Andrew Sullivan - Leaving the Right

[†= Crap!]

The entire list applies to both parties.

Not really.

I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful

I cannot support a movement that regards gay people as threats to their own families.

I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact.

I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy.

I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck.

These are only seriously applicable to GOP and the conservative movement that supports it. But I will grant you that the rest of the list is just as easily applied to the Democrats.

Charles Johnsons list is far more targeted at conservatives though

 

[hgc]

Andrew left the "right" a long time ago; regular readers of the Daily Dish (as I was in 2003-2004) can date it to the moment that Bush came out in support of an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage. The laundry list of reasons is just a post-hoc rationalization.

There are, of course, valid reasons on that list; I despise Glenn Beck, for example. But each side has its pluses and minuses.

As a regular reader, I can attest that the gay marriage amendment was no particular trigger point. It had a lot more to do with a) incompetence and general malfeasance in Iraq occupation, b) a belated realization that invading Iraq was a bad idea, and c) fiscal irresponsibility. Add in a healthy dose of Katrina and political religion (including hating on the gays), and you've got Sully going off the farm.

 

[Brainster]

As a regular reader, I can attest that the gay marriage amendment was no particular trigger point. It had a lot more to do with a) incompetence and general malfeasance in Iraq occupation, b) a belated realization that invading Iraq was a bad idea, and c) fiscal irresponsibility. Add in a healthy dose of Katrina and political religion (including hating on the gays), and you've got Sully going off the farm.

Nope he swiveled on a dime in February 2004. Check out his posts before and after Bush announced his support for the GMA (on February 24). His criticisms of Bush prior to that were all criticisms from the right (for example, his criticism of Bush's prescription drug entitlement).

And he certainly didn't break from Bush on Iraq back then (although he may have later):

BREAKTHROUGH IN IRAQ: There are still many pitfalls - not least of which is the nature and shape of an interim Iraqi government after June 30. But Sistani's agreement to extend the deadline to the end of this year for national elections strikes me as a real coup for the Bush administration. I'm still an optimist. I'd be interested in hearing or seeing a real tally of U.S. casualties in Iraq recently. From reading the papers, it appears that the casualty rate has subsided - or has shifted (appallingly) toward the civilian population. But I've long believed that if we show real determination to persevere, and if we don't lose our nerve, Iraq can transition to a functioning, if ramshackle, democracy. That remains a huge achievement - the most encouraging development in the Middle East since the Israel-Egypt peace accords. And Bush and Blair deserve the credit.

Besides, blaming the "right" for Katrina is silly; arguably you can blame the Bush Administration, and I would note that elements on the "right" did just that. Michelle Malkin, for example, was scorching in her criticism of "Brownie".

 

[Upchurch]

The entire list applies to both parties.

Agreed.

Could you two clarify?

I count two or three of the twelve points that could apply to both parties. Did you read the list or are you knee-jerking?

 

[Eyeron]

No. I just don't see the difference. Both parties use these tactics. Let's take permanent war as an example. Obama promised us change. That suggests that he would do things differently than Former President Bush. Former President Bush was involved in the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan. So what does Obama do? He keeps the war in Afghanistan going, but wants to start a conflict in Pakistan and has made a couple of military operations without Pakistan's permission within Pakistan's borders.

So how is that any different from Former President Bush? I just can not see any real difference there.

For me, if you find something deplorable, if you want to take the higher moral ground, you don't do the same thing as the other person who is doing what you find deplorable. regardless of the justification, if you are doing the same thing there is no real difference, at least to me.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Thanks for the link to Sullivan's blog post. I am going to pass this along to a lot of my more right-leaning friends who are also sick of the path taken in recent years by the conservative movement.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Could you two clarify?

I count two or three of the twelve points that could apply to both parties. Did you read the list or are you knee-jerking?

I think the clarification comes in where you separate "conservative" from the party label. There are certainly some conservative Democrats (most of them in the South) to whom much of this list applies. I think the point is that the dominant faction within the GOP is very clearly this type of conservative that Sullivan is criticizing, whereas while some may exist within the ranks of the Democrats they do not wield the true power within the party.

Anyway, that's my read on it all.

 

[Upchurch]

So how is that any different from Former President Bush? I just can not see any real difference there.

Is Obama pushing the war on false premises? It's too soon to tell, but if he is not, that is a significant difference from Former President Bush.


