Article

2004-07-26 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-07-26 12:42:23 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Sullivan is basically a one-issue voter and that issue is gay marriage. Kerry is actually against it, too, but Sullivan and other gay activists see him as more flexible and, obviously, as associated with the party that promotes the idea.

Yeah. Sort of. If you actually read Sully on the topic of same-sex marriage, it is clear that this is an area where his brain just goes off the trolley tracks, raw emotion taking over. Since Bush was forced to take a stand against it, Sully's been itching to spit back in rage-- like a jilted lover?-- his irrationality coming into clear view in such statements as Kerry's "a church-going Catholic who finds discussion of religious faith unseemly in public", when everyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that Kerry attends church only out of political expedience, and declines to talk about his faith less because he finds such talk "unseemly" than because he knows it's potentially embarassing, given that his religious faith is sheer fakery, as evidenced by his phoney baloney self-contradictions on the topic of abortion-- which phoney baloney slipperiness Sully now pronounces "nouanced"?

Pfeh. Facing facts, Sully ain't calculating this way or that, he's just an emoter in the grip of a personal obsession.

A cautionary tale to those who think that being smart entails being right. Even very smart people can be driven to stupidity by their personal demons. Case in point: Andrew Sullivan.

of his

Posted by Wuzzalib 2004-07-26 2:30:39 AM|| 2004-07-26 2:30:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I've been watching Sullivan slowly rip loose from his moorings for a long time.

Such is Sullivan's influence that I have to wonder whether those pushing the gay marriage issue-- and deciding to push it at this particular time-- were were doing so largely to de-rail Andrew's support for Bush.

If that's what they were trying to do, it worked.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-07-26 6:38:18 AM|| 2004-07-26 6:38:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Sullivan's having a hissy fit because Bush is against gay marriage. I stopped reading his blog months ago.

Posted by Infidel Bob 2004-07-26 7:16:52 AM|| 2004-07-26 7:16:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 hes unhappy with a lot of bush admin policies, not just the gay stuff(which can quite tiresome) . He writes an inciteful and persuasive blog - i wont try to make his case for him, just if youre not reading it, youre missing something good.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-26 9:06:37 AM|| 2004-07-26 9:06:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 LH - I use to read his blog religiously. I even found RB through him - but after his blog become Johnny-one-note for the gay marriage issue I rarely look in anymore. I gather nothing useful that can't be found here or in a select few other blogs.

Maybe after the war on radical Islam is completed and won, gay 'marriage' may interest me a bit more - but not until then. I dearly love the girl-friends of my three (female) cousins but have no desire to legally equate those relationships with that of myself and my wife. But, as I said, until we kill the bastards that want to kill us because we are non-moslem, it is barely on my screen.

Here's a thought - If extreme Islam overtakes the world, the very idea of gay marriage is laughable.

First things first.

Posted by Doc8404 2004-07-26 9:58:46 AM|| 2004-07-26 9:58:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I can't fault Sullivan for this. I don't have a dog in the gay marriage dispute, but it affects him directly. I know they forced this thing to the foreground, but the Reps are behaving just as foolishly. Somebody explain to me how banning gay marriage on the basis of morality is any less socialist than the stuff the Dems try to push on us.

Posted by BH 2004-07-26 10:00:15 AM|| 2004-07-26 10:00:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Sullivan - he is NOT a Catholic - at lesat not one in good standing with the Church. His constant voting FOR abortion rights legislation consitutes a great sin in th eyes of the Church, and per Cardinal Ratzingers letter this year, sections 3 5 and 6, whe should not present himself for communion, and if he does, he should be denied communion by the minister.

So do *NOT* call him Catholic. Sully, you're full of crap on this one.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-07-26 10:01:59 AM|| 2004-07-26 10:01:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Andy, if you are reading the Burg, just go down to the bath house and do what your kind does. Stop pretending to be a conservative when you come out with such tripe as this column.

TO sum up as on LGF:

So, Sullivan is agasint Bush now because Bush is agains Gay MArriage and has been spending a bit too liberally - so he is endorsing Kerry? The same Kerry who is also (supposedly) against Gay Marriage and would spend even more money (socialized medicine) - and raise taxes, as well as tying out ability to act down with internationalism?

I think Andrew Sullivan has lost his mmind due the Gay Marriage thing. He's become a one-note basher, and should be treated same as any other moonbat who has lost perspective and context. Hint #1 Andrew: there's a war on, and there are more important things than Gay Marriage in the world.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-07-26 10:20:55 AM|| 2004-07-26 10:20:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Andrew Sullivan values his sexual predilictions more than the security of the United States. Perhaps he should move to France where mores are more mutable.

Posted by Random thoughts 2004-07-26 11:29:56 AM|| 2004-07-26 11:29:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Sullivan lost me when he went one issue. Doc8404 is absolutely right. Andrew and all gays have the greatest stake in winning the war on terror. Their lives, literally, depend on it. Odd that they do not understand that.

