You know what, Sully? Go fuck yourself. You have now devolved into nothing more than Atrios with a vocabulary when you equate some silly commerical to the mainstream of conservative thought.
I can understand your angst- it must be pretty distressing going through life having your sexuality as the only salient feature of your existence.
Kate
I hate to agree. I mean, I really, really hate to agree. I have so many dear male friends who are gay. And I hate to admit it – but yes, their sexuality is too much the “salient point” of their existance. I suspect it’s part of the package, and I likewise suspect that they have no appreciation for the fact that straight people don’t look at the world through that lens, and consider this exaggerated focus on sexuality (and sex) to be abnormal – a distorting influence.
It’s not “homophobia”. It’s “hey, dude – I dont’ get why your dick controls your brain.”
Justin Ogren
America is only a Christian nation on paper, who do you know who actually does anything ‘Christian’? I believe alot of people will say they have the title of believing in god, but you do you know people that actually follow by one word of any of it?
Harry in Atlanta
Wouldn’t Vatican City be considered a Christian nation on paper?
I think that Sullivan’s traffic has diminished somewhat and he has become angry that people would actually make judgements about him based on his opinions. Wonder if Sully thinks he is smarter than most Americans, hmmmmmm? I would guess that a great deal of his bloviations are now just for spite. That’s what happens when someone gets desperate, they become shrill and whiny.
Oh well at least he hasn’t lost his talent for begging. Thank God I never gave him any of my hard earned ducats.
Francis W. Porretto
Justin, your comment reminds me of the famous statement by Katherine Graham: “I can’t believe Nixon got elected. Nobody I know voted for him.” It was reprised by Pauline Kael, who later said, “I can’t believe Reagan got elected. Nobody I know voted for him.”
In other words, the problem lies in your sample space. It’s an effect statisticians are intimately familiar with — and afraid of.
Mark L
Sullivan really underscores the thing that really repulses me about many gays — their narcissism. The world has to be all about them, and what does not serve them is unimportant. That is not a trait limited to gays — narcissism is the great failing of the late 20th/early 21st century western thought. It is at the heart of moral relativism and deconstructionsism. (Which is I why I find these repulsive, as well.)
But Sullivan carries sanctimoneous narcissism further than anyone else I know of.
More federal money on drug research (especially HIV drugs)? Good. It benefits Andy and the small fraction of the population with his problem.
More federal money for exploration of Moon and Mars? Bad. It cannot benefit Andy, and competes with money for HIV research. If society, long-term will benefit in 50 years, that does not matter. Andy will be dead by then, so who cares?
Gay marriage? Good. It forces us to acknowlege that Andy is just like the rest of us (except of course, where he is better). And anyone that points out that marriage is less about the adults in it and more about the kids it so often yields — why they are just bigoted homophobes. Andy isn’t interested in producing kids, so how DARE you use that as an isssue.
Go through his positions one by one, and filter them through the lens of narcissism.
Brian J.
Crikey, what did he say?
It’s not like I want to click over and help justify however infinitesimally his blogad prices.
Terry
As several have effectively noted above, the major problem with Sullivan is that in recent months he has written as if he derives virtually all of his views through the prism of his anus. He has recently commented that, he has “lost thousands of readers.” I, personally don’t understand why that number isn’t in the “tens of thousands.”
Ricky
Interesting title…..heh. :)
Just Passing Through
Brian is right. Sully’s livlihood is his writing. His blog makes money based on visits. If his traffic falls off significantly, he’ll wake up. He’s a talented writer and a good thinker when he’s in form but right now he is fixed on morphing Bush’s lack of support for Sully’s high note cause into the idea that republican means anti-gay. It’s not too smart to hang your credibility on a very narrow interpretation of a very peripheral issue in a wartime election.
Al Maviva
Andrew’s head has, for quite some time, been up his ass. Sure, it’s a metaphor, but it’s one of those metaphors that is closer to literal truth than your average metaphor – such as the ancient Greeks “thinking” with their stomachs, or a factory worker “dying on his feet.”
With Andrew, it’s become intolerable to read him – his fixation on his own sexuality (my personal is your political) is simply lunacy and he’s becoming no better than the idiot gays he used to criticize, who sought to score points by throwing blood on bishops at mass, and so forth. At this point, Andy would condemn a game of checkers because it’s playing pieces are either red or black, with no pink ones.