But this is moving the goal posts. You said "the entire list applies to both parties", not just one item. I full acknowledge that 2-3 (depending on how you interpret the wording) are applicable, but all of them? Note, for instance, the ones †= Crap! pointed out. a few posts back.

 

[corplinx]

Sullivan is GCINO. A "goldwater conservative in name only". He outed himself as a conspiracy kook a while back with the Trig-birther nonsense. His only use seems to be in giving ammo to democrats to criticize not only Bush and modern religious right but the Goldwater/Friedman conservatism he claims to support.

Several notes in his own list refute the idea that he is some sort of Goldwater/Friedman type.

He is an independent thinker, but nowhere as eloquent or insightful as say Hitchens. His blog generates the majority of its diggs/traffic/buzz when he criticizes easy targets like Sarah "i read lots, i just cant tell you what it is" Palin. "LOOK< A CONSERVATIF AGGREES WIT US DAT SARA IS TEH SUK".

The best I can figure is that he is a whore, fighting irrelevancy, and riding whatever coattails he needs to stay marginally relevant. Maybe if he had talent (like the Hitch), he wouldn't need to.

Edited to Add: He reminds me of those fake democrats Hannity has on his show.

 

[WildCat]

I just heard a radio ad by Illinois GOP Senate hopeful Andy Martin. His ad was directed at the GOP Senate frontrunner, Rep. Mark Kirk.

The gist of the ad? "I heard a rumor that my opponent is a closet homo, and he has a lot of homos on his staff. Vot for me because I'm not a lying homo."

I swear, I thought it was parody at first.

 

[GreyArea]

I just heard a radio ad by Illinois GOP Senate hopeful Andy Martin.

Transcript available via KMOX radio:
http://www.kmox.com/pages/5987482.php?

Their related article is here:
http://www.kmox.com/Ill--Senate-hopeful-Martin-calls-opponent-s-sexual/5985317

 

[Cicero]

I cannot support a movement that exploded spending and borrowing and blames its successor for the debt.

How about for the 11% unemployment?

I cannot support a movement that so abandoned government's minimal and vital role to police markets and address natural disasters that it gave us Katrina and the financial meltdown of 2008.

The Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana were Democrats at the time of Katrina.

I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful.

Is Sulli bothered about how Conservative blacks are denounced by the left as sell-outs and Uncle Toms?

I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation.

Paging Harry Reid.

I cannot support a movement that criminalizes private behavior in the war on drugs.

Sulli wants to make meth, crack, heroine, and weed legal? Is this a movement in the Democratic Party?

I cannot support a movement that would back a vice-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism.

Is Sulli impressed with Joey Biden's VP performance?

I cannot support a movement that regards gay people as threats to their own families.

Andrew Sullivan, senior editor of The Atlantic, says that, although he supports civil marriage, "The California court ruling on Prop 8 was a perfectly reasonable decision. I do think that the voters do have the right in the end to have the final say on this. Especially since the civil unions at the state level have the same rights and benefits as civil marriage."

Doesn't this guy ever read his own stuff?

I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact.

Conservatives totally reject evolution? Since when?

I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy.

The two main MMGW debunkers are Canadian. Too bad Sulli doesn't have their intellectual curiosity.

I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck.

What? These guys have audiences, not voters. If Limberger were as powerful as Sulli believes then "Snipery" Hillary would have been the Democratic nominee for POTUS.

 

[tyr_13]

How about for the 11% unemployment?

Right, that must be all Obama's fault. Great reasoning.

The Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana were Democrats at the time of Katrina.

And many of the most outrageous and egregious failures where on the federal level.

Is Sulli bothered about how Conservative blacks are denounced by the left as sell-outs and Uncle Toms?

This doesn't seem to be common. I'll admit that I've heard it from some minority groups and hangers on, but not from 'the left' in general.

Paging Harry Reid.

See below.*

Sulli wants to make meth, crack, heroine, and weed legal? Is this a movement in the Democratic Party?

Yes. A realatively minor one, but growing. See below.*

Is Sulli impressed with Joey Biden's VP performance?

Biden is less qualified than Palin? That was what the criticism was. Again, see below.*

Andrew Sullivan, senior editor of The Atlantic, says that, although he supports civil marriage, "The California court ruling on Prop 8 was a perfectly reasonable decision. I do think that the voters do have the right in the end to have the final say on this. Especially since the civil unions at the state level have the same rights and benefits as civil marriage."

