Andrew Sullivan -- He's here, he's queer and he's in your face
Andrew Sullivan (pseudo-conservative gay pundit extraordinaire) has proven once and for all that the only thing motivating him this election is his fit of pique about the gay marriage issue. The safety of our nation be damned. The Economy be damned. He's gay and he's in our face. Here's Andrew today:
"For four years, this president has tried to make gay people invisible, to avoid any mention of us, to pretend we don't exist. Well, we do. Right in front of him."
By the way, I get the feeling that the Islamo-fascists that Bush is fighting would do more than "pretend" that gays didn't exist if they had their way, they'd make it a brutal reality. But I digress.
His frothing at the mouth has even gone so far as to find some tortured justification for Kerry's cheap and tawdry political trick of continuing to "out" Mary Cheney (Edwards did it in his debate also) in last night's debate. Even the most biased of observers have conceded that such low-ball politics should not be condoned. Here's Andrew:
"I keep getting emails asserting that Kerry's mentioning of Mary Cheney is somehow offensive or gratuitous or a "low blow". Huh? Mary Cheney is out of the closet and a member, with her partner, of the vice-president's family. That's a public fact. No one's privacy is being invaded by mentioning this. When Kerry cites Bush's wife or daughters, no one says it's a "low blow." The double standards are entirely a function of people's lingering prejudice against gay people. And by mentioning it, Kerry showed something important. This issue is not an abstract one. It's a concrete, human and real one. It affects many families, and Bush has decided to use this cynically as a divisive weapon in an election campaign."
Let me get this straight -- Kerry and Edwards each take turns exploiting Mary Cheney's sexuality by naming her personally as a lesbian in front of 50 million Americans, hoping to plant a seed of divisiveness among the extreme right homophobes and "Bush has decided to use this cynically as a divisive weapon in an election campaign"...?
Say what you will about Andrew Sullivan but one thing he is not is stupid. So why make such a stupid statement? The answer, I believe, lies in the same rationale for why I've lost so much respect for him. He has allowed his gayness to define who he is. I say this regrettably and not maliciously. Somehow, somewhere, I believe he lost his soul and replaced it with a label. He used to talk about the importance of the war on terror and the courage of George W. Bush in fighting that war, but now he talks about W as something akin to a Nazi who wishes to sew a patch on his jacket. There's a serious disconnect that occurred somewhere along the way; and I think it occurred when he starting to increasingly see himself as a gay man first and a human being second. Nevermind the fact that as a gay man he can afford himself all of the liberties available to anyone else. No he can't marry another man but neither can I.
There are lots of things that many people would like the government to sanction for them, Andrew. There are people who wish they could voice a prayer in a public school, people who wish they could not have their hard-earned income taxed so heavily, people who wish the government would pay for their healthcare, people who wish they could silence the speech of dissenting views. Each of these issues -- religion, livelihood, health, speech, are at least as vital to the human condition as marriage. Why is your cause, therefore, so much more vital than these others? Why does it cause you such angst that you believe its worth abandoning your other supposed conservative principles (by supporting Kerry)? I believe I have an answer -- selfishness. We all want things in life, Andrew. Sometimes, however, we must prioritize and focus on the essential things first; the war on terror being one of them. And the best and most effective way we can each, personally, defeat terror is to vote for George W. Bush.
If Andrew Sullivan insists on voting for John Kerry because, well, it's a "gay thing", he's certainly free to do so. I'll choose to vote for W because, well, it's a "save civilization as we know it" thing.
Update: Bill at InDC Journal has some pointed remarks for Sullivan, too. A sample: "And Andrew Sullivan once again fails to grasp reality (or the point) by employing selective argumentation from his new position inside the anti-Bush marination tank."
"For four years, this president has tried to make gay people invisible, to avoid any mention of us, to pretend we don't exist. Well, we do. Right in front of him."
By the way, I get the feeling that the Islamo-fascists that Bush is fighting would do more than "pretend" that gays didn't exist if they had their way, they'd make it a brutal reality. But I digress.
