I see Sullivan is having a gay old time bashing Zell Miller.
Hey Andy- you know what it is called when someone ascribes false characteristics to an individual based solely on stereotypes? It is called bigotry.
Hack. How did he even manage to write this line:
That macho invocation of the Marines was a classic: the kind of militarist swagger that this convention endorses and uses as a bludgeon against its opponents.
Did he even see the DNC? The left will try to spin this as ‘over the top,’ or venomous. And once again, the left and the Democrats will completely be blindsided by how this was accepted by independents and undecideds (Jay has similar remarks).
Miller’s speech was not ‘venomous,’ or ‘hate-filled.’ It was a harsh attack on Kerry’s VOTING RECORD and PUBLIC STATEMENTS, but that is completely fair game. What you saw was measured rage- anger based on an insider’s view of the Democrats gaming foreign policy for partisan benefit. There is a reason Miller stated the folowing:
Where is the bi-partisanship in this country when we need it most?
Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat’s manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in- Chief.
What has happened to the party I’ve spent my life working in?
Does anyone doubt this? All the Democrats have done in the past three years is snipe, whine, coplain, obstruct, fabricate lies (16 words, the President doesn’t attend funerals, they doctored the intelligence, etc.), and they are on record as trying to game the Senate Select Intelligence committee forpartisan gain. Zell Miller was notmaking things up. The reasons the Democrats are mad at Miler is because he has the goods on them.
And as far as Andy stooping so low as to attempt to inject racism and racist motives with his ‘dixiecrat’ slur- well, I used to think better of you, Andy.
Terry
Over the course of this year, Andrew Sullivan has transformed himself into a shrill, largely one issue writer, who has become increasingly distinguishable from those such as “atrios” only by his better writing (and spelling)skills. With greater and greater frequency, he illustrates how very little he really knows about this country; Glenn Reynolds went out of his way this morning to politely correct another of Sullivan’s idiocies. I dropped him from my bookmarks some time ago, and from reading a number of other blogs, I gather that dropping him is a trend.
Dean
I think what we’re seeing with Andrew Sullivan is what is happening with a lot of the “undecided” voters. These were not really “undecided” at all, but neither were they lying.
These are folks who wanted to know if there was any reason that might move them from their default response. War hawks who wondered if Kerry might do a better job; deficit hawks who wondered if there might be an anti-spender on either side; etc. More to the point, these are folks who weren’t sure which topic mattered most to them: In Sullivan’s case, gay rights or the war?
So, they answered “undecided” when polled, because they really weren’t enthusiastic about either side.
But the conventions are (just about) over, there ain’t no McCain or Lieberman or Nader riding in to upset the applecart. You have Dubya versus Kerry.
Time to decide: What matters most to you? Which candidate will do the most for those matters?
RandMan
I read Sullivan’s comments this morning. Your criticisms are spot on.
Mark L
Allahpundit’s comment of a few month’s back is appropriate. Andrew Sullivan’s three most important priorities — in no particular order — are
1. Gay Marriage
2. Gay Marriage
3. Gay Marriage
He is no longer letting facts get in the way of advancing these three issues.
Justin Hart
Here are 5 points why Zell’s speech will win Bush the election:
see here
Dodd
Not to coin a phrase or anything…. :-)
Joe
I stopped freqenting Sullivan on a regular basis when he went nuts on the gay marriage issue.
His take on the Miller speech is absurd. As a former Democrat and a Texan I am so thrilled that Sullivan: “has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South.”
How very kind of him. I spend way too much of my time worrying about how we are viewed by the rest of the nation.
Joe
M. Scott Eiland
“Gay old time” is right–hearing the wit and wisdom of Fred Flintstone would be a order of magnitude more intellectually honest and interesting than anything we’ve gotten from Sullivan since the gay marriage issue drove him over the edge.
Mason
Better watch those links. With the cost of Andy’s gold-plated bandwidth, he’ll be having another pledge drive any day now.
ap0c
I stopped visiting Sullivans blog months ago. The reason why?
Rick Santorum gay marriage Rick Santorum gay marriage Rick Santorum gay marriage.
Andrew | BB
Nobody said Kerry’s voting record is not a reason to attack, but the delivery by Miller was vile, and angry, angry, angry.
It will NOT play well with Independents, most of whom are independent at this point because they don’t like the incumbent.
Is there such a thing as a negative bounce, because this convention will create it. Not quite as scary as Buchanan in 1992 (?) but pretty bad.
It has become the Anybody But Kerry convention. By comparison, Bush’s name was barely brought up at the DNC.
HH
“Barely brought up” except by Al Sharpton and… er, John Kerry, who claimed that this election should be above-board. That lasted, what, an hour?
Kadang
“Is there such a thing as a negative bounce, because this convention will create it. Not quite as scary as Buchanan in 1992 (?) but pretty bad.”
There is a negative bounce… first seen with McGovern in 1972 (He lost 3 points to Nixon after his own Democratic convention).
Bush 41 was able to get a positive 16 point bounce after his convention and trailed Clinton by 5 percentage points (although that was short-lived) despite the “scary” Buchanan. I would take a 16 point bounce for W. right about now…
I also agree with previous comments about Sully… bookmark erased.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/dnc_convention_bounce_040725.html
HH
And let’s not forget Ted “The only thing we have to fear is…” Kennedy.
James
a somewhat different view, from Will Saletan:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2106109/
“…Every one of these charges is demonstrably false. When Bush addressed Congress after 9/11, Democrats embraced and applauded him. In the Afghan war, they gave him everything he asked for. Most Democratic senators, including John Kerry and John Edwards, voted to give him the authority to use force in Iraq. During and after the war, they praised Iraq’s liberation. Kerry has never said that any other country should decide when the United States is entitled to defend itself.
But the important thing isn’t the falsity of the charges, which Republicans continue to repeat despite press reports debunking them. The important thing is that the GOP is trying to quash criticism of the president simply because it’s criticism of the president. The election is becoming a referendum on democracy.
In a democracy, the commander in chief works for you. You hire him when you elect him. You watch him do the job. If he makes good decisions and serves your interests, you rehire him. If he doesn’t, you fire him by voting for his opponent in the next election.
Not every country works this way. In some countries, the commander in chief builds a propaganda apparatus that equates him with the military and the nation. If you object that he’s making bad decisions and disserving the national interest, you’re accused of weakening the nation, undermining its security, sabotaging the commander in chief, and serving a foreign power
JPS
James:
Saletan is off-base. I for one am not in the least interested in quashing criticism of the president because it’s criticism of the president. I would be grateful for a serious Democratic opposition that criticizes, fairly but harshly, out of a desire to see our goals accomplished more effectively.
But most criticism I hear from the Dems these days is opportunistic carping. They haven’t been constructive critics for a long time now. (The most interesting criticism of Bush’s foreign policy these days comes from the right.) And Miller, whatever the other excesses in his speech, was dead-on in that respect.
Sandi
I thought Zell Millers speach last night was great, but what the hell is this speach from March 1, 2001 his views are totally opposite. Where he did the “Introduction of Senator John Kerry” at the Democratic Party of Georgia’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner.
CadillaqJaq
Apparently Zell changed his mind ONCE since March 1, of 2001 (in comparison to John Kerry who has recently changed his mind more regularly than a new mother changes her baby’s diapers?)
The DEMS might be careful on how strident their attack of old Zell becomes: they might really piss him off.
(Note: ‘Speach’ is normally spelled with two “e”s.)
Atenolol
And, I’ve written a few where the carisoprodol words are to that same point, but although soma I can hear music to set them to, it’s soma nothing solid, or it isn’t fully Right. lipitor That’s weird for me