Doesn't this guy ever read his own stuff?

Right, because 'regarding gays as threats to their own families' is an any way the same as finding Prop 8 legally reasonable especially when rationalized with the apparent equivalency of civil union. Perhaps you should read your own stuff.

Conservatives totally reject evolution? Since when?

I don't think that conservatives in general do, and I think it is wrong to lay this at the feet of 'the right'. However, almost all people who do disbelieve evolution identify as conservative, and the right appear to be the only people to give this movement any power at all. See Texas. In this regard, it is a reasonable criticism that the right as allowed this kind of foolishness on the local level.

The two main MMGW debunkers are Canadian. Too bad Sulli doesn't have their intellectual curiosity.

Canadians can't be on 'the right'? That's news to me. Besides, what does that have to do with what the right espouses? Just because some Canadians do it too, doesn't mean the right in the US does not.

What? These guys have audiences, not voters. If Limberger were as powerful as Sulli believes then "Snipery" Hillary would have been the Democratic nominee for POTUS.

This is an entire can of worms bees on it's own, but to deny that Rush has entirely too much power over the right, and Republicans specifically, seems to be rather ignorant of the current political landscape. And, as always, see below.*




*Your tu quoque throughout is especially misplaced because this entire article is bringing up criticisms of the right, NOT support for the left. It seems as though he'd like conservatism in this country to shift it's values and focus. That doesn't mean he supports the left.

 

[GreNME]

The type of reality-distortion field generator required for the statements made in the actual quoted post happens to be another reason I grew tired of the right. It's as if attempting to force a completely different conversation somehow works as a valid argument point lately, and it's gotten beyond tiresome.

 

[Cicero]

The type of reality-distortion field generator required for the statements made in the actual quoted post happens to be another reason I grew tired of the right. It's as if attempting to force a completely different conversation somehow works as a valid argument point lately, and it's gotten beyond tiresome.

You prefer the "reality-distortion" of Sulli. The Daily Dish diddler has way more in common with Arianna Huffington than with William F. Buckely. Even Sulli's own minion has trouble understanding his boss.


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/in-defense-of-s.html

 

[thesyntaxera]

Hey there, man.

Basically, there's always some inheritance of issues that happens between administrations, especially with bigger issues. What Sullivan is mentioning there is the economic crash, the resulting job losses, and the huge debt we're facing right now-- all of these things preceded Obama, and as of yet claiming an accurate judgment of his efficacy at addressing those things is premature whether pro or con. Not surprisingly, though, the debt, the jobless rate, and the recession somehow happen to be complaints are ridiculously blamed on Obama, who won the election three months after the most notable crashes, and didn't take office until five months after them. If we're measuring from the beginning of the recession, then that stretches back to December of 2007, or possibly further depending on how you want to look at the numbers.

But that said: yeah, Olberman and Hannity should both be locked in an airtight room, with the door to remain sealed for at least 25 years (just to be sure).

Oh, I agree fully. I just think that there are the agenda's and the people who promote them, and then there is the pragmatic on the ground reality. What I like about Obama so far is that he seems to glide between the extremes in an attempt to reconcile the two party agenda's.

One thing though...I can't say I am all that pleased with what someone(apparently Gorbachev) said refering to america: "Communism for the rich and capitalism for the poor". Especially at a time when healthcare is an on the table issue. I kind of think the left spoiled the chance for true health reform by trying to force it into the first year of the administration while there is a war and recession going on.

 

[Eyeron]

I cannot support a movement that exploded spending and borrowing and blames its successor for the debt.

Both parties do this.

I cannot support a movement that so abandoned government's minimal and vital role to police markets and address natural disasters that it gave us Katrina and the financial meltdown of 2008.

I don't fully understand this. Is he saying that the government's sole role is to police the economy? If so, how is it solely a conservative thing?

I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful.

Stereotyping. And both parties use fear mongering tactics. Remember during the President elect race how many times Hilary's camp played the race card?

I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation.

And what does he mean exactly by "real respect for the institutions of government"? How exactly is this applied to conservatives only?

I cannot support a movement that sees permanent war as compatible with liberal democratic norms and limited government.

Already covered.

I cannot support a movement that criminalizes private behavior in the war on drugs.

