|
|
A Fisking
Posted by Stephen Green · 26 July 2004
Andrew Sullivan all but endorsed John Kerry in yesterday's Sunday Times. Here's the clincher: Domestically, moreover, Bush has done a huge amount to destroy the coherence of a conservative philosophy of American government; and he has been almost criminally reckless in his hubris in the conduct of the war. He and America will never live down the intelligence debacle of the missing Iraqi WMDs; and he and America will be hard put to regain the moral highground in world affairs after Abu Ghraib. The argument Kerry must make is that he can continue the substance of the war, but without Bush's polarizing recklessness. And at home, he must reassure Americans that he is the centrist candidate - controlled neither by the foaming Michael Moore left nor the vitreolic religious right. Put all that together, and I may not find myself the only conservative moving slowly and reluctantly toward the notion that Kerry may be the right man - and the conservative choice - for a difficult and perilous time. Well, no. Or at least, mostly no. But in true fisking fashion, let's take it one line at a time. Bush has done a huge amount to destroy the coherence of a conservative philosophy of American government Andrew gets no argument from me on that one. In Bush's lexicon, "conservative" has been expanded to include a new prescription drug entitlement for seniors, increased federal control of local education, the attempted usurpation of the states' power to endorse and recognize marriages, and massive, irresponsible increases in discretionary spending. Lousy conservative that I am, however, maybe I don't have any right to complain. Now that we know where Andrew and I agree, let's get on with the fun. [Bush] has been almost criminally reckless in his hubris in the conduct of the war. Criminally reckless hubris in the war? To figure out what Andrew means by that, you have to read his entire column. I'll pick out the relevant bits for you – but please read the whole thing, so that you'll know I'm not cherry-picking or taking quotes out of context. Was it really necessary to insist that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to detainees in the war on terror? Yes, it was. And yes, it is. The Geneva Conventions aren't sucker rules. They weren't designed to tie the hands of those who signed the accords, while letting those who haven't do whatever they please. The Conventions apply only between states who have all signed on to them. To grant the niceties of the Conventions to those who won't follow them accomplishes lots of things – all of them bad. It eliminates pressure for non-signatory nations to sign. It ties the hands of the signers without doing so to the non-signers. It increases, rather than decreases, war atrocities. That's not to say we should encourage (ala Abu Ghraib) an anything goes policy – but we shouldn't be subsidizing our destroyers, either. Why, granting Geneva protections to al Qaeda, the Taliban, or Iraq's "insurgents" would be as stupid as granting a flight school education visa to Mohammed Ata. When Osama bin Laden was isolated in the Afghan-Pakistani border, was it wise to deputize the campaign to capture him to Afghan warlords? Wise? Certainly not. But was it criminally reckless hubris to let our new allies try to do the job in their own countries? I'd call that the polar opposite of (I'm getting tired of typing out the entire phrase) CRH. When so many people warned that the hardest task in Iraq would be what happened after the fall of Baghdad, was it sensible to junk all the carefully-written government reports for reconstruction and go in on the fly? "No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy," wrote Carl von Clausewitz almost 200 years ago. "And no peace plan survives the last battle," is Steve's corollary to Clausewitz. As I wrote last year, after Baghdad fell, "we've bought the deed to a crack house in a bad neighborhood, and now we've got to turn it into a place where decent people can live decently." The plans with which Andrew is so enamored called for a six-month war, one in which Saddam's armies would be completely destroyed. Instead, we got a Three Week War (Andrew's own moniker, I believe) where many of the bad guys disappeared into the woodwork to fight another day. Oops. We didn't fight the war we'd planned on, and we didn't get the peace we thought we'd get, either. Of course, I've just described almost every war (and peace) in human history. That's not to say Bush & Rummy & Co. haven't stepped in it big-time on several occasions. But to claim that our pre-existing pre-war plans could have somehow brought about a better Iraq in less than a year. . . well, it just ain't so. Was it wise to brag in the days after the first military victory in Iraq that it was "Mission Accomplished"? Nope. But is a bad PR stunt reason enough to vote for someone else? If that's the case, we'd never elect anyone President. Not that there's anything wrong with that – but then I always feel a little more libertarian this late at night. When the Iraqi insurgency was gaining traction, was it sensible to apply the methods in Guantanamo Bay to the hundreds of petty criminals and innocents hauled into Abu Ghraib? I don't endorse what happened at Abu Ghraib – not hardly. But the fact is, our casualties have trended down since the outrage became public. Causal connection? I doubt it – but it does take some of the sting out of Andrew's aspersion. Whew. Enough of that – let's pick up where we left off in Andrew's closing graf: [Bush] and America will never live down the intelligence debacle of the missing Iraqi WMDs What about the French? The Germans? The British? The Russians? They all thought Saddam had WMDs – yet only Bush (and Blair) had the CRH to do something about it. That's not the debacle. The debacle is, the Iraq War was never about WMDs – it was about changing the strategic picture in the Middle East -- but Bush copped out and sold it to us as an anti-WMD campaign. [Bush] and America will be hard put to regain the moral highground in world affairs after Abu Ghraib Bush and America haven't held the moral high ground since. . . since there was a rich and powerful America. We're hated (or, to be more honest, resented and envied) by damn near every country on the planet. Bush had nothing to do with that, although his abrasive-to-many born-again personality does allow Chirac, Schroeder, et al, to be a lot more outspoken about their historic envy and resentment. NOTE: Israel hasn't held the moral high ground with anyone since 1967 – but I know whose side I'm on. Andrew's complaint is that Bush isn't conservative enough. But since when did conservatism mean bowing to Franco-German pressure on vital issues? The fact is, we screwed up at Abu Ghraib, and we screwed up badly. We hurt and humiliated some (not-quite) innocent people. But that doesn't tip the moral balance over to the side of the killers of Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg or Paul Johnson – unless you're someone trying to curry favor with Jacque Chirac. Or maybe unless you're a columnist feeling around for an excuse to vote for John Kerry. The argument Kerry must make is that he can continue the substance of the war, but without Bush's polarizing recklessness. First, Kerry must recognize there even is a war. 