Ricky
Well, you guys have to admit that his “John Kerry is the conservative” stuff is among the most comical blog postings available.
If you really want a laugh, go back and read where he called many of the same people he now agrees with (interestingly enough, he started “realizing the war mistakes” about 10 seconds after Bush officially supported the FMA) 5th columnists.
As always, it depends on whose ox is being goured.
Just Passing Through
I still hope he wakes up at some point though obviously it won’t be before the election. He IS a good writer and thinker and supplied good food for thought before he became a one trick pony.
CadillaqJaq
Mark L labels Sullivan as narcissistic, ergo his recent batch of opinions have taken their toll on his readership. (I stopped visiting his site about a week after he began his tirade on the Bush administration regarding the Marriage amendment and began his attack on GWB).
I don’t know if narcissisim begats narcissism but take a look at our previous president, WJBC for one, replaced by a crude cowboy type, GWBush, and then look at JFKerry, who seeks to replace GWB. I can maybe understand Sullivan better. (…but that doesn’t mean I’ll go back and read his elitist shit.)
I grew up on a farm, worked in commercial construction my entire career, lived in Colorado with genuine cowboys and didn’t confine my beer drinking to cameo TV ad appearances. Oddly enough I used to read Sullivan on a daily basis (maybe to become familiar with the mindset on the other side of the fence). What a waste of time.
Dave Viking Power!
1. Andrew Sullivan has always made his homosexuality open and clear. “Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas” applies in that if you’re going to read his blog (or any column) regularaly you’ll be subjected to pro-homosexual language. If that’s offensive to you, why are you reading Andrew Sullivan?
2. Sullivan’s never been a back of W, he’s been a backer of the war on terriorism in general, no matter who’s fighting it.
3. He is the anti-Ed Koch. Koch (is he gay or what?) considers the war on terrorism the nation’s #1 priority and thus everything else – including gay rights – is second. Koch has faith in the system that the domestic issues will always be tackl-able whenever, while the terrorist bastards need killin’ NOW.
Jim B
Andrew Sullivan’s traffic (and livelihood) depend on the link traffic he gets. If you don’t like his postings and his singular viewpoint, stop visiting his site and de-link him.
I gave up on him when it became obvious that his previous conservative positions were no more genuine than his current outrage at conservatives. He plays for attention: it’s really that simple. The more outrageous his statement, the more people link him and the more money he earns.
It’s like I often tell female friends when they complain about men’s boorish behavior: then tell your girlfriends to stop responding to it. If there weren’t women out there who responded to boors, there wouldn’t be boorish men…It’s the 1 out of 10 Rule: 9 women may slap you, but the 10th one makes it all worthwhile.
Similarly, if people stopped reading Andrew and linking him every time he said something stupid he would just go away.
Ricky
Dave,
Read up on some of his previous stuff. Sullivan was a Bush backer….a big one, railing against the 5th columnists and against those who put forth hatred in his direction (just in case you thought the 5th columnist thing was only related to the war). He, like a bunch of us, criticized him on various policies (spending, spending, spending and spending), but he decided that the admin was incoherent, unbelievable in living in a world outside of reality, pretty much immediately when he saw Bush say he supported the FMA.
What’s amazing is that there seem to be 4 or 5 people who are buying his “I’ve really come around on the war, it’s not all about marriage”, as opposed to the 98% of readers who give a big guffaw and move on. Hey, he can compete against atrios & Kos on November 3 for the biggest Bush-hating blogger…..this is America & he can do what he wishes, as opposed to the one Kerry wants, where the FCC can decide that anti-Kerry ads are kept off the air.
Ricky
“I will bring my faith with me to the White House and it will guide me.”
— John F. Kerry, Oct. 20, Xenia, Ohio
—
Justin, you and Sullivan can run, but you cannot hide. Hope you enjoy Kerry’s “Faith statement” he puts out next weekend. I would ask how it feels to have your own candidate to drop-kick your rhetoric, but you guys will just spin/lie, so who cares?
Just Passing Through
“he can compete against atrios & Kos on November 3 for the biggest Bush-hating blogger…”
Probably not. There’s a good chance Sullivan will come around. There is no chance Kos or Atrios will and their accolytes will absolutely lose it.
Ben
Pardon my newbieism…
but what did Sullivan say that offended you all so much? This Barton guy certainly appears to be an extremist; at least I think so, and most of the country would as well.