His frothing at the mouth has even gone so far as to find some tortured justification for Kerry's cheap and tawdry political trick of continuing to "out" Mary Cheney (Edwards did it in his debate also) in last night's debate. Even the most biased of observers have conceded that such low-ball politics should not be condoned. Here's Andrew:
"I keep getting emails asserting that Kerry's mentioning of Mary Cheney is somehow offensive or gratuitous or a "low blow". Huh? Mary Cheney is out of the closet and a member, with her partner, of the vice-president's family. That's a public fact. No one's privacy is being invaded by mentioning this. When Kerry cites Bush's wife or daughters, no one says it's a "low blow." The double standards are entirely a function of people's lingering prejudice against gay people. And by mentioning it, Kerry showed something important. This issue is not an abstract one. It's a concrete, human and real one. It affects many families, and Bush has decided to use this cynically as a divisive weapon in an election campaign."
Let me get this straight -- Kerry and Edwards each take turns exploiting Mary Cheney's sexuality by naming her personally as a lesbian in front of 50 million Americans, hoping to plant a seed of divisiveness among the extreme right homophobes and "Bush has decided to use this cynically as a divisive weapon in an election campaign"...?
Say what you will about Andrew Sullivan but one thing he is not is stupid. So why make such a stupid statement? The answer, I believe, lies in the same rationale for why I've lost so much respect for him. He has allowed his gayness to define who he is. I say this regrettably and not maliciously. Somehow, somewhere, I believe he lost his soul and replaced it with a label. He used to talk about the importance of the war on terror and the courage of George W. Bush in fighting that war, but now he talks about W as something akin to a Nazi who wishes to sew a patch on his jacket. There's a serious disconnect that occurred somewhere along the way; and I think it occurred when he starting to increasingly see himself as a gay man first and a human being second. Nevermind the fact that as a gay man he can afford himself all of the liberties available to anyone else. No he can't marry another man but neither can I.
There are lots of things that many people would like the government to sanction for them, Andrew. There are people who wish they could voice a prayer in a public school, people who wish they could not have their hard-earned income taxed so heavily, people who wish the government would pay for their healthcare, people who wish they could silence the speech of dissenting views. Each of these issues -- religion, livelihood, health, speech, are at least as vital to the human condition as marriage. Why is your cause, therefore, so much more vital than these others? Why does it cause you such angst that you believe its worth abandoning your other supposed conservative principles (by supporting Kerry)? I believe I have an answer -- selfishness. We all want things in life, Andrew. Sometimes, however, we must prioritize and focus on the essential things first; the war on terror being one of them. And the best and most effective way we can each, personally, defeat terror is to vote for George W. Bush.
If Andrew Sullivan insists on voting for John Kerry because, well, it's a "gay thing", he's certainly free to do so. I'll choose to vote for W because, well, it's a "save civilization as we know it" thing.
Update: Bill at InDC Journal has some pointed remarks for Sullivan, too. A sample: "And Andrew Sullivan once again fails to grasp reality (or the point) by employing selective argumentation from his new position inside the anti-Bush marination tank."
posted by Wonderdog | 2:42 PM | Permalink
|
2 comments
2 Comments:
Hell, I think proposing a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as the union of 1 man and 1 woman was a good idea for ALL Americans. Honestly, do we want all the tough decisions made by a 5 Supreme Court Justices? Or, do we want to go through the process of discussing and voting in Congress and in the states?
Besides, Wonderdog is right: the terrorists aren't going to "tolerate" gays, much less gay marriage. In fact, they aren't going to tolerate anyone on the left, either. I don't understand why the left, of all people, aren't more worried about the Islamic fascists. Once the left has served its purpose of weakening America, it'll be "off with their heads."
Conservative in VA
Yeah, I really used to respect Sullivan but he went astray somewhere along the line. It's too bad because the guy can be a great advocate for conservative issues when he wants to be.
The bottom line is, he's having a hissy fit over this whole gay marriage issue. It's an issue about which reasonable persons can disagree but, to Sullivan, if you disagree with him on that issue then you're a bible thumper or a nazi or some other epithet that I would expect to hear from the likes of Michael Moore. So tired of him.
Post a Comment
<< Home