'Nuff said. at home, [Kerry] must reassure Americans that he is the centrist candidate - controlled neither by the foaming Michael Moore left nor the vitreolic religious right On this one, even a Kerry-skeptic like me wouldn't take too much convincing. But you know what? There's a war on, and I don't trust Kerry to wage it. Kerry has yet to learn the difference between French opinion and American interests. President Kerry, I have no doubt, would stay in Iraq as long as it takes – but he would never have taken us there to begin with – and we might find it necessary to "do another Iraq" in the next four years. Hell, Kerry hasn't even thought about how he'd respond – abroad or even at home -- to another 9/11-scale attack on American soil. From what we know of Kerry today, he has too much criminally reckless hubris to lead this nation through a second 9/11. Put all that together, and I may not find myself the only conservative moving slowly and reluctantly toward the notion that Kerry may be the right man - and the conservative choice - for a difficult and perilous time. Just because Bush is no conservative, doesn't make a conservative out of Kerry. Andrew should know better. Comments
I've long distrusted Sullivan. He purports to be a Republican and and conservative, but continually leans toward the left. Shame. Posted by: Slant Point at July 26, 2004 12:10 AMUhm, what is this horseshit with people claiming that Sully claims to be a Republican or a Conservative? Bullshit. He's been called that but during the last three years he's repeatedly said that he very nearly voted for Gore--and got blasted and called a liar for that by the left. The man's not a liar. He's obviously overwrought over the gay marriage stance and it may cloud his judgement on other things. Well that's too bad, but since I see where he's coming from I can't hold it against him too much. I agree with this fisking, for the most part. Except I take one other exception: please, can we all remember that the administration advanced over a dozen reasons for our Iraq campaign, we discussed them ALL as a nation for an entire year. WMDs became the central focus very near the end, and had greater emphasis at the UN AFTER we had given Bush the go-ahead. It may still have been a blunder, mind you, but it's tiresome to have to repeat over and over again that we had many, many reasons for doing what we did, and most of them were discussed at length with the American people. Posted by: Dean Esmay at July 26, 2004 12:35 AM1) Bush and America will never live down the intelligence debacle of the missing Iraqi WMDs. Comment 1: Comment 2: It seems that Andy got over the lack of mass graves in Kosovo pretty quick so perhaps we can expect in 4 years time for this to fall down the memory hole as well. Personally, for me? Id invade Iraq just so we can gun Saddams Son's in the street and make that Saddam himself live like a rat in a cesspool. Has andy ever heard the phrase " sic semper tyrannus"? Comment 3: I've created a new disease: "Sullivans Hindsight Disease", in which the victim repaints history for their own warped sense of reality. Everyone, please try to remember that at the time we initially went into Iraq, the worlds lefties told us it would result in the use of WMDs against our troops and a "stalingrad-on-the-tigris". My own estimates were that it would result in 7,000 KIA in the inital invasion alone. Those guys didnt wear those MOB suits all the way across that desert just to save bushs neck, they did it because they had every reason to believe the WMDS would be used. The fact that it didnt happen is a good thing, and we should all be thankful it didnt and proud of our troops for being so damn good that the victory came so fast. For andy or anyone else to come back now and to paint it as a "debacle" is , well, theres no delicate way to say this, so.... HORSESHIT!!. Things went better than any of us has any business asking the gods for. No one expected what happened, no one in any army,anywhere has(had!) any experience invading a country the size of california, and Islamic country. We had to gamble, In my algebra, the gamble paid off. LiBya? well I dont know much about Col. Khadaffi, but the man knows how to play poker. He folds, and with it, we recover not just tons of nuclear material, but we quickly learn about the blackmarket in WMD. and the trail leads us to North Korea, pakistan and yes, iraq. "but frank, we didnt find anything in Iraq, so it doesnt count". Oh really? so what was it that they shipped to Oak Ridge Tennessee and Hanford last month, cheerios? nope, it was Nuclear Materials, leftovers of their nuclear program. Was it a weapon? Heres how you can tell if it was a weapon. Park some of it in you driveway, then let your kids play on it for a bit. Then you tell me if you dont think its dangerous in the hands of people who want nothing more than to kill us. What are we up to, 35 sarin shells? is that alot? well when a teaspoon can kill thousands, Id say, yes. How much is too little to not bother with? how much is too much to trust a homicidal madman. And if thats enough, try to remember that the best piece of evidence we had that Saddam had WMD's is that we had the receipts from the people he bought them from., you know, our 'friends and allies", the french, germans, and russians. The french and germans dont spit on Lance Armstrong because hes "le simplesse", They spit on him because hes shown them to be the silly "girly men" they are, and they dont like it. Heres how it breaks down kids, For the past 200 years, the worlds decent countries have been shipping their malcontents and brigands overseas. 