Posted by remote man 2004-07-26 1:33:19 PM|| 2004-07-26 1:33:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 He has spent decades in the Senate, quietly building an undistinguished and constantly nuanced record.

Give me a fuckin' break. Eighteen years in the Senate. Exactly three bills bear his signature as the originator (two on that all-important issue of fishing rights). He's to public service as M.C. Hammer is to music.

Posted by 50 Cent 2004-07-26 1:53:34 PM|| [http://www.southcentralLA.com] 2004-07-26 1:53:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 hey give andy a break. Yeah, hes got other issues that matter to him as well the as the GWOT. So does everyone else, including just about every other blog, and the Bush admin too for that matter. Odd that the very folks who attack Sully for not focusing like lighting on the GWOT are the very ones who push domestic politics issues HERE, of all places.

His disagreements with the Bush admin on economics are not about something small - theyre about a huge issue relating to the economy, and it ALSO relates to how serious Bush IS about the GWOT. And I would suggest that some of Sullys discomfort DOES relate to Bushs actions in the GWOT. Some here beleive every disagreement within the Bush admin is really a charade, and that everything they arent doing now they will assuredly do in term 2. That may be true, but Sully is hardly crazy for not taking it all on faith.

If theres a "War on", as OS says, why is the Bush admin attacking a group that has every reason to oppose the islamofascists? why divide us now?? And surely the Bush admin isnt against internationalism.

and by, the way, on most days there more posts on Sully relating to the WOT, attacking the loonie left, etc than there are on gay marriage.

As for his standing in the RC church, thats neither here nor there. I AM surprised that Ratzingers statement is now taken to apply to journalists - I thought it applied ONLY to officeholders, which Sully is not. In any case I remind OS that not EVERYONE here is a Catholic. Indeed, not everyone here is a CONSERVATIVE - I eagerly await Sullys coming over the dark side and joining the liberal hawks, but im afraid thats not going to happen.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-26 2:08:22 PM|| 2004-07-26 2:08:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 LH,

All very good points you make, and everyone absolutely has the right to make up his own mind as to whom he wishes to vote for. No problem with that.

My problem with Sullivan is his intellectual dishonesty. If he has had a reverse Ronald Reagan moment where he states, "The Republican Party has left me, and I realize that the Democratic Party now represents my values better" than say so. After all, hasn't that been his shtick for all these years: "Look at me! I'm homosexual without being a statist, PC goofball!" Well, the last time I looked the principles of the 2004 Kerry Democratic Party aren't much different than those of the 1972 McGovern one; if anything the Dems are models of numbing consistency. So, if anyone has shifted it's been Sullivan.

Also, Sullivan strikes me as being incredibly naive about this FMA thing. Bush's base is the conservative religious voter who isn't too keen on this same-sex thing, and he's way too smart a politician to trade their votes (or staying at home) for an "atta-boy" on the editorial pages of the NYT.

And it cuts both ways because Kerry can't stray too far from his anti-war base.

Posted by dreadnought 2004-07-26 2:34:53 PM|| 2004-07-26 2:34:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 While you're at it, LH, give OldSpook a break on the subject of Catholicism? I'm just live-and-let-be on it, and I already posted on the subject re: Kerry and Sully - both are clearly apostate Catholics, and the Church is free to treat them like it. (Sullivan panned The Passion of the Christ for being of the traditional Catholic bent that he "escaped".)

Posted by Edward Yee 2004-07-26 2:45:42 PM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2004-07-26 2:45:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 I heard Sullivan argue homo sexual marriage on Medved show. He went ballistic. It was plain to me that marriage to him was about love. No, love is about love. Marriage is about a man showing respect to the woman (or women) that he is procreating with. It is the melding of blood lines. Don't give me any religious crap about it.

Before Christianity or Jewdeism, or whatever religion currently being practiced, there was marriage. You can call an apple an orange all day long, don't mean it is.

Andrew has a lover. Thats adultery and thats his problem not mine or societies. Societies problem is about children and how they are raised. Who's their daddy! Not about who your having sex with.

BH, nobody is banning homos from marriage. They can marry and have children and still have sex all they want with another adult.(grounds for divorce for me) So whats the problem you ask. Children are the problem. Children are best raised, to societies best interest, by a mother and a father. Some Homosexuals want those kids. They want the stigma of adultery to be blurred. They want two mommies, they want two daddies. Not for the childrens sake but for their own fulfillment.

I was once lectured here how it would be better for a child to be raised by two homosexuals then say by an alcoholic, whatever that is. There wouldn't of been kids in my neighborhood if that were true, The Irish would have been doomed, Itallians, Germans. What the lecturer really wanted to say was some people are not good for raising children. In my book that includes people who would allow their perverted sexual attempts, whether thats male on male, male on female, interfamily, interspecies what have you to be a part of a childs upbringing. Most kids have the normal heterolsexual idea of sex implanted in their minds. I liked pretty girls the first time I noticed a pretty girl. Thats the problem BH. The confusing of a child.

