The American Spectator : Andrew Sullivan's Island

Text Size

Andrew Sullivan's Island

By Philip Klein on 2.12.10 @ 6:09AM

The daily rantings of President Obama's favorite blogger are philosophically incoherent, intellectually lazy, and increasingly insane.

Leon Wieseltier created a stir this week when he floated the idea that Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan's harsh attacks on Israel may be motivated by anti-Semitism.

For good reason, many argue that Sullivan should not be taken seriously and deserves to be ignored. Yet he still drives political debate on the Internet, and is widely read -- even by President Obama.

And so, in an otherwise slow political news week as Washington was crippled by snow, Wieseltier's verbose essay for the New Republic sparked a round of debate among Sullivan defenders and critics.

The anti-Semitism charge isn't one to be thrown around lightly and so I'll set it aside, because all one has to do to make a case against Sullivan is simply to evaluate him on the basis by which he evaluates others.

For instance, in one of his more controversial posts, Sullivan lamented last month that he was "sick" of Israelis and Palestinians. And then he offered this solution: "My own view is moving toward supporting a direct American military imposition of a two-state solution, with NATO troops on the borders of the new states of Palestine and Israel."

This is clearly an unworkable idea, a fact that should be obvious to anybody with a shred of understanding of the conflict, regardless of ideological inclinations. But if anybody should recognize this, it should be Sullivan himself, who consistently bashes neoconservatives for arrogantly and naively believing that America can use its military might to impose its vision on the world.

Here is Sullivan, in 2008, explaining why he was wrong to support the Iraq War:

I heard and read about ancient Sunni and Shiite divisions, knew of the awful time the British had in running Iraq but had never properly absorbed the lesson. I bought the argument by many neoconservatives that Iraq was one of the more secular and modern of Arab societies, that these divisions were not so deep, that all those pictures of men in suits and mustaches and women in Western clothing were the deeper truth about this rare, modern Arab society; and believed that it could, if we worked at it, be a model for the rest of the Arab Muslim world. I should add I don't believe that these ancient divides were necessarily as deep as they subsequently became in the chaos that the invasion unleashed. But I greatly under-estimated them -- and as someone who liked to think of myself as a conservative, I pathetically failed to appreciate how those divides never truly go away and certainly cannot be abolished by a Western magic wand.

It's very difficult to square this epiphany -- which he claims as a central aspect of his break with modern conservatism -- with his rather draconian proposal to have U.S. troops invade Israel in order to impose a two-state solution that neither side has agreed to. He might recall, for instance, that the British had a pretty "awful time" occupying Palestine before the establishment of a Jewish state, and it's fair to say that the divisions between Israelis and Palestinians are quite deep. And this doesn't even take into account that the Palestinians themselves are divided between Hamas and Fatah.

Another frequent argument that Sullivan gives for his break with conservatism is President Bush's reckless spending. Here's what he wrote in a 2005 column for the Times of London:

President Bush has added $1 trillion (£520 billion) to the national debt in only four years and is proposing to add at least another $2 trillion with his social security reform. With his Medicare prescription drug benefit, about whose massive expense he deceived Congress, he has enacted the biggest new entitlement since Lyndon Johnson. Bush has increased spending on medical care for the poor by 46%. He has doubled education spending in four years; federal housing spending has gone up 86%.

At the time Sullivan wrote that, the largest annual deficit run up by the Bush administration was $412.7 billion in 2004, according to the Congressional Budget Office. By contrast, the lowest deficit Obama expects to run were he to serve two terms is $706 billion, according to the White House's own budget projections. When the Times column was published, Bush-era spending had never gone above 19.6 percent of gross domestic product, and yet, if Obama were to serve two full terms, outlays would never fall below 22.8 percent of GDP.

While Sullivan may still try to blame Bush for all deficits Obama may incur through 2017, the same logic could be used to absolve any president from any responsibility for anything. Bush, for instance, came into office in the wake of the bursting of the tech bubble, eventually corporate scandals exposing malfeasance originating during the Clinton-era rocked Wall Street, and Bush "inherited" the problem of terrorism that necessitated a defense buildup. But in the real world Bush does deserve blame because instead of responding to the new realities by curtailing his domestic agenda, he continued as if nothing had changed, and put us on a fiscally reckless path that Obama is exacerbating.