But if you agree with this “Reconstructionist” government and would prefer it to our constitutional republic, I’d be interested in knowing why.
John Cole
What pisses me off is that he attributes the vile homophobia to the mainstream of conservatism. ‘That is who the GOP is today.”
Dave Viking Power!
I’ve read AS’s stuff for many a year… I never took him to be “behind” W. He struck me, always, as a Clinton democrat. And as such, his repulsion regarding the moonbats who do not represent his flavor of the democratic party (Deaniacs, etc.) was natural.
But first and foremost he wears his sexuality on his arm for all to see and pity the fool who calls the HIV+, musclehead, Provinctown Prowler anything but normal.
He’s never kept this a secret.
gawdamman
I quit reading Sullivan’s blog when it became apparent that his primary goal was promoting the homosexual agenda. While Sullivan and his queer allies call me a homophobe I can only say bullshit…..I’m not afraid of these fairies, I find their “in-your-face” sexuallity disgusting and I maintain that they choose HIV by practicing unprotected sex…..then they want the taxpayers to take care of their sorry asses(literally). I think not!
Glen
John,
Love the title! Love the post! Really love some of the comments! What is Freeperville’s zipcode, anyway?
Mark L
John:
AS is projecting when he attributes vile homophobia to the mainstream of conservatism. AS is a heterophobic bigot, who is attributing those he fears with a reflection of his own attitude towards straights.
Gary Farber
John, with due respect, is it possible for you to disagree with whatever Sullivan’s arguments are without asserting that they are due to his sexuality, and without referring to his sexuality?
Really, you’re not a “bad man,” I’m sure. And I’ve lost track of the number of times you’ve reacted to Andrew Sullivan’s opinions by bringing up his sexuality, and attributing his opinions, which you happen to now disagree with, because he is talking about the Emperor’s attire, to a single issue.
This is, may I note, not a good argument?
Gary Farber
I can’t help, by the way, but notice, how every single time you bring up the evolution of Sullivan’s opinions, your comments fill with posted remarks that either revolve around Sullivan’s sexuality, or at least compulsively refer to it.
It’s as if the only reason one could possibly criticize the President is over gay marriage, or, I dunno what. Do you find this reasoning/connection at all odd, or not, I ask curiously?
John Cole
Gary-
The key aspect of Andrew’s post is an advertisement about sexuality. Kinda hard to ignore the elephant in the living room.
My crude language was to make a point- I have always treated Andy with respect, always taken his ideas atface value. IN return, he finds a repulsive commercial and blames the entirety of the GOP. That includes me.
Is there any difference between the statement “All republicans are gay-baiting homophobes?” and the statement “all homosexuals are child-molesting pedophiles?”
jpe
What pisses me off is that he attributes the vile homophobia to the mainstream of conservatism. ‘That is who the GOP is today.”
He’s not too far off, though, given the Bush campaign’s “real guy” bullshit and corresponding attempt at the feminization of Kerry/Edwards (see, eg: “Look, they’re holding hands! Har-har!”).
Justin Ogren
Advertisement of sexuality? What in the hell? Who advertises gay people nowadays unless its for a joke? The only time I see it advertised is the lesbo action we see in many commercials aimed towards men, and that’s fine, personally I love lesbians. The thing is, the sexuality of being gay should be promoted, more people should know it’s ok to be gay, and this country has got to stop it’s gay-bashing. I have no problem with gay jokes, fat jokes,abortion jokes, personal jokes on me, I don’t care, they are jokes…..so that’s when it’s cool to talk about this on that level, even though I understand sometimes its hard to take a joke when it’s repeated over and over again…….but it’s not just jokes that gay people experience, more violence is aimed at people who are gay more often than if they were straight, and where the hell are their rights, DAMN!
I can’t wait until the day people in this country will no longer talk about this crappy ‘sanctity’ of marriage: a man and a woman bullshit. Knowing that there are presidents like Bush putting a halt to progessing civil rights in this country, and people supporting it……..who knows when that will be.
syn
I have several homosexual friends who hate the word “gay” being labeled upon them by a movement which cares nothing for homosexuals. Quite frankly, they are OVER THE RAINBOW and want their lives back.
For those who believe in the ‘gay movement’ do you not think it odd that gays are in the process of eliminating the homosexual?