200 years later, those 'pickpockets and thieves" are the most powerful force on the face of the earth. If I was a european, living with a perpetual 12% unemployment rate, never able to get anywhere with my life, living under a trainload of regulations, I'd be pissed too. Posted by: Frank Martin at July 26, 2004 12:42 AM....and another thing, since the whole "manhattan project" was started based on the belief that Germany was creating and close to developing an atomic bomb, can FDR also be credited with "an intelligence debacle"? No, because any man, any government,any people that would march men, women and children into gas chambers and ovens and convert a whole race of people into lampshades and bars of soap cant be trusted. FDR was right to assume the worst of the Nazis based on their stated goals and behaviors, even though the evidence in the end in regards to the Germans actual nuclear program was wrong. President Bush has been presented with similar information about Saddam. To have acted in any other way than what we did would have been irresposible. Posted by: Frank Martin at July 26, 2004 12:52 AMI assume Sullivan does know better, he's certainly intelligent enough. Unfortunately, some people put certain issues before all rational thought. In his case, it's same sex marriage. So much as he tries to tack on other obvious fallacies to support his position, I suspect that's at the core of his position, as it comes through rather starkly once one disassembles the rather dubious smoke screen. Ah well, I see I haven't missed much since I stopped reading him. Posted by: Mr. Lion at July 26, 2004 01:12 AMUhm, what is this horseshit with people claiming that Sully claims to be a Republican or a Conservative? Bullshit. He's been called that but during the last three years he's repeatedly said that he very nearly voted for Gore--and got blasted and called a liar for that by the left. If only he had archives, one could easily point to where he claimed to be conservative. He doesn't. So I'm at a loss. But only because he operates using different rules than the rest of us. Sullivan's quote: Put all that together, and I may not find myself the only conservative moving slowly and reluctantly toward the notion that Kerry may be the right man - and the conservative choice - for a difficult and perilous time. So, given that quote, I'm supposed to expect Sullivan doesn't consider himself a conservative? Why else would he say such a thing? Why else worry and write about who the "conservative choice" is-- if you don't consider yourself a conservative? One could say it's because he doesn't understand why "conservatives" would vote for Bush, and he's just trying to figure out why-- But that means he is ignorant as to what "gay rights" or "premarital sex" or "unhooded women" would mean under under Sharia. I don't think he's ignorant. I think he hates Christians more than he hates Islamist extremism and their appeasers at home. Posted by: Oschisms at July 26, 2004 01:47 AMFrom his post: ...I may not find myself the only conservative... That seems to seal the argument right there. He's claiming to be a conservative. A guy could get a million hits caching his page and repeatedly pointing out his flip flops. It would be easier than John Kerry. Posted by: Oschisms at July 26, 2004 01:51 AMI agree with the last poster in that I had been reading Sullivan's work 2-3 times a day and vividly recall when he went ballistic after President Bush said he would support an amendment for the preservation of traditional marriages. I couldn't believe someone of Sullivan's intelligence would ever be a single-issue voter, but I guess he has. The rest of his rhetoric is a smokescreen to justify his real reason for being a "conservative" voting for Kerry. Posted by: Bob Gailey at July 26, 2004 01:54 AM"That's not to say we should encourage (ala Abu Ghraib) an anything goes policy – but we shouldn't be subsidizing our destroyers, either. Why, granting Geneva protections to al Qaeda, the Taliban, or Iraq's "insurgents" would be as stupid as granting a flight school education visa to Mohammed Ata." The last comparison is ridiculous. You can do better than that. What I find quite astonishing that despite the media outcry in the US about the tortures and humiliations there is no outcry about the fact that the US is holding children and youths in Abu Ghraib and implementing a policy of family punishment. Your Army doesn't get the high-profile insurgents and goes after their children instead. It's a pretty disgusting policy. Posted by: The Old European at July 26, 2004 02:10 AMAndrew's complaint is that Bush isn't conservative enough. ...which may or may not be true, but voting for Kerry on account of it is idiotic. There's a war on, and I don't trust Kerry to wage it. ...and that's what I'm going to be thinking in the booth this November. >>> What I find quite astonishing that despite the media outcry in the US about the tortures and humiliations there is no outcry about the fact that the US is holding children and youths in Abu Ghraib and implementing a policy of family punishment.
To: rosignol No, usually they were the by-catch when US soldiers stormed a house and didn't find the big fish they were looking for. In order to evade looking stupid and coming back empty-handed they took the kids with them. Mission accomplished, eh? Posted by: The Old European at July 26, 2004 05:03 AMUnfortunately, Andrew Sullivan has of late been using an alternate part of his anatomy not usually associated with clear thinking instead of the usual organ of rational thought. To equate gay marriage with terrorism is ludicrous. Kerry, even if he desperately wanted to pursue the war of terror would not be allowed to do so. He would even as president be dangling on so many strings, his wife, Teddy, Bubba and Bubbette, etc. he'll just drift along as the front man for another Clinton administration albiet this time a covert one. Posted by: erp at July 26, 2004 05:48 AMSullivan has been veering back and forth for months. Check with him next week and he may well be back to backing Bush. Since Andrew has seemingly become a one issue voter (gay marriage), one has to assume he has never really considered how far he'd get with his arguments with the likes of Osama. Oschisms: ...I may not find myself the only conservative... All right, ya got me there. Posted by: Dean Esmay at July 26, 2004 06:14 AMNot to knock Steve's analysis, but the bottom line is pretty simple: Andrew has always been a Democrat/Labour voter at heart, and he just went home to Mama. With my own 20/20 hindsight, I'd say the big mistake was going to the UN and trying to outline a legal case for invading Iraq. It was a valid case, but left the whole thing open to legalistic nitpicking, allowing the "international law" side to frame the debate as to what was and wasn't "legal." Posted by: E. Nough at July 26, 2004 07:16 AMBush and Sullivan aren't compatible because Sullivan is a libertarian and Bush is a social conservative and economic moderate. Although judging from Sullivan's increasingly lunatic statements like "criminally reckless in his hubris in the conduct of the war", he's looking pretty liberal to me. I don't think the problem is that Bush is divisive...it's more like Sullivan is distancing himself