneering condescension isn’t a persuasive argument, nor are straw-man arguments (I don’t recall William Teach saying that they’re all just liberals pretending to be Republicans…sheesh).
Person No. 85 (7b1a1b) — 4/29/2008 @ 9:34 amLeviticus basically made up the argument he wanted to attribute to William Teach, and then added a healthy dose of self-righteousness.
Person No. 85 (7b1a1b) — 4/29/2008 @ 9:38 amTo quote Sullivan’s article: “the boomer cultural racial obsessions that so many want this vital election to be about.”
Sullivan is a pig. Perhaps he has forgotten that the boomer generation brought this country the civil rights movement. Perhaps he has forgotten that the oldest boomer is only 62 years old, not exactly dinosaurs. And finally, perhaps he has miscalculated. The boomer generation is still a very large voting block who may teach him and his ilk a real big lesson come November.
dianne (6f3473) — 4/29/2008 @ 9:39 amGee, I listened to part of the broadcast on Monday, and I looked at the transcript of Wright’s remarks today, and I just can’t figure out why Sullivan would have turned against him, because nowhere in there can I find any statement where the reverend came out in favor of the 2004 Defense of Marriage Act.
John (34537e) — 4/29/2008 @ 9:51 amDon’t be silly. Boomers inherited it from their parents and screwed it up.
quasimodo (edc74e) — 4/29/2008 @ 10:25 amSullivan, born 1963, is a boomer, too. (Sorry to break it to you, Andy) I wonder if he’s a US citizen yet? He sure has a lot to say about US politics for someone not eligible to vote here.
A. Reder (1a7582) — 4/29/2008 @ 11:13 amA. Reder is both correct and incorrect, depending on the meaning of “Boomer.” The Baby Boom itself ended in 1964, but the term Boomer is also used to define a generation that spanned from 1943-1960, in Strauss and Howe’s magnum opus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_%28book%29
This page summarizes key characteristics of post-Civil War generations nicely.
http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/generations.htm
Alan K. Henderson (dd86da) — 4/29/2008 @ 11:36 amOh, and the Civil Rights movement was initiated by the Silent Generation, not by Boomers. The first wave of Boomers was only 21 when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed.
Alan K. Henderson (dd86da) — 4/29/2008 @ 11:40 amI don’t fear you, Rev. Wright. There is something called D-e-m-o-g-r-a-p-h-i-c-s. Besides – does Mr. Sullivan really believe Obama won’t throw him under the bus. The Obamessiah seems like he’d throw everyone under the bus if they stand between him and his (our?) destiny. Being thoroughly modern, the Obamessiah will outsource cruxificion onto others. Onward comrades to a glorious future through our divine leader! Opps, I mean “Yes We Can!”
Californio (fc882f) — 4/29/2008 @ 11:45 amAndrew,
I have enjoyed watching your eyes finally open. It is not good to have a crush on a candidate. When we crush, we lose our objectivity, and we lose our focus on the surrounding landscape.
thecandypoem (ff24d1) — 4/29/2008 @ 11:48 amthe boomer generation brought this country the civil rights movement.
Don’t be silly. Boomers inherited it from their parents and screwed it up.
Agreed. It is laughable that the boomers continue to take credit for the Civil Rights movement when its key figures were people like Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, Thurogood Marshall, and others who were born in the early part of the 20th Century.
JVW (835f28) — 4/29/2008 @ 11:52 amBut don’t forget that some of those heroic Boomers actually stopped the war all by themselves, thus ending the evil US hegemony in Asia. Why, if they hadn’t been staging campus sit – ins and hurling spittle on returning soldiers, where would this country be right now? Uh, but they still support the troops! And don’t you question their patriotism!
“The Obamessiah seems like he’d throw everyone under the bus if they stand between him and his (our?) destiny…”
But the bus throwees don’t mind – really, just ask his grandmother.
Dmac (9dd3a1) — 4/29/2008 @ 12:11 pmIt looks like Andrew Sullivan is back on the Obama bandwagon.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/29/2008 @ 7:01 pmDRJ – Did Sullivan notice Obama getting off the Wright bandwagon as he was stepping back on? How large is a bandwagon? And does it burn biofuel, or just run on hot air?
Apogee (366e8b) — 4/29/2008 @ 7:11 pmHeh. I think today’s bandwagon lost a wheel. Or two.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/29/2008 @ 7:23 pmThank you for taking the time to read Andrew, so that I don’t have to. Andrew and I once had a running semi-debate about why gay issues ought best be resolved in legislatures. He couldn’t see the point of it.
His need for ‘transcendentalism’ says to me, no further inquiry needed, that he’s more Left than Right.
Very enjoyable read. Not sure I approve of your tone.
!
Irish Cicero (23c79a) — 4/30/2008 @ 5:24 pm