The quest to make homosexuals the ‘normal heteroexual’ is equal to the quest of turning females into males all for the cause of equality.
Just as the women’s movement is attempting to eliminate the female, the gay movement is attempting to eliminate the homosexual. The actions and words presented by both movements indicate they are intolerant of their own selves.
One day we will all be living in a world of the monosexual where humans will no longer be themselves but merely a movement which recognizes no one.
jpe
The ad is pretty effed up. The gist, for those who haven’t seen it, is basically “Kerry and Edwards: a couple of fags.”
Kathy K
I’m not in the least gay, or particularly concerned about ‘gay issues’ but I also am worried about the Republican tendency to pander to, and ally with, theocrats.
If you don’t know what Christian Reconstructionism is, I can see you’d probably shrug it off. But these are people who *do* believe in things like stoning adulterers, putting blashphemers and apostates (as well as gays) to death. Little things like that.
Bou
As some of the commenters have mentioned, Sullivan’s tone changed completely after Bush’s support of the FMA. Sullivan went from thoughtful to bitter and became very selective in his use of quotes and links to support his attacks on Bush. He even co-opted the Dowd/Krugman tactic of massive quote distortion, as detailed here.
I have to say that, now, I don’t think Sullivan ever really supported Bush.
jpe
Sullivan’s tone changed completely after Bush’s support of the FMA.
Wow, imagine that. I’d imagine econo-libertarian conservatives might do the same if Bush came out in favaor of, say, a new hyper-redistributive New Deal.
Floyd McWilliams
Wow, imagine that. I’d imagine econo-libertarian conservatives might do the same if Bush came out in favaor of, say, a new hyper-redistributive New Deal.
The proper anology is if Ted Kennedy were to come out in favor of a hyper-redistributive New Deal. Why on earth would anyone think that the Republican party is pro-gay marriage?
I don’t like the talk about the “homosexual agenda,” and I am in favor of gay marriage. But I am also in favor of slagging on hysterical idiots. Sullivan got a big fat man-crush on George Bush, and for whatever reason his infatuation turned to opposition. Sullivan is not a sage independent; he is a teenage girl.
jpe
Why on earth would anyone think that the Republican party is pro-gay marriage?
Perhaps because both Bush and Cheney said it was a matter for the states, then changed their minds when they needed the fundy vote.
Even if it’s reasonable to think that Bush would inevitably come out for federal preclusion of state measures allowing gay marriage (despite his earlier, non-election year stance that it’s a state isue), the FMA would most likely ban civil unions in addition to gay marriage.
Kathy K
Well, I’ve now seen the ad. Let’s say that, while I’m still for Bush, I’m even less happy than usual about some of his supporters. That ad was disgusting.
My best hope is the the Democrats totally implode and the moderate wings of the Democrat and Republican parties form a new party.
Dorian
“You know what, Sully? Go fuck yourself.”
He would if he could however he must settle for a surrogate with similar anatomy.
Perhaps this the essence of what it is to be gay for Andy.
Ricky
Er, when the courts in Mass decided to write law (which would affect all states), the red flags went up.
There was, however, a bill put up a few years ago that would allow the matter to be put before the states to decide….DOMA. Kerry voted against it.
Of course, he’s for it, now.
Hey, Farber, do you still dodge every tough question put in your direction?
jpe
Er, when the courts in Mass decided to write law (which would affect all states), the red flags went up.
Even without DOMA, it’s doubtful that the Mass decision would affect all the states; there’s always been a public policy exception to the full faith & credit clause.
With DOMA, the FF&C argument just doesn’t cut any ice.
That said, the Mass decision is an example of states’ rights in action. If Mass wants to change its constitution to invalidate its court’s decision, they should go right ahead, but getting the feds involved is precisely what Bush vowed not to do.
HH
An internet ad and the increasingly irrelevant James Dobson are reasons to vote against Bush (because the “people who support him” are so horrible)… the increasing campaign of intimidation and hate from the UK Guardian to ransacking of campaign HQs and shootings, etc. is horrible but nothing to bother considering changing one’s vote over…
Blackjack
Thanks, John. I’m glad somebody else expressed the same sentiments that I share. If he doesn’t like Bush, that’s one thing. But, does he really think Kerry is going to have his back on gay marriage? Kerry goes whichever way the wind blows. And, the wind does not blow in Sully’s favor.