from conservatives in general. The reaction to him on right-leaning blogs has been universially negative. We're all united in that, anyways. Posted by: Mike M at July 26, 2004 07:16 AMI've been reading Sullivan daily for the better part of three years and half years now and I've grown to be quite disappointed in him. His hard-to-nail-down idealogy is refreshing at times. But, what I've been most disappointed in, is that he isn't a very honest journalist. Sullivan has 3 problems, which this article illistrates: 1. He's overly emotional and that leads him to fits of hyperbole, hence the "criminally reckless hubris" (and is he saying that Bush should be charged with a CRIME?). He clearly is upset about Bush's gay marriage stance, while completely ignoring the politics of it. Bush HAS to be against gay marriage. Bush, maybe bold in foreign policy matters, but he's not very bold domestically. Bush backing a Constitutional amendment is Bush's way of checking off the Republican base without actually DOING anything because amendments are nearly impossible to pass. It's naked politicing, that's it. The courts will likely settle the gay marriage debate and I guarantee you Sullivan will celebrate instead of worry over the constitutional and federalist problems that court-created rights introduces (see Roe v Wade). Sullivan's "side" is likely to "win" the gay marriage debate. So, onto more important things. Like winning the war on terror and allowing more economic freedom. Unfortunately Sullivan can't get past his emotions and look at the big picture. He thinks he IS looking at the big picture but it's obvious to anyone that part of the "picture" he's looking at is hidden from view (like Kerry's voting record, his obvious political pandering to make everyone happy, his unbelievable dishonesty in the early 70s, his vote against the 1st Gulf War when the U.N. was on OUR side, etc.) 2. Sullivan projects. He is unable to see that his priorities are likely NOT the same as the American voters. Bush's gay marriage stance, which he hinted at in last year's state of the Union, was not his first choice. He did not want to touch the issue. He hoped the courts would be responsible and leave it up to legislatures. Massachusetts (and San Fran to a lesser extent) forced the issue. But, it's all about the votes. What Sullivan can't accept is that gay marriage is not popular among the masses, no matter what any of us here think. It's a wedge issue with some traction. I wish it weren't so, but it is nonetheless. Sullivan doesn't want to accept that Bush's stance is politically necessary (or at least that's what he and Rove's pollsters think). Moreover, Sullivan says he's a fiscal conservative and hyperventalates at the deficts. Sullivan, who has made no secret of his admiration of Reagan, failed to learn one of the most important lessons of the Reagan era. Deficit's don't matter. Or matter very little. It'd be one thing if Sullivan only hit on spending as the main culprit, but he's made no secret of his belief that we "could not afford" the tax cuts. In other words, he viewed the tax cuts as a "cost" which misses the point altogether. Moreover, he thinks the deficits are a big issue for Kerry more than the very real tax benefits the voters have noticed. Sullivan has actually said Kerry is more fiscally conservative than Bush. That's laughable. Kerry will never propose cutting spending. Kerry's way to "balance the budget" is to raise taxes to be bring in the added revenue to offset the spending. Is this what Sullivan wants? Sullivan has never said it. He has never connected the dots to his obsession with a balanced budget, though I know some people on his letters page have pointed out the problem. He avoids Kerry's desire to raise taxes completely. When you constantly list fiscal responsibility as your a priority, to ignore one candidate's plan to balance said budget is poor political analysis at best, it's dishonest at worst. 3. He's still old-media. Yes, he's a blogging pioneer. Yes, he laments the liberal bias of the NYT and the BBC. But, does anyone doubt that his "perception" of politics is driven by the opinions of the people at the New Republic, National Review, Washington Post and CNN? Do you think that he really associates with any non-beltway or non-Princetown residents that remotely reflect red state America? I seriously doubt it. So, we get his emotionally driven ideas that Bush REALLY is arrogant. That being nice to the Europeans REALLY does matter. That being against gay marriage is a political loser. That voters prefer balanced budgets over tax cuts. In short, Sullivan is an interesting read, but his analysis has to be loaded with caveats. He's not objectively looking at the political landscape. He's projecting his emotionally-driven wishes upon it and basing it on his beltway-blinded vision of America. That's fine for him deciding for himself who to vote for, but he's a fairly unique political animal (which is part of his appeal). When he purports to read the political landscape and say things like "I may not find myself the only conservative and reluctantly toward the notion that Kerry may be the right man", he's painting with a broad brush that does not come close to reality in my view. Sorry to take up so much bandwidth, but Sullivan's a important and good writer, but one with some annoying problems that soil his otherwise good reputation. Sullivan has been veering back and forth for months. Navigating the political slalom course, no doubt. Posted by: Slartibartfast at July 26, 2004 07:35 AMMike M: Sullivan is not libertarian. If he can be "labeled" at all, it's that he is an Olympia Snowe Republican. He's a centrist. He's even referred to himself as centrist in the past. Look at how he wishes Kerry to position himself. He wants Kerry to position himself as a centrist, even though an honest political observer would note that Kerry has rarely been a centrist accept during election years. Sullivan has often discussed his being fiscally conservative and socially liberal. This sounds sort of libertarian, but Sullivan's definition of "fiscally conservative" misses the mark by a mile. He wants balanced budgets more than he wants small budgets (and low taxes). You can, theoretically, have a balanced budget that taxes people at 50%-60% of their income and takes up half of GDP. Sullivan, if you've read him long enough, would be satisfied with that as long as the budget balanced. But no libertarian would be. Sully just pulled a Moby. Posted by: Alex at July 26, 2004 07:56 AM"Put all that together, and I may not find myself the only conservative moving slowly and reluctantly toward the notion that Kerry may be the right man - and the conservative choice - for a difficult and perilous time."