Though he once decried the creation of new entitlements, Sullivan has become a tireless advocate for Obamacare, which adds 15 million people to Medicaid programs that are bankrupting the states, while providing subsidies for millions more. Ironically, as the prospects for Obamacare dimmed, the same Sullivan who once criticized Bush for "increased spending on medical care for the poor," last month condemned the "glee with which the GOP is greeting the end of any access too [sic] health insurance for millions of the working poor..."

Sullivan has also echoed the Obama administration's line that it's necessary to pass the health care bill to control costs. In one post he argued that it would be a "huge mistake" to abandon the health care bill, which he called "a necessary start on a critical reform without which we hurtle toward bankruptcy even more quickly." To give up, he wrote, would be "surrendering to forces that are as proto-fascist as any we have seen in recent times." He explained: "This is about more than health reform and we have to see it in that context. This is about a cynical nihilist attempt to break this presidency before it has had a chance to do what we elected it to do by a landslide vote."

Page: 1 2 >

topics:
Israel, George W. Bush, Deficits, Andrew Sullivan

About the Author

Philip Klein is The American Spectator's Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein

Letter to the Editor View all comments (128) | Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.12.10 @ 6:49AM

Sullivan sounds like a typical liberal. They always resort to personal attacks because they have no foundation on which to discuss their ideas.

SpiralArchitect| 2.12.10 @ 1:25PM

A comment justly positioned in the first (reply/comment) position.

Well done; author and comentator alike.

Alan Brooks| 2.12.10 @ 6:36PM

Rabbi Eckstein is a Rabbi who can counterbalance the anti-Israel bias of Sullivan and his ilk.
As far as I know, anyone familiar with pro-Israel (no Toddard, not anti-Arab) activism would be aware of Rabbi Eckstein's contribution.

Copyleft| 2.12.10 @ 8:02AM

It's true that Sullivan's "solution" to the Israeli/Palestinian mess is foolish.

A far better solution would be for us to pull all of our troops and influence out of the region entirely, and let them blow each other to smithereens. It's none of our concern, we've got problems of our own.

Don| 2.12.10 @ 1:44PM

That is an excellent point, because nowhere in recent history have intense local conflicts ever grown into serious security threat for the USA.

Copyleft| 2.12.10 @ 3:17PM

Considering we've never HAD a serious security threat since the Cuban Missile Crisis, that's corret.

And no, the 9/11 attacks were not a serious security threat. At no time was the United States in danger of being invaded or conquered.

tonypal| 2.13.10 @ 10:51AM

Huh?

Victory67| 2.14.10 @ 7:38PM

Ditto huh?

John Roberts| 2.15.10 @ 9:55AM

Just remember... The Mohammedans have sworn to destroy Western civilization. Their goal is world domination.

We need to stop thinking of Islam as a religion and start thinking of it as an all-encompassing totalitarian ideological system. Communism was similar, but it simply dispensed with religion, eliminating factions based on abstract doctrinal differences (Sunni v Shiite). This was a huge advantage in enforcing uniformity and discipline. Islam however has the advantage of obtaining religious protections from weak western societies that don't understand that Islam is NOT a religion and it does NOT merit these protections.

Dutch-Somali writer and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali described the faith she was born into as "a dangerous, totalitarian ideology masquerading as a religion."

Alan Brooks| 2.12.10 @ 6:43PM

"A far better solution would be for us to pull all of our troops and influence out of the region entirely, and let them blow each other to smithereens."

Then Israel has to be moved someday to German territory as that is a JUST solution, though it naturally appears at this time to be entirely far-fetched.
But after the current Iranian (that is to say Ahmadinejad's) regime shows its colors fully, the movement of Israel out of the feudalistic Alice-in-Wonderland region might not appear as far fetched as now.
Israel's enemies could move upon Israel now if they wanted to, yet they sense time is on their side.

Joe Hamilton| 2.16.10 @ 8:40PM

Alan Brooks;

You know as much about the military strength of Israel as the average 5 year old knows about physics.
The IDF is the second or 3rd strongest military in the world and becoming stronger. They would literally bomb Iran back to the stone age. Israel is 10 years ahead of any other country in UAVs which will replace manned warplanes. Every top military including the US, Russia, India, Little Britain all buy UAVs from Israel. Israel has nuclear arsenal to match the UK and France. Last year, Israel exported $ 7 BILLION worth of weapons and military services, despite being treated as a pariah. If Israel would finally refuse US "Aid" which is nothing more than free credits to buy US made weapons, it can double or triple what would be lost by the freedom to sell to China. Israel now has 6 submarine which can a total of at least 50 nuclear warheads on Iran or other nations which threaten Israel. Iran is much more vulnerable in a nuclear exchange. The Arabs should leave the Jewish homeland which includes Jordan. Israel will only end when the entire world is destroyed.