So, by all means, love the one your with. Just leave the kids out of it. And please don't lay some extreme thing about how some can't have, don't want kids. Thats just smoke to blur the truth. If you want to have some lover be your main squezz and have rights to your estate, put it in your will. And fix any problem that might interfer with that. Call it whatever you want but don't call it marriage. Unless you want to change the meaning of marriage. Then what should we call when two bloodlines come together to make a new line. Breeders!

Oh, and then there is Aris. Okay Aris let loose.

Posted by Lucky 2004-07-26 3:55:53 PM|| 2004-07-26 3:55:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 For OS - you can post this when words fail regards these morons who still claim to be Catholic, lol!

I don't have a dog in the religion fight, but I empathize strongly because it's just more of the hyphenation BS and moral equiv mentality dressed in slightly more indirect threads. They hope to deflect direct criticism by associating themselves with perceived centers of power / authority / legitimacy. Very disingenuous and disgusting cowardice, IMO.

Sullivan lost me about 6 months ago when his real agenda emerged. Everything since not directly related to gays has been equivocation and weasle-logic to cover his true disingenuous ass.

Posted by .com 2004-07-26 7:47:36 PM|| 2004-07-26 7:47:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Lucky fires for effect!
Repeat!

Posted by Shipman 2004-07-26 7:55:45 PM|| 2004-07-26 7:55:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 I think it's a matter of money. Mr. Sullivan's blog is a rarity in that it's profitable. Well, it probably was until he went "one-note".

I think this latest Lean-to-Kerry is a campaign to woo a new funding base. No doubt the free publicity that has followed both his non-MSM articles hasn't hurt either. Coincidentally, the latest flap also comes at the start of his latest pledge drive.

Maybe we'll be treated to Mr. Sullivan's biography some day. I'd like to suggest a title: Memoirs of a Blog-Whore.

Posted by Pappy 2004-07-26 10:01:32 PM|| 2004-07-26 10:01:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 I think your right Pappy. Log cabin republicans are BS too.

Posted by Lucky 2004-07-26 10:29:15 PM|| 2004-07-26 10:29:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 LH, Cardinal Ratzingers' letter is meant to articulate the larger Christian idea that it is more wicked to encourage others to sin than to sin oneself. All of us are sinners. Old Spook's problem with Sullivan is not that Sullivan is for "gay marriage" but that Sullivan purports to belong to a pro-Gay Marriage wing of the Catholic Church - one that axiomatically, doesn't exist.

I found Rantburg by another road than Sullivan's Blog, so I'm not much of an expert on his message. Sullivan's point of view is worth paying attention to as long as his methods and opinions are truthful. He may fall back into Bush's camp at a later date as much of what Bush is doing will only make sense down the road and then only if America follows where he leads.

For example, the flat tax idea died, for a time, when Americans expressed an interest in cutting out tax code complexities as long as their own tax credits remained in place. I think there is a kernel of privatization in the Prescription Benefits for seniors that will bare fruit down the road.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-07-26 10:39:01 PM|| 2004-07-26 10:39:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Speaking of social commentary. Take a look at what's on the other end of this link that I found on Human Events. Now that's a tee-shirt.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-07-26 11:10:51 PM|| 2004-07-26 11:10:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 LH - I'm not condmening SUllivan for Catholicism, but as a journalist he states an untruth - a distortion, when he calls Kerry a "churchgoing Catholic".

All the evidence is against him being any sort of Catholic other than as a device to pander to a particular segment of voters.

As for Sullivan, I didnt know if he was Catholic, Buddhist or Zoroastrain - a bad journalistic mistake is a bad journalistic mistake.

Period.

And FYI - if you vote for someone because they hold the views counter to the Church's teachings, then you are in just as severe a state of sin as they are, for aiding and promoting evil in the world.

If you aren't Catholic, then no big deal for you - your beliefs are different. But if you claim to be Catholic, then you clearly have made a moral judgement to let politics come before faith.

THAT was what my point was: KErry and other so-call Catholic politicians now have to decide and be true to their faith, or they shoudl get out of the Church. There is no room for them any other way, and they put the Church itself at risk by their behavior. And that is as good an illumination on their chracter as any other moral test.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-07-27 12:05:59 AM|| 2004-07-27 12:05:59 AM|| Front Page Top

01:07 Islamic sand babboons
01:39 Seafarious
01:34 .com
01:23 .com
01:07 Islamic sand babboons TROLL
00:56 Allah Is A Cave Nigger TROLL
02:31 Anonymous6371
12:58 Anil
19:49 Jarhead
19:23 Allah Eats Shit With A Spoon
19:18 Anonymous5929
00:32 Les Nessman
12:04 Crusader
08:43 CSI :Baghdad
00:54 Super Hose
00:48 Super Hose
00:42 Super Hose
00:27 RMcLeod
00:08 Rafael
00:05 OldSpook
00:01 GreatestJeneration
23:59 MrO
23:59 GreatestJeneration
23:59 A Jackson