Well, Gary's clearly right about this: "many on the left will never forgive him for supporting the war and initially defending Bush for a long time." Though, IIRC, he didn't just defend Bush, he went after those who questioned the Administration with vigor. He's only given way on really two issues - the war (where it becoming irrefutable that he was wrong) and gay rights (which is pure self interest).
You'd think he might, for kicks, note the connection between gay rights and minority rights generally, and wonder whether it was really the smart thing to entrust civil rights to a party that installed revanchist Dixiecrats in its leadership positions. Or note that this Administration has been incompetent along any number of axes by most proto-Establishment metrics. And, obviously, he's never really been taken to task for destroying TNR as the gateway magazine to thoughtful Democratic politics. So, yeah, to the extent he's not bringing new information to the table, fuck'em.
So now it's cool to talk about torture and Alberto "electroshock" Gonzales now that the biggest toady on the right is talking about it?
Whatever happened to it becoming an issue of "Democrats are soft and looking to score points" .
Geez louis. I can't imagine how f*cked up things must be that it suddenly becomes cool again to deal with the issue now that Andrew "fifth column" Sullivan is on the beat.
Really. It's just frickin' surreal.
Geez Hal, I'm just passing on stuff for the people here to read. Skip over the byline and that Times piece is very good. But I haven't changed my mind about how it will play politically.
"He's only given way on really two issues - the war (where it becoming irrefutable that he was wrong) and gay rights (which is pure self interest). "
This is not so. While Sullivan has not suddenly dropped all conservative beliefs, he's been going rather full-throatedly after Bush for at least five or six months on a considerable variety of other issues, including the deficit, homeland security failures, and a bunch of bills and issues.
As for the war issue being "irrefutable," this is obviously not the view of a huge number of people, as should be perfectly obvious if one ever looks at blogs such as Glen Reynolds, Belmont Club, Smash, and endless others, including many I'm aware of only by penumbra, such as LGF. Just take a look at any post John Cole at Balloon Juice has made in the last six months that has the word "Sullivan" in it, and note the frothing.
And the notion that Sullivan turned against Bush simply because he's gay is a clear slur; people of the left should be more ashamed of throwing that canard at him than those for whom it is a refrain, and an endless excuse.
Mind, I'm not advocating that anyone should suddenly start worshipping at an altar to Mr. Sullivan, or forget or forgive him for his own slurs against so many on the left or anti-war. I simply was pointing out that he's been very good indeed on torture, and on a lot of issues on which Bush has been such a -- wait for it -- miserable failure, and that credit is due for that. That's all.
"And, obviously, he's never really been taken to task for destroying TNR as the gateway magazine to thoughtful Democratic politics."
But, then, be it noted that I don't remotely agree with that.
"So now it's cool to talk about torture...."
I've been writing about torture issues for more than three years; innumerable people have written much for years. I'm sorry you are unaware of this. Feel free to drop "torture" into the search function on my blog, and count the number of entries.
Myself, incidentally, I'm kind interested in winning elections, which requires making allies, which requires persuasion. But, by all means, if people think the way to win elections, make allies, and persuade people is to berate and insult them for what is disagreed about rather than focussing on what is agreed about, and to condemn them because they weren't Right-Thinking soon enough, well, hey, consider volunteering for the Republicans, and explaining to them the virtues of Condeming The Impure, please; they already have plenty of chinks that can be wedged. Meanwhile, I'll continue to advocate seeking allies, agreement, and working together to win, rather than practicing Politics As A Source Of Personal Virtue.
The invective directed at Sullivan really bothers me. Sure, the guy goes rhetorically overboard sometimes (though less often now than a few years ago), and he gives one lots to disagree with. But he also shows real integrity in his professional writing -- much much more integrity than the typical hack on either side.
If you can't tell the difference between Sullivan and say Instapundit or Atrios, you aren't really reading. Though often wrong and sometimes wrongheaded, he is not a hack.
Ogged, didn't mean to direct that all at you. Still think it's pretty surreal.
Gary:
I'm reluctant to disagree with you, because I've seen a couple of the (deserved) beat-downs you've laid on some other folks on other sites. But I disagree with you.
1. On Sully's view of Bush's policies: My recollection is that Sullivan basically noted problems with Bush's policies, but still gave him full-throated support. Then he had a sort-of Yosemite Sam "I've had all I can stands, and I can't stand's no more" moment on gay rights, and his coverage on other policy issues took on a less tolerating tone. OTOH, I admit that, for the sake of the enamel on the back of my teeth, I don't much read Sullivan's work. If you say that there's been no tonal change in criticism of Bush, I'll take your word for it.
2. On whether he changed his vote because of gay rights issues: I don't think I said that, as I referenced both the war and gay rights. But I absolutely don't understand why Sully voting against Bush solely on the basis of gay rights would be a slur. I assume that US-style democracy works by having people look to their own interests and then negotiate with other interest groups for sake of coalition building. I assume that people's interests are most at play where people are most vulnerable. I take Sullivan to be white, male, gay, Catholic, well-educated, and relatively well-off. Other than his sexuality, he doesn't seem to be much at risk from the majority. If, in an election in which gay rights figured prominently, his sexuality didn't figure significantly into his decision, I take him to be a moron. And whatever else, I don't take him to be that.