S.L. Toddard| 2.12.10 @ 8:10AM

"It's very difficult to square this epiphany -- which he claims as a central aspect of his break with modern conservatism"

"Modern conservatism" = neoconservatism, i.e. anti-conservatism.

Alan Brooks| 2.12.10 @ 6:45PM

"Modern conservatism" = neoconservatism, i.e. anti-conservatism."

and you are libertopian?

Tenn Slim| 2.12.10 @ 8:23AM

Opine
bt
Israel vs Palestininans, an OLD and Getting Older Story. The Final Chapter will be written in the Desert Sands of Megidio. USA, NATO, USSR, China, etal, we will all be there, have patience, electorate, Tend to our own knitting.
end
Semper FI

Alan Brooks| 2.12.10 @ 7:29PM

Tenn,
We are in agreement, the region has become a DEATH TRAP for Israel-- it always was. Today everyone can see what a slaughter it is going to be. People don't spend their entire lives wanting to destroy each other unless the epiphany is a Paul on the road to Damascus epiphany.
How many Arabs do you know who are as Paul was?-- you can count them on one hand.

bluecollarbytes| 2.12.10 @ 8:42AM

excerpt: "....Sullivan lamented last month that he was "sick" of Israelis and Palestinians. And then he offered this solution: "My own view is moving toward supporting a direct American military imposition of a two-state solution, with NATO troops on the borders of the new states of Palestine and Israel."

Who knew Andrew Sullivan could be so free & easy in assigning blood & treasure to a conflict he's so 'sick' of hearing about? It kinda lowers the bar on when/if we get involved in military conflicts. Perhaps he misspoke.

Andrew is a tabloid dood. He belongs in Britain, fighting libel actions against him.

stmichrick| 2.12.10 @ 8:57AM

If Obama uses Sullivans' petulance as a source of validation, we will win.

This type of thought is like a mackerel in the moonlight; shiny but stinks.

Doorgunner| 2.12.10 @ 9:09AM

Andrew Sullivan, like our President, possesses a extensive vocabulary and the gift of gab. As such, they both can wax poetic on most any subject all whilst maintaining weightlessness.

And, like our President, that is the full extent of Sullivan's gift. The depth of his arguments run no deeper than the currents of what is currently fashionable in the world of couture. Made possible by instant world-wide media, we are in the age of politics as fashion.

And Sullivan is no more than another petulant designer; having mis-read the market, he now scrambles shrilly for re-acceptance.

Mike| 2.12.10 @ 9:22AM

Let's look to the positions on gay issues to get a hint as to why Obama is supported by Sullivan.

Michael Knight| 2.14.10 @ 7:02PM

Andrew Sullivan is HIV positive. I wonder why. He once alluded to the fact that he has had " ... more sexual encounters than he could count or remember."

And yet, he wants us to accept that homosexuality is somehow just an "alternative lifestyle", an equivalent to heterosexuality. When in fact we all know that its a horrifically compulsive sexual addiction with the only outcomes being pain, misery, lonliness, disease and death.

Andrew Sullivan should try to resolve his compulsive sexual addiction problems in private.

Andrew| 2.15.10 @ 9:10PM

Michael, you are spewing vitriole.
The majority of gay men are living quiet, productive lives; they do not indulge in promiscuity, and they are as happy and healthy as the average heterosexual.

Man, there sure are a lot of gay haters among the Spectator readers. I am a conservative, but I detest the ignorance and bigotry directed against gays--of which my son is one, and he's a fine, upstanding young man.

Mattled| 2.12.10 @ 9:48AM

Doorgunner,

I don't believe our Dear leader possesses an extensive vocabulary.
His vocabulary doesn't extend beyond Jon Favreu's speech writing and the tele-prompter on which they are placed.

Listening to Odingo speak without his binky is akin to nails on a chalkboard.

As for Sullivan, he is still reaching the 20% of America that believes his drivel. The entire media is in denial that this so-called president is a total failure making Jimmy Carter look like a genius.

Way to race to the bottom Sully. I hope you win.