Nothing like ignoring Kerry's record in the Senate over the last 20 years. You know, the one that has resulted in him rated the most liberal Senator in the country? Hard to see how anyone with a brain would consider him "the conservative choice". Posted by: Kieran at July 26, 2004 08:06 AM"...the Iraq War was never about WMDs – it was about changing the strategic picture in the Middle East -- but Bush copped out and sold it to us as an anti-WMD campaign." The long-term strategic rationale is by far the most important justification for the Iraq War. All other reasons are secondary, but all are purposefully used by opponents of the war to smother any recognition of the primary rationale. This is tragic, because those opponents have no long-term strategy to fight terrorism at its roots.
"This sounds sort of libertarian, but Sullivan's definition of "fiscally conservative" misses the mark by a mile." Thanks for clarifying that, Russ. Anytime someone claiming to be conservative starts ranting and raving madly, the word "libertarian" just kind of automatically pops into my head. I think his claim of being a centrist shows just how out of touch he is though. You have him pegged correctly as an old media type that happens to be on the internet, as opposed to a new media blogger. Too many built in biases and haughty assumptions. Posted by: Mike M at July 26, 2004 08:38 AMKieran: It's ironic, but it was one of Sullivan's readers who wrote in to clarify the Kerry as ultra-liberal story. You can only justify calling him the most liberal member of the Senate if you focus on his voting record of the last year or so. When he missed a lot of votes because he was rather busy. You know, running for president. If you look at his long-term record, he's still definitely liberal, but a lot closer to the center than, say, John Edwards. P.S. Note to Oschisms: Sullivan has archives, going clear back to January, 2001, they're just not prominently located. Scroll down to the bottom of his page, and you'll find the link. Posted by: Steve Teeter at July 26, 2004 08:57 AMNice piece, one quibble. "the attempted usurpation of the states' power to endorse and recognize marriages" I think this greatly misrepresents what is being attempted. The courts have given every indication, in decisions such as Lawrence, that they are going to allow the courts in one state to force other states to recognize gay marriages. If there was any confidence that the DMA would not be struck down, then the whole FMA would never have become an issue. But the conventional wisdom is that the DMA is going to be overturned, it is just a matter of time. So there is an effort being made to amend the constitution to basically codify the DMA in a way that courts could not creatively legislate around from the bench. Are there some pushing for a more radical restriction? I am sure. But the overwhelming majority of those who support a FMA are doing so merely to try to protect the status qup of the DMA, which leaves the decision to the individual states rather than letting other states dictate. Most advocates of the FMA want to protect individual states' powers, not usurp them. Gerry Posted by: Gerry at July 26, 2004 08:58 AMThanks, Steve! Maybe I'll find that post where he calls for higher gas taxes to disprove the notion that he's a libertarian. :) Posted by: Oschisms at July 26, 2004 09:05 AMI hope the blogosphere stops discussing Andrew Sullivan, because I can't stand him. It's been obvious for months that he was looking to use gay marriage as a reason to vote for Kerry, and I'm not surprised in the slightest that he's now adopting the rhetoric of the left. He's a liar. He's doing it to mask the real reason: Gay Frickin' Marriage. This has nothing to do with any intelligent "conservative" criticism of Bush or the War. It has EVERYTHING to do with gay marriage. The fisking in this post is good because it thoroughly debunks any substantive reason Sullivan, while claiming to be a "conservative," could possibly vote for liberal like Kerry. The real reason Sullivan's panties are in a twist is because of gay marriage. He will never accept that America doesn't mirror his own preferences. Read any debate about gay marriage between Stanley Kurtz and Sullivan, and you'll see how disingenuous Sully can be. The man is SLIME. Personally, I hope this is the last time I hear about Sullivan. The frickin' kingmakers in the blogosphere, like Instapundit, treat him with kid gloves. The man deserves no such sympathy. I can't stand to read him, and I can't stand to read blogs that promote him. Andrew Sullivan can go to hell. Sydney - Andrew's gonna be pretty frikkin' PO'd when gay marriage is legal, but his squeeze decides he's not ready for the commitment! Heh! Don't hold back, Sydney, tell us how you really feel! :) Russ covers my opinion of Sullivan. I've stopped even glancing at his blog because I'm sure to find some place where he insists, in essence, that all Christians who aren't willing to throw over Scripture and start actively supporting gay marriage (the whole enchilada, too, nothing less is allowed) are "theocrats". If I read someone else I respect recommending an article of his that's clearly on another topic, sometimes I'll read it... preferably if it's someplace away from his site. Posted by: Dave at July 26, 2004 10:36 AMI‘ve been finding Sullivan’s arguments have become increasingly intellectually dishonest and suspect. After all, this was a guy who was adamant about refusing to see Moore’s F911 only to provide us with his own movie review within the next few days. He's gone from reasoning to rationalizing. Posted by: Mitchell Everitt at July 26, 2004 10:39 AMWhy is this no surprise to me? I deleted Andrew's shortcut months ago. Posted by: John at July 26, 2004 10:42 AMSydney, "Andrew Sullivan can go to hell." If this is meant to be a Scripture-laden reference, then he's well on his way, isn't he? "I can't stand to read him, and I can't stand to read blogs that promote him." IMHO, that's a rather difficult task. If he pisses you off so much, you should probably delete links to VP, in addition to the hundreds if not thousands of other blogs that link to Sully's website. Good luck. Posted by: Ray at July 26, 2004 11:08 AMVery well done. Now that's a proper Fisk. Certainly more of a challenge than old Modo.. Posted by: Steve Ducharme at July 26, 2004 11:28 AMAndrew's become so obsessed with gay marriage that I've started skipping his site on my morning tour. Yes, I sent