I like Andrew Sullivan, I really do. I read him every day, and I wish I was lucky enough to know him in person (as some of my friends actually do). However, I am a little tired of this bit:
reader reminds me that I wrote in this blog on February 29 that Bush’s support for the FMA was a “deal-breaker” for me. Those are the exact words of my subsequent Advocate piece. I don’t blame Jonah for missing it. But it’s unfair to say I have in any way deceived anyone. I went through a period of turmoil after Bush’s endorsement of the FMA and wasn’t sure whom I could support. But on reflection, the FMA made it impossible for me to endorse Bush. There was no “extremely significant silence.” Just outrage and a period of reflection.
So you are not going to endorse him. Fine. Does this mean you are goingto vote for Kerry? Come out and tell me, or I am dismissing all ofthis as shameless self-promotion.
Terry
You’ve got his number, John. He has become more than tiresome with his coyness on this and other issues.
norbizness
Welcome to the “Andrew Sullivan is tiresome” bandwagon; I’ve been a member since 1999 or so.
Kimmitt
I was about to say; Andrew Sullivan has been tiresome for years.
And it’s shameless self-promotion all the way down.
bg
AS has said that his vote is betwen Kerry and staying home.
Mark L
Ol’ Andy was hot for Bush, right up to the moment that Bush opposed gay marriage. Now *nothing* Bush does is good enough.
Sullivan is as much a one-issue candidate as those “religious conservatives” he so regularly decries. Except with him it is not the Ten Commandments in the courtroom, or prayer in schools — it is gay marriage. He’s willing to support the candidate that maximizes Sullivan’s chances of either being pushed off a building or getting a wall knocked over on him (depending on what brand of fanaticism the islamofascists belong to if they take over) for Sullivan’s sexual preference because the other candidate will not support gay marriage.
James
I’m no one’s idea of a Sullivan booster generally, but he doesn’t owe you guys a fucking thing. Read him or don’t read him — that choice is all you’re entitled to.
Sullivan is more than entitled, on his own blog, financed by his own capital and that of his contributors, on his own time, to work through his evolving positions on political issues as new facts and information are available. He’s indicated as much himself, and said in pretty plain language that he’s often just thinking aloud. If you haven’t the patience for it, go read someone else. But to say he owes you an endorsement of a presidential candidate at this point is ludicrous.
But that’s not the real issue, is it? What I suspect bothers the heretofore Sullivan fans most is his increasing skepticism towards the leadership of George Bush and those surrounding him. Coming from a conservative, his criticism tends to be weighted just a bit more heavily, and the persuasive power that much more significant. It’s that threat that really irks.
I often disagree with Sullivan, but I’m obviously defending him here. What I most strongly reject is the notion that somehow one is not entitled to question their previously held positions or change those opinions in accordance with new and developing facts on the ground.
Which, if you think about it, is quite similar to some of the better criticisms of George Bush.
Terry
“James” is Andrew Sullivan.Or, so it would appear. Whoever it really is, “he” undercuts virtually all of his points in these words: “I often disagree with Sullivan, but I’m obviously defending him here.”
In other words, “James” is guilty of the same vices he finds in the critics of Sullivan.
James
Laughable indictment, Terry.
I’m simply defending the man’s right to work through complicated matters and – horrors! – change his mind, without people making unreasonable demands of him. Whether I agree, disagree, or am indifferent to Sullivan on substantive issues has no bearing on his right to make those points.
Like I said, two options: read him, or read someone else.
Kimmitt
I’ve found that just ignoring Terry works by far the best.
willyb
Actually, James, there is at least one other option… read him and be critical of his position.
James
Fair enough, willyb.
I think you get my meaning, though.
Terry
I have generally found that ignoring an individual who has been under psychiatric care for most of his adult life is a good idea.
Kimmitt
Gasp! You found me out! How did you manage it? Private detectives? Or . . . could it be . . . you’re just another sputtering right-wing troll that makes things up?
Occam’s razor!