Bob| 2.12.10 @ 9:57AM

While I'm certainly no friend of the Christian fundamentalism that has invaded the Republican party and am pro-choice and have no problem with gay marriage, I must totally agree with your analysis, Philip. Sullivan has been totally inconsistent in his rhetoric. He is certainly not a fiscal conservative and seems to have the same problem with data analysis that makes the base of the Republican party incoherent when it comes to economic policy.

We are both angry with the so-called conservatives that inhabit AmSpec. But I'm angry because this group is full of blinding, untrue rhetoric and he is probably angry because most of you wax homophobic.

The war in Iraq was wrong, and was certainly not conservative in the historical sense. But using our overstretched military to force anything is neither conservative nor, as you point out, makes any sense.

I turn off Sullivan even faster than I turn off Palin, or for that matter, Beck or Olbermann. (By the way the latest poll on Palin said that 71% of voters thought she was unqualified to be President. That included 52% of Republicans.)

But the bottom line is that many Republicans, like Sullivan and myself, no longer like what the party has become -- dumb, anti-intellectual, populist, and fundamentalist -- ignoring facts and analysis. This anger stems from the fact that Democrats are even farther from our philosophical beliefs in fiscal conservatism and spending without the resources to do so.

So, your post, perhaps unknowingly, is pointing out why the fastest growing political group are independents.

John II| 2.12.10 @ 10:52AM

Roberto, the trouble isn't identifiable by the illiterate and absurdly politicized term "homophobic"--your use of which saddens me, as it marks you for a child of your times. Nay, the trouble--as I have been at great pains to point out, lo now, these many months past--is logophobia.

The ancients understood flabby thought to be the consequence of a disordered heart . For reasons that my well-nigh infinite discretion and Chistian charity prevent me from divulging, Mr. Sullivan waxes ever more logophobic with each passing day.

Thus is it written; thus is it so.

Missy| 2.12.10 @ 5:24PM

John II, a "disordered heart" or no heart at all?

Bob's other "Sullivanesque" similarities are his use of ad hominen attacks rather than reasoned debate and an unseemly obsession with all things Sarah Palin.

They both sound like insecure and petty little men to me.

RAMIII| 2.12.10 @ 12:56PM

Methinks that Thou dost protest too much

RAMIII| 2.12.10 @ 12:57PM

Was intended for Bob

Anthony| 2.12.10 @ 1:13PM

Hey Bob, that same ABC poll predicted Scott Brown would lose by double digits. This Palin poll "result" is so absurd on its face, I'm surprised a sophisticate such as yourself would fall prey to it.
Hell, even a dumb, anti-intellectual, populist, who ignores facts, would have figured that out.
Hey Bob, don't look now, but your elitism is showing.

Troll Watch| 2.12.10 @ 4:45PM

Sullivan and Bob, together again. They would make a lovely couple. They have a lot in common especially the raw anger against those who oppose gay marriage. Sullivan was fascinating to watch when Bush was forced to take a stand with respect to marriage. Sullivan turned into a reactionary nut and demonstrated that he is a single issue guy. Everything he comments on is colored by the gay agenda. Bob reminds me of him in some ways. Bob is a bit more vulgar but they have that same mental instability.

blackwatch| 2.13.10 @ 1:14PM

bob,

I don't accept the use of the term "homophobic." I am not in favor of the homosexual agenda. I have seen the destruction of my brother's marriage, his quick descent into debauchery, drug use and promiscuity, leading now to his long slow motion death (going on 8 years now) due to hepatitus and full blown AIDS. I have had to watch the estrangement of my brother and my father and the withering of my mother as her once handsome son is destroyed by the ravages of disease. I have watched my brother's self-absorbtion turn a nice person into a me-first zealot that is literally killing those around him.

No it's not a mental disorder to be anti-homosexual. Please don't describe us that way. That's a cheap NAZI-like tactic.

SoCon| 2.13.10 @ 2:24PM

I'm sorry about your brother, Blackwatch; I hope your family can find peace.

God bless you and your loved ones.

Alan Brooks| 2.13.10 @ 7:51PM

"We are both angry with the so-called conservatives that inhabit AmSpec. But I'm angry because this group is full of blinding, untrue rhetoric and he is probably angry because most of you wax homophobic. "

Why is it gays can be heterophobic, but you think straights in a rightwing conservative venue cannot be forgiven for being homophobic? Bob has a ronaticized view of gays. The gay movement doesn't bother me at all, but gays can be intolerant of straights.