him some $ on his first bleg. Posted by: Mike Messina at July 26, 2004 01:06 PMIt's a pity that Andrew Sullivan subordinates his intelligence to his libido. If he was capable of doing otherwise, he wouldn't be HIV positive. That's not a condemnation. It's a tragedy. He is a great writer and clearly capable of clarity in every other area except in defense of his sexuality. To conservatives, it's painful to watch him self-destruct. Just as I imagine that gays were deeply disappointed with his sexual self-indulgence. Blogger Melanie Phillips has a lot to say on this today. Posted by: J.Rice at July 26, 2004 01:29 PMIf this is meant to be a Scripture-laden reference, then he's well on his way, isn't he? As are most of the rest of us, I expect. I'm no theologian, but I can't see where in the Bible there's any sort of heirarchy of unrepentant sins. So, if you're going to make such declarations with a straight face, you're going to have to also admit that, for instance, those who fail to honor their parents unrepentantly are going to roast. Likewise, those who fail to observe the sabbath, who repeatedly take the Lord's name in vain...you get the picture. Posted by: Slartibartfast at July 26, 2004 02:00 PMJRice wrote: It's a pity that Andrew Sullivan subordinates his intelligence to his libido. If he was capable of doing otherwise, he wouldn't be HIV positive. I disagree, Andrew Sullivan like pretty much any other adult is perfectly capable of deciding not to subordinate his intelligence to his libido (that whole “free will” thing). He has simply chosen not to do on some occasions and, unfortunately for him, he will probably die as a result of that conscious choice on his part. Posted by: Thorley Winston at July 26, 2004 02:12 PM Good post Steve. Sully's obsession with the deficit and gay marriage have just about forced me to take him off my roll. Hogarth: Even if his SO decided to tie the knot, it's likely that Sully and the SO would cheat on each other. Studies have shown that the swinging percentages among homosexual couples is far greater than among heteros. Studies have shown that the swinging percentages among homosexual couples is far greater than among heteros. Is that studies of actual swinging, or just what people are willing to fess up to? Posted by: Slartibartfast at July 26, 2004 02:42 PMRuss had it right earlier. Two things disappoint me about Sullivan: that his emotions drive his reasoning and that he is such a part of the Beltway establishment. He defended Bush on multiple grounds until Bush came out against gay marriage; now, Bush is wrong not just on that issue but on every issue. I still read him because he draws attention to issues that few others will cover. His response to the Jack Ryan story was perfect: clearly, we should investigate the personal lives and divorce records of Chicago Tribune editors, because they hold an important public trust and we need to know whether that trust is properly bestowed. Posted by: C.S. Froning at July 26, 2004 02:53 PMThe good news is that vodka pundit has replaced sully on my blogroll. Now the rest of the story. I am sick to death of hearing about Abu Ghraib. It was at best a trivial event, it was not “torture” or “atrocity”. It is time to get over it. Want some perspective? Read this: What is it a description of? Abu Ghraib? Wrong! Can't Guess? It is an Avant-Guarde staging of Mozart's "Abduction From the Seraglio" in Berlin. Oh Yeah, and its a smash hit. WMD-- If you are upset that we havent found WMD, think about how Sadam feels. Lying there in his cell, he mutters to himself: "Those lying sons of a b;t¢h, I gave them billions of dinars, they said they were making weapons. They stole from me. If I get out of here I will track them down and kill them and all of their children." Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 26, 2004 06:00 PMWhen I read elsewhere that Steve was FISTING Andrew Sullivan I thought "Wow! Andrew really must have worked hard to convince Steve to adopt his positions!" But seriously, I still read AS daily, and appreciate his analysis at times. All I care about in the upcoming elections is "Who is going to kill more Islamofascists and how soon?" I also like lower taxes. For me, there's only one conclusion -- GWB. I don't care about same sex marriage, so I skip his posts on that subject. Like AS, I have been disappointed by some of W's actions -- prescription drug giveaway, steel tariffs, not firing Tenet, etc. -- but given the alternative, there is no alternative for me. I hope W gets four more years to take out Syria, Lebanon and Iran and push the Middle East towards democracy. A reformed Saudi Arabia would be nice, too, as would the death of L'il Kim in N. Korea. If he achieves most of those things, he will go down in World, not just US, history as one of the most important world leaders ever. Oh yeah, for moral and political reasons, I wish W would commit US troops to The Sudan and dare France, Germany, Russia and China to block him in the Security Council. Posted by: tibor at July 26, 2004 06:02 PMtruth hits everybody...truth hits everyone...bush loses 52 to 46 with 2 going to nader and the other true fringes...BOOK IT! Posted by: William L. Matuszak Jr. at July 26, 2004 07:28 PMTo expand upon the above, to the point observation...how is it that republicans can not understand that you have already lost the middle of the republican party...this still amazes me to this day! We are all (allegedly) intelligent adults here...case in point: my wife's parents are republicans..hard core to the bone republicans...they have never voted democrat before...GUESS WHO THEY ARE VOTING FOR IN THIS ELECTION??? If you guessed GWB then you are dumber than I thought..."W" has lost the middle of the republican party i.e. middle America!!! Get ready to hear for 8 years of the phrase "Kerry Republicans"......everyone in this blog is wringing their hands over someone not being a "true republican"...haven't you noticed that the ranks are thinning????? Simple math...how many people do you know that voted for Gore in 2000 will vote for Bush in 2004? You can probably count them on 1 hand...now...how many people do you know that voted for Bush in 2000 will NOT vote for him in 2004? Simple math tells you that he's a goner.... listen folks...the whole idea that we are going to somehow change 3,000 years of culture just because we are the good ol' US of A has been ignorant at best...the WORLD is a more complex beast than that...and it is going to take mature, intelligent leadership to guide us through the...hate to say it...quagmire that "W" has gotten us into...I'm a registered republican...i'm voting for kerry...call me what you will... Posted by: wlmjr at July 26, 2004 07:43 PM"Sully pulled a Moby". Good one - as apt as it is pithy. Is it only me, or does anyone else detect the stench of David Brock, another gay erstwhile agent-of-turned-apostate-to the VRWC? And the same overwrought, eyeglazing, and repetitive rationalizations? Drama queen...no pun intended. His site will no longer darken my browser. --furious Posted by: furious_a at July 26, 2004 07:44 PMwlmjr: Yeah, sure, whatever. 