3. TNR - opinions differ, I guess. Supposedly it's for sale; I'd love to know what it goes for.
4. On coalition building: of course we'll have to build coalitions. But building coalitions means negotiating deals, not simply reaching out with open arms. Sullivan was, to my mind, insufficiently concerned about individual rights. (And yeah, I hold him to a higher standard than Reynolds. Reynolds is white, male, straight, rural state, well-educated, and well-off. He's got less to fear from straight majority rules). So we spend the next two years telling him that, and the two years after that seducing him back into our arms.
3. TNR - opinions differ, I guess. Supposedly it's for sale; I'd love to know what it goes for.
I hadn't heard it was for sale. I think the interesting question is not what it goes for - the book has never made a profit in its history - but who buys it and why. Peretz has had a clear agenda, and that has made the magazine fascinating in some ways and tiresome in others.
In my experience, it was at its best under Kinsley in the 80's (but I'd probably say that about anything he's edited) as it was moving rightward. I probably stopped subscribing when Sully was editor, but I wouldn't blame him solely for its decline. He can be an amazing writer. I still remember the cover story he wrote on AIDS and gay culture, about how the ubiquity of death had given the gay world a medieval tinge.
Also, while I don't subscribe at the moment, I've heard some say that the current staff is as good as any in recent memory and doing some great work.
Didn't a coalition of investors join Peretz in recent years? I thought that was what drove the change to a web presence with so many stories reserved for subscribers. Coalitions seem common at liberal mags at the moment. A group of investors led by Victor Navasky bought the Nation a few years ago, and I think it's a group behind American Prospect. But a single buyer with a strong agenda can have a big impact on a publication like TNR.
At first the Medium Lobster made the mistake of reading and appreciating Sullivan's Times piece - misreading the name, thinking it was by a "Sandrew Ullivan" - but when I recognized the byline I saw the essay was not an insightful and honest reflection on the deepening horror of America's pact with torture, but Andrew Sullivan just gaying it up on the op-ed pages to spite George Bush.
Quite clearly Andrew Sullivan cannot be forgiven for any hyperbolic coments he's made in the past. To this end, the Medium Lobster has branded him with his mark - the scarlet letter R, for "right winger" - for the unique crime of going crazy for a while after 9/11. While Sullivan was gasping and sputtering about "fifth columns" and "wars against evil," the Medium Lobster was casually sipping tea at Ground Zero with Noam Chomsky, rationally and unemotionally analyzing events as they unfolded and coming to eminently reasonable conclusions, such as "Shrubya = aWol," which I then posted repeatedly on the comment sections of Eschaton and DailyKos.
But Andrew Sullivan did not follow the Medium Lobster's wise example, and spewed forth hyperbole and invective that disagreed with my viewpoint. He also gave me and several colleagues an "award" which, in retrospect, turned out not to be a genuine award at all.
For all of these crimes and more, Sullivan is cast forth from Blogdom, to wander to its east, alone and unwanted. So let it be written! So let it be done!
From above
I know everyone who reads this blog is disgusted by America's policy of torture,
-----------
I'm not disgusted at all. Why? 1. Not torture.
The watermelon left is incapable of rational thought. Not able to think 'right'. Simply stupid.
?J Clinton passed the law where our 'intelligence people' would NEVER hurt anyone. Instead we sent them to Egypt to be questioned. Oooh Egyptian or Turkish prisons are so much more pink. Fucking idiots.
At least W is thinking unlike the brain dead left who simply hate.
abc, please don't comment here anymore.
Yes I'll do that.
We put on yellow stars and were herded into trains to be killed like roaches. I'm proud of my yellow star.
I will not be herded BY GOVERNMENT anywhere, I'll die first.
The stupid left hates Enron but loves big government.
McVeigh and the radical left are allied in their hatred.
Look around.
Last post.
I can't stand Sullivan. He gets his facts wrong constantly. He sells out gays regularly. He demonizes liberals. He uses the most ridiculous straw-man arguments on a daily basis. I hate him.
"I can't stand Sullivan. He gets his facts wrong constantly. He sells out gays regularly. He demonizes liberals. He uses the most ridiculous straw-man arguments on a daily basis. I hate him."
It's always useful to read a thoughtful analysis, based upon cites and facts; they're so irrefutable.
Let us all pause now for the Two-Minute Hate. Be sure to focus: Andrew Sullivan is a Tusken Raider.
"I'm reluctant to disagree with you, because I've seen a couple of the (deserved) beat-downs you've laid on some other folks on other sites. But I disagree with you."
See, the weird thing is that I only make people look like idiots when they're actually idiots.
Disagreement is, per se, not only welcome, but solicited, I say in the passive voice.
Intelligent disagreement, that is; so, thanks. (Possibly more later.) Also: Ni!