Alan Brooks| 2.13.10 @ 7:54PM

... Error,
that should have been romanticized, not "ronaticized" (or gonadicized).

Banjo| 2.14.10 @ 9:50PM

Independents are breaking to the right. Until there is a Conservative Party, that means the Republicans. A pillar of both groups are the social conservatives. Take them away and you will have lefty-style government forever trending in the Hugo and Fidel direction.

Mattled| 2.12.10 @ 10:07AM

Bob the "Blogger" is back (without, you know, actually having a ---blog).

Must have stayed in that Holiday Inn Express again last night.

stmichrick| 2.12.10 @ 10:19AM

Bob (welcome back),

If, by being anti-intellectual, you mean Republicans are not snooty and elitist I'm with you.

stmichrick| 2.12.10 @ 10:22AM

And BTW,

If the Iraq war was wrong, why is the Obama Administration about to take full credit for it's success? Yesterday Joe Biden said good things are happening there as a result of the surge which he and Obama opposed.

John II| 2.12.10 @ 1:39PM

He went even further. He said that the success in Iraq would be one of great achievements of the Obama administration.

Boy, there's shameless; but then there's SHAMELESS.

Victory67| 2.14.10 @ 7:50PM

That Biden interview even made Cheney laugh. I saw it and was very amused. A joke surely.

Stephanie| 2.12.10 @ 10:39AM

....And it may end up being one of his greatest accomplishments!
What a maroooooon...!

Anthony| 2.12.10 @ 11:08AM

Ya just gotta love these leftist Orwellians. Clearly, besides Alinsky and J.D. Salenger, these '60s radicals mastered Orwell's message rather well.
Obama still blames Bush for the economy, despite 4.5% unemployment when Bush left office. Obama takes credit for "jobs saved" thru his slush fund to the states and unions; that's like a career criminal claiming crime is down if he takes the day off from his crime spree. Obama spends trillions, quadruplicating, the national debt, but the deficit was inherited from Bush.
Obama and his goons blame Bush for all the faults of the WOT, all the while, they hide behind Bush's policies that Obama can't jettison. Yep, Bush sucks, but we're just following his polices, so give us a break!! And now plugs Biden calls Iraq (the lost war) Obama's greatest achievement!!
But we save the best for last; global cooling is a direct result of global warming, James Hanson and Algore told us so.
Perhaps it's not just Orwell these leftists mastered, perhaps it's more P.T. Barnum.

Richard Baker| 2.12.10 @ 10:49AM

More distilled wisdom from the "intelligentsia." I've read some of his writings and get the impression that he does this to keep from getting a real job. I guess there's not enough work for male prostitutes.

Spinny| 2.12.10 @ 11:57AM

Actually, I was at Oxford with Andrew. I remember him well....an absolute "striver" ALL THE WAY. Came from a lower-middle class background and wanted to insinuate himself into society. He really is nothing more than an intemperate, insecure fraud. Not particularly bright and completely unoriginal intellectually. Basically, Andrew is an extremely confused man - sexually confused, morally confused, intellectually confused. All of these confusions may have become exacerbated by his prodigious use of controlled substances, something he has spoken openly about. He talks about his sexual habits, he talks about contracting AIDS, he talks about his drug use.....he just spends a great deal of time talking about himself - as if people really care. He's just an insecure little man who desperately wants and NEEDS attention.

sinanju| 2.12.10 @ 12:22PM

Roid rage? David Brock style sellout? Sheer intellectual laziness?

For years, starting as the boy-wonder editor of the New Republic, Sullivan tried to square the circle of rationalizing gay marriage with his Catholicism and his classical liberalism. Along the way, he did make some interesting arguments and wrote a couple of readable-to-tedious books in which he endlessly argued that state-sanctioned gay marriage would magically make gays abandon their destructive habits and toxic subculture and join the fold (Virtually Normal, Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con). He tossed in a personal cri de coeur about surviving the gay nineties, becoming HIV positive and wrestling with the ugly realities of the gay community (Love Undetectable). He did take on a few liberal sacred cows into the bargain but for the most part his central arguments, however eloquent and filled with classical allusions, devolved into endless variations on the standard, self-pitying whine that all "society" had to do was embrace gays and give them everything their little hearts desired and maybe they would behave, become domesticated and stop trying to tear down Western Civilization.