'cept we sure as shootin' changed 2,000 years of German and Japanese culture, and 400 years of Latin American culture, and 70 years of Soviet culture, and so on. --furious Posted by: furious_a at July 26, 2004 07:48 PMFurious wrote: Is it only me, or does anyone else detect the stench of David Brock, another gay erstwhile agent-of-turned-apostate-to the VRWC? Nope, you’re not alone, I’ve referred to Andrew Sullivan as the “David Brock of the Blogosphere” over at Daniel Drezner’s site. No doubt that when Sullivan, much like Brock, officially defects to the other side, it will be touted as some great coup even though neither of them actually did much for promoting the conservative cause. Posted by: Thorley Winston at July 26, 2004 08:04 PM wlmjr wrote: Simple math...how many people do you know that voted for Gore in 2000 will vote for Bush in 2004? I actually know quite a few “9/11 Democrats” who thanked G-d that Gore wasn’t president when the Twin Towers fell and even more who have decided to vote for Bush when they see Kerry flip-flopping or hear Gore go off the deep end. There are a lot of people who may not agree with everything Bush has said or done but they respect him because they know he’s acting out of conviction for what he thinks is best for our country.
"furious"...that's the funny thing about y'all...you actually think that Germans, Japanese, Russians, etc. are all now "American"...sure...they eat a big mac or two every now and then...is that what are contribution to the civilized world is??? You speak as if World War 2 (referencing Japan, Germany and Russia) and the fact that we have completely botched, lost, mishandled, F'd up the good will OF THE ENTIRE PLANET are one in the same...HUH????? You should be furious...you don't even know what you are furious about! Once again...simple math...the ranks are thinning... Posted by: wlmjr at July 26, 2004 08:15 PMoh well...whatever...nevermind... Posted by: wlmjr at July 26, 2004 08:33 PM"how many people do you know that voted for Gore in 2000 will vote for Bush in 2004?" A lot, including me. "how many people do you know that voted for Bush in 2000 will NOT vote for him in 2004? " I personally don't know anyone like that, but I know they exist. I hang out with liberals, so I hear from the disillusoned liberals. If you hang out with old-time Republicans, you are going to hear from that end. I think a lot of party-switching is going on and we wont know the results until Nov 2nd. Posted by: Yehudit at July 26, 2004 11:18 PMReally, wlmjr? The ranks are thinning? You have any proof of that other than a few anecdotes? Here's an anecdote for you. I never in my life voted for a Republican. I WILL vote for George Bush. I'm a 9/11 Democrat, or rather former Democrat, and I'll never, ever go back to a party that has embraced Michael Moore and the lunatic left that would rather see us all dead than stand up and fight the Islamic fascists. And I can point to a lot of friends who feel exactly the same way...by the way, have you happened to check GOP voter registration lately? I also used to enjoy Sullivan. But he's been totally blinded by his gay marriage fetish and is more interested in seeing to it that gays can get hitched than that the United States have a strong, proven leader who is willing to kick Islamofascist ass. If Kerry wins, he will be one of the weakest presidents we've ever had at perhaps the most crucial moment in our history. Will he REALLY be willing to stop Iran from getting nukes? Really? Who do you think they'll most fear? Kerry and his beloved UN or Bush and the 3rd Infantry Division? A Kerry presidency INVITES attack. He symbolizes American retreat and that can only increase the morale of the other side...just like Kerry's good friend Michael Moore has done. In support of Sullivan: For gay and gay-related folks (the "GLBT" crowd), their struggle against acceptance is a life-defining factor. For them the "gay marriage" issue can easily become a single-issue decision maker/breaker with regards to whom they vote for in this country's marketplace of ideas. Some of the GLBT crowd would even die in support of their struggle against what they see as bias and intolerance against themselves. In defense of Sullivan: Shame to those earlier commenters who appeared to insinuate (correct me if I am wrong) that Sullivan's hormones/libido somehow got him HIV. I am sure he did not purposely set out to have sex with an HIV infected partner. (In fact, I recall him being schocked about the rumors that some gay men may be doing just that.) What was he to do with his libido? Should he have abstained from sex his entire life, like a priest? (We know how successful THAT can be.) Why should he be any different than any one of us with regard to the second-most driving force in human nature, only behind survival? In support of reading Sullivan: I don't agree with everything Andrew Sullivan says, but I read him nevertheless. My other alternative is to read only the writings of those who agree with me completely. Besides being nearly impossible, is that behavior truly helpful to me or to anyone I interact with in this world? How will listening and speaking to an echo chamber ever help me determine how certain I am of any decision I make as an adult? How can I ever hope to prove myself wrong? For this reason, I purposely reach out to those I disagree with. Only through the crucible of adversarial debate can I ever have confidence in my always tentative, and always provisional conclusions. Posted by: Nicole Tedesco at July 27, 2004 01:11 AMWill I vote for Bush? My going-in position is that I will vote for Bush. There are a number of things that could change my mind, as listed below. By themselves these points are not necessarily one-issue deal breakers for me, but each would erode my confidence leading up to election day.