Yet the liberals want to penalize people for exercising the right to own firearms through regulation.

I cannot support a movement that would back a vice-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism.

And the other vps were? What exactly does he mean by qualified? More rhetorical nonsense.

I cannot support a movement that regards gay people as threats to their own families.

The hell? How is a gay person a threat to their own families? I've never heard this one before. When exactly did the conservative party make this a stance at all? Again. rhetorical nonsense.

I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact.

Since when has the conservatives made this official part of their party? And why is it so important to believe evolution as fact?

I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy.

these are two different things. I think he's using collective judgement here as well.

I cannot support a movement that refuses ever to raise taxes, while proposing no meaningful reductions in government spending.

Huh?

I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck.

Why should they? And then why shouldn't the liberals do the same thing for their equivalent mouthpieces?

I retract my earlier statement. This is mostly just gorilla chest pounding with a lot of generalization and rhetorical nonsense.

 

[Gangularis]

Could you two clarify?

I count two or three of the twelve points that could apply to both parties. Did you read the list or are you knee-jerking?

dudalb always knee jerks into his dreamland of believing both sides are exactly equal but opposite extremes... also fully believing that he himself is some kind of great moderate, gifted with the judgement bestowed upon him by the great moderate spirit, enabling him infinite wisdom to pop into every partisan thread and make snide comments about how everyone is so partisan in comparison to him.

 

[GreNME]

You prefer the "reality-distortion" of Sulli. The Daily Dish diddler has way more in common with Arianna Huffington than with William F. Buckely. Even Sulli's own minion has trouble understanding his boss.


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/in-defense-of-s.html

You really need to keep your day job. Your mind-reading powers are short-circuited.

 

[GreNME]

Oh, I agree fully. I just think that there are the agenda's and the people who promote them, and then there is the pragmatic on the ground reality. What I like about Obama so far is that he seems to glide between the extremes in an attempt to reconcile the two party agenda's.

Obama's problem is that he's dealing with a party (the Dems) who don't have an ideological "base" to rally around. Despite what the most liberal of bloggers tend to think, they are most definitely not the base of the party-- minorities and womens' advocacy groups, unions, and civil libertarian groups tend to be the base, and they are a mish-mash of varied ideologies when looked at as a whole. He (Obama) is trying to work toward meeting the desires of that base, and in doing so he's pretty much having to go at it alone since a lot of his public faces have pretty much shored up on ideological boundaries or are not getting air time. Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates have done a pretty decent job so far of staying non-political and focusing on the job, which helps Obama to handle the political side of things, but then others like Biden and even Geithner are kept on a tight leash lest they say something stupid (in Biden's case) or reduce confidence (in Geithner's case). It isn't that any of those not doing the public talking aren't skilled at the jobs they're doing, but that the media message is working pretty regularly to find chinks in the administration's armor and start banging on it-- like they do with every administration. This puts Obama in the position of having to be the public face while also directing the policy, and it makes him seem... well, like he's not accomplishing much. There's a lot being accomplished, but much of the focus on "getting things done" has to come from the legislative branch for Obama's team to be effective, and right now the legislative branch is looking like they're deadlocked on practically everything (which isn't true, but perception goes a long way in pundit-land).

One thing though...I can't say I am all that pleased with what someone(apparently Gorbachev) said refering to america: "Communism for the rich and capitalism for the poor". Especially at a time when healthcare is an on the table issue. I kind of think the left spoiled the chance for true health reform by trying to force it into the first year of the administration while there is a war and recession going on.

The problem here is that you're mistaking the Democratic Party with the Left, when the Left is only one part of the Democratic Party. Regarding the healthcare issue, though, even what's currently floating between the House and Senate are huge steps further than any other administration has seen since the 1960's, so it's really not accurate to mislabel what's in the pipe as not being "true reform" in the real sense. It's certainly not complete or total reform that a lot of people want, but it's still a pretty big deal compared to the alternative of nothing being done.

Also the quote you're referencing, Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor, is a very real thing in modern governments that is regularly brought up during times of institutional upheaval. It's neither a good nor bad thing, it's simply an aspect of very large (and complex) capitalist governments that has up sides and down sides, and the quote is used often by all sorts, many of whom seem to be trying to sound clever and some of whom making a very accurate criticism of the large capitalist bureaucracy running amok.