A difficult row to hoe. Conservatives respected him but kept him at arm's length, while his one-dimensional activist brethren lambasted him with their usual shrill hatefulness. Finally, somewhere during Campaign '04, while the glamorous, happy-go-lucky Mayor of Hedonism, aka Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, was soaking up the limelight (and reminding us of what we were voting against) by defiantly marrying gay couples on the steps of City Hall, Andrew's fine, Oxford-trained mind snapped.

It may well have had something to do with the testosterone replacement therapy (aka, steroids) that he had started taking to combat AIDS muscle-wasting. He did write about how it transformed him mentally and physically. In addition, the fact that America steadfastly refused to agree with his central argument finally drove him over the edge. He spectacularly gave up on reason and logic and took the easy path by embracing the Dark Side.

In his most recent book, 2007's The Conservative Soul: Fundamentalism, Freedom and the Future of the Right, he threw aside reason and logic and went on a tear against Bush, Neocons, theocracy, and so on and on. He rapidly lost fans and readership and seems to be confined now to his little blog-niche at The Atlantic from which he regularly spews invective.

He has now succeeded in driving a stake through what remains of his reputation by becoming an Israel-basher. Unfortunately, in his recent rant he allowed his inherited British upper-crust anti-semitism to seep through and bubble to the surface, provoking the ire of old colleagues.

Ah, well, even if The Atlantic sloughes him off, I'm sure he can find employment at Media Matters, or "Poz"...

Teflon93| 2.12.10 @ 12:27PM

Sullivan's only issue is gay marriage. Every twist and turn of his reptilian mind is utterly explicable based upon the gyrations of this one public issue.

loulou| 2.12.10 @ 6:09PM

Andrew doesn't REALLY want to get married because that would mean he'd have to give up the bathhouses and kinky anonymous sex.

Andrew has syphilitic dementia.

Odgred Weary| 2.14.10 @ 12:08AM

What makes you think it is syphilitic?

wwwexler| 2.15.10 @ 3:08AM

AIDS induced, more likely.

RAMIII| 2.12.10 @ 1:10PM

The identity of the "progressives" was exposed many centuries ago:
"always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth"

RAMIII| 2.12.10 @ 1:20PM

Don't forget this nugget by the same writer long ago:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the TRUTH in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are WITHOUT excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, BUT ALSO GIVE HEARTY APPROVAL to those who practice them."
Romans 1:18-32

darcy| 2.12.10 @ 1:17PM

Just a footnote, Mr. Klein, regarding this statement:
"Bush does deserve blame because instead of responding to the new realities by curtailing his domestic agenda, he continued as if nothing had changed, and put us on a fiscally reckless path that Obama is exacerbating."

Michigan congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R) attributes Bush's excessive spending to buying (my word, not his) congressional support for his Iraq democratization policy = war. Which, I think, explains a lot; all those years of no vetoes was his way of bringing the dems onboard, and its had the unintended (?) consequences of growing the government and increasing our debt at the expense of the financial well-being of our nation.

Moreover, it gave O and his ilk the jumpstart for their nefarious schemes.

BD57| 2.12.10 @ 6:07PM

Disagree with the analysis that no vetoes was part of bringing Democrats along.

IMO, Bush would not veto anything during those years because Republicans were in control of Congress & he did not want to put Republican support for the war effort at risk.

Bush knew the Democrats would eventually turn on the war effort, that their support was solely for the sake of expedience. What he couldn't have was any sort of significant Republican defection that would make opposition to the war "bipartisan".

Bush's biggest mistake, IMO, was in failing to calibrate his strategy to take into account the inevitable Democrat abandonment of the mission.

Any Republican President serving as commander in chief of troops in battle - it's not just an issue of Bush - has to win the matter quickly, to get the fight over before the Dems abandon the fight, knowing they will do so the first time there is any sort of difficulty or reversal.

darcy| 2.12.10 @ 6:37PM

Take it up with Rep. McCotter, who was there.
So, you're saying Bush was buying both dems and reps?
Interesting input, BD57; but Reps, of late (decades-wise), tend to be more hawkish than do Dems, generally, as you yourself imply in your last paragraph. Are you making a distinction without a real difference from McCotter's take on events?

As for Republican defections, really now; how many can you come up with that were seriously against the Pres's project in Iraq? Curious minds want to know.

Don| 2.12.10 @ 1:47PM

I guess I am just Juvenal for thinking that his soap opera obsession with Sarah should have been enough to discredit him throughly.