Since I tend to frame my own debates in the Popperesque tradition of trying to prove myself wrong, I will always value the opinions of those who at least try to think logically. This includes Andrew Sullivan. To what extent do any of you suppose that Andrew Sullivan has contributed to my own analysis of who to vote for? Posted by: Nicole Tedesco at July 27, 2004 02:13 AM Bravo, Nicole! I may not agree w/ your every comment, but that's a nicely laid out, logical set of arguments, w/ which one can agree or disagree. I think that's the kind of open-eyed voter that is most important, one willing to weigh the issues and lets the chips fall where they may. (I'd note that it's certainly possible to ask similar questions and conclude that one might vote for Kerry---but that would be based on issues and research, not ideology, and that's a winner no matter who the vote is for.) Posted by: Dean at July 27, 2004 02:46 AMTo paraphrase David Brin, who was paraphrasing Karl Popper--I may not be able to know The Truth very well, given my imperfect perceptions and imperfect information from where I sit, but at least I can do a better job of determining what is probably not true. Yes, I also agree that a similar set of arguments can be made for voting for Kerry. If those arguments are made, and if both sets of arguments continue to hold water, then one can at least conclude that the decision of who to vote for this year is frought with enough uncertainty as to be a practical wash. We must always be prepared for this scenario. Posted by: Nicole Tedesco at July 27, 2004 03:03 AMTo return to topic, what is Andrew Sullivan's function? Is he someone who exists to provide useful verbage to an existing set of ideals (a useful function), or is he someone against whom we can test our ideals? Personally, I like the idea of having a "friendly" against whom I can test my own provisional conclusions. Posted by: Nicole Tedesco at July 27, 2004 03:10 AMIs thee more conservative than thou? Does the answer to this question matter at all, even in the midst of a crucial presidental election? Posted by: Nicole Tedesco at July 27, 2004 03:19 AMNicole Tedesco wrote: Shame to those earlier commenters who appeared to insinuate (correct me if I am wrong) that Sullivan's hormones/libido somehow got him HIV. Actually that’s a perfectly reasonable statement. Andrew Sullivan contracted HIV because he decided to satiate his libido even though he knew the risks of infection from engaging in that sort of behavior. However since Sullivan like most adults is capable of making choices and knew the risks (how could he not?), it would be more accurate to say that it was his own conscious decision rather than being a slave to his glands which lead to making the very decision that is killing him. Posted by: Thorley Winston at July 27, 2004 08:45 AMNicole Tedesco wrote: He fails to impress me with his willingness to cut spending. Unfortunately considering that (a) Kerry voted for most of the current levels of spending* and (b) Kerry has proposed even higher levels of spending – including a $900 Billion bailout of the insurance industry under the guise of “health care reform” – Bush is the comparatively lower levels of spending candidate by default. However Bush to his credit is decidedly pro-reform on Social Security (the only presidential candidate elected on such a platform) and this will probably be one of the biggest domestic issues next Congress which gives him a preference over Kerry besides being “less awful” by default. I discover that Bush is a true protectionist at heart. Regarding the often (rightfully) and IMO overly-vilified tariffs, it’s important to keep in mind that they were part of the political horse trading needed to get the votes for Trade Promotion Authority (something Clinton failed to do) and the free trade agreements with Singapore and Chile (and CAFTA when it comes up for a vote). Bush is on balance a candidate who favors opening trade markets although he did also campaign on enforcing our anti-dumping laws.
Forget what Kerry says to attract American voters about how tough he will be on the Islamofascists. Does anyone honestly think it will be viewed by the Islamofascists as anything less than a repudiation of the Iraq War if Kerry wins? We are in a war of existential proportions that we CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE. Putting Kerry in office will harm the war effort. Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2004 09:46 AMBen, while I agree with your overall point that a Kerry presidency would be bad for the war effort (not merely because it will be seen as a repudiation of the Iraq phase of the war much like the socialist victory in Spain), I do not think that that sort of argument is going to persuade people who were not already planning to vote to reelect Bush. Posted by: Thorley Winston at July 27, 2004 11:34 AMThorley -- You may be right, but I want the issue to be placed front and center. People need to be accountable for their decisions. Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2004 06:18 PMI'm glad to see I'm not the only one who used to visit AS.com several times a day--and who gave money to support it--who now shuns the site. And for the same reason, well expressed above: Gay Marriage has become the One Issue for Andrew, and from that has come also a clear hatred for Christians not of his own rather liberal (heterodox) persuasion. Thank you all for your posts. Posted by: Stan T at July 27, 2004 07:51 PMI have no real beef with Sullivan, but I don't visit his site as often as I used to. I was curious to hear that he had added a donkey to the header on his blog, so I went over there and just read this:
Wow. Has he really gotten that far out of hand that he's playing the Bush-stole-the-election game? Geez. Posted by: Sarah at July 29, 2004 03:13 AMBen: I agree that people need to be held accountable for their decisions. But they also need to be held accountable for their actions. A vote for Kerry is a vote for the terrorists. And people who vote for the terrorists... well, like I said, they need to be held accountable. Posted by: Robert at July 29, 2004 08:41 PMSullivan is a war hawk and a gay man. When Bush came out for the FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment), Sullivan had to choose between lifestyle politics and the war on terror. Lifestyle politics won, and the resulting rationalizations have painful and disappointing to watch. Posted by: Randy McGregor at August 11, 2004 11:42 AM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"He’s always mentioning food and drink I have never heard of, yet I am still compelled to read."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
     |