Dustoff| 2.12.10 @ 1:50PM

Sullivan's WHO?

I stopped reading him so many years ago.
His guy didn't just hit the bottom, no he got himself a steam shove and went ever deeper.

SullivanSchmullivan| 2.12.10 @ 2:22PM

What is this ? WHO CARES what this dolt believes ??
WHO CARES what he hates ??
WHO IS THIS little squirrel ??

WendyG| 2.12.10 @ 4:19PM

>>>For instance, in one of his more controversial posts, Sullivan lamented last month that he was "sick" of Israelis and Palestinians.

As if there is some moral equivalence between the two sides. Which there is not. Israel has always wanted to make peace with it's Arab neighbors, whereas many of it's neighbors are virulently anti-semitic, and want Israel to disappear.

cuban pete| 2.12.10 @ 4:42PM

Hello WendyG:
You nailed it
"If the Palestinians laid down their arms tomorrow there would be peace in the Middle East.
If the Israelis laid down their arms tomorrow Israel would cease to exist."

WendyG| 2.14.10 @ 8:59AM

Well stated Pete.

Victory67| 2.14.10 @ 8:01PM

Beautifully said. Wish I'd said it.

Brad Nelson| 2.12.10 @ 4:28PM

Andrew Sullivan is just another befuddled liberal, blowing whichever way his incoherent intellect and ungrounded emotions blow him. At best, like much of the left, he's grounded in hatred of various manufactured hobgoblins. He's a bit of a flake, if you ask me.

Dustoff| 2.12.10 @ 4:50PM

Brad
He's a bit of a flake, if you ask me.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I second that.

Might I also say (LGF) Johnson is heading in the same direction.

PcP Smoker| 2.12.10 @ 5:00PM

someone should extract the vibrator he is siting on while he types

loulou| 2.12.10 @ 6:07PM

Let's be honest--the HIV has addled Sullivan's brain. It's as if he has a syphilitic brain and has a bit of dementia.

Howard Ino| 2.12.10 @ 8:23PM

Tis no wonder Obama loves him!

It's the Muslem thingy~

Groucho| 2.12.10 @ 9:54PM

That's right. Obama's black, and we all know blacks are all Muslims. He's from Kenya, was born in Indonesia, is an illegal alien, and a terrorist, and a communist, and a Nazi and a fascist.

ZerObama| 2.13.10 @ 1:48AM

Unfortunately, many questions about Obama persist because the LameStream Media never vetted him properly.

That's what happens when a country's free and impartial media let their Marxist bias get in the way of their obligations and betray their fellow American citizens.

Marxists stick together, the country be damned.

FeralCat| 2.13.10 @ 2:36AM

If it sounds like Karl Marx, acts like Benito Mussolini, lies like Joe Isuzu, attracts followers eerily reminiscent of those Jim Jones attracted and stumbles like FuBo the Clown, it's probably Barack Obama!!!!!

You Got It!| 2.13.10 @ 12:42PM

Feral Cat~ You've done it again!
That's the way, uh huh uh huh, I like it. Uh huh, uh huh. That's the way, uh huh uh huh, I like it! Do a little dance, get down tonight, get down tonight!

Groucho| 2.12.10 @ 8:32PM

Yes. Just compare Sullivan's "insane" rants to the wise, erudite, eloquent, prudent, august, sober, and learned writings on Sarah Palin's face book page.

Palin combines a penetrating intellect with a robust, exuberant control of English. Her vast knowledge of the issues and ceaseless, striving, restless intellectual inquiries make her a beacon of reason's light in the morass of today's political climate.

ZerObama| 2.13.10 @ 1:40AM

At least Sarah's not a commie, nitwit--and she'd never say 'corpseman' once let alone several times months apart. Only a 'penetrating intellect' such as Obama would pull that stooopid stunt.

Get off your intellectual high-horse, blowhard.

Spinny| 2.13.10 @ 8:52AM

AMEN...BROTHER!!!!

Groucho| 2.13.10 @ 4:07PM

ZerObama is right. Obama's mispronunciation of a word PROVES once and for all that Palin is a brilliant mind ahead of her time. Anyone who can't follow this logic is really dimwitted, obviously.

ZerObama| 2.13.10 @ 5:39PM

It's pretty pathetic when a Commander in Chief doesn't even know or care to know how to pronounce corpsman. Fail!

Obama's a clueless community organizer.

Spinny| 2.13.10 @ 6:07PM

Hey, Mr. Intellectual,

What does that have to do with Palin? Forget about Palin or Bush or anyone else. Just focus on Mr. Curious George (you have to admit he does look like him) in the White House. And stop trying to sound so "smart". I know guys like you. I've worked and gone to school with guys like you. I'd wager that you are really nothing more than an intellectual mediocrity. Maybe you went to a decent school (so what?) and you probably studied a "soft" discipline. No doubt, you adopted a manner that makes you sound reasonably smart. But in reality, you've done nothing original, northing noteworthy, nothing that actually distinguishes you from anyone else. And yet, you stand in judgement and try to marginalize Sarah Palin, a woman who has accomplished more than you ever will. You can agree with her or disagree with her. I really don't care and neither does anyone else. But I am willing to wager that you have not (and will not) accomplish what she has managed to accomplish. So PUT A SOCK IN IT YOU STUPID LITTLE EFFETE, INEFFECTUAL "NEW-MALE" EUNUCH!

SoCon| 2.13.10 @ 6:31PM

Liberals fear Sarah's message of individualism, personal responsibility and smaller government, and since they can't destroy her message they try to destroy her.

She's just the messenger, losers; try as you might, you will NEVER defeat her Conservative message. We will prevail.

Groucho| 2.13.10 @ 8:52PM

Exactly. There's only one reason why a liberal might criticize Sarah Palin, and that is they hate her and they hate her "message of individualism."

It is impossible that anyone could disagree on points of political philosophy or policy with Sarah Palin. No reasonable disagreement with her is possible. Her infallibility is clear to anyone with half a brain, and those who raise any objections are either stupid or evil or both.

SoCon| 2.14.10 @ 2:00AM

Who said anything about hate, Groucho? Well, YOU did, of course, because you liberals are about hatred.

Why else all the snide?

Mike| 2.16.10 @ 11:12AM

I am no liberal but I fear Palin. I fear that she will get the nomination and hand the election to Obama.

The lady is a dim bulb. We deserve better.

Liam| 2.17.10 @ 8:48PM

'Myth' Romney is a dud and will be destroyed in a face off with Obama.

Groucho| 2.13.10 @ 8:58PM

Well put. Mr. Intellectual is almost certainly as you describe. In fact, it's a little unclear to me how there could be any doubt in this matter. His scorn for Palin proves he must derive from the sociological sphere you so accurately describe above, and I'm a little confused why it wasn't so obvious that rehearsing it didn't seem an exercise in redundancy far outweighing and potential benefits.

See, Sarah Palin speaks for the people, the average Joe's on the street. She has accomplished great things in her life and earned a great deal of money based on nothing but her intellect, wisdom, and good judgment. Again, I see disagreement with Palin as inherently insane. Each of her in depth analyses of the problems facing this country are incontrovertible. Her recent remarks on the Middle East should serve as a sufficient exemplum: "In the Middle East, you have, you know. Ronald Reagan said we should be strong, and the Democrats don't have that willingness to look at the up side or the down side. Which is why we should drill here, drill now. The elitists."

What more need be said?

Spinny| 2.13.10 @ 10:14PM

Your response says it all. I have your number. You are just like the insecure faux intellectuals I went to school with. You're a phony, a poser. Enough said.

Groucho| 2.13.10 @ 11:59PM

Precisely. I couldn't have said it better myself. The problem is that real Americans are being oppressed by elitist intellectuals who went to college. These people are deceitful and scornful of average Americans and their values. If only we didn't have people with masters degrees and Ph.D.s and professional degrees, our country would be much better off! It's things like education, the press, and science that are dragging this country down. What we need is more genuine Americans, real red blooded Americans who don't live in cities, read books, take trains, or drink lattes. That's the whole problem right there in a nutshell -- lattes.

SoCon| 2.14.10 @ 2:30AM

Snide and scorn will get you no where, Liberal Reader.

We went to college, too, braintrust, and many of us are professionals, but unlike you elitists, we dislike big government because we see it as a threat to our liberty.

You're arrogant, authoritarian do-gooders by nature and you want to use the power of the State to control us.

You liberals/progressives lie all of the time by pretending to care about the poor, but you don't really give a damn about your fellow Americans, you just crave power and control.

And need I remind you--there are more of us than there are of you. Might makes right, you could say--or in our case, right makes might.

Groucho| 2.14.10 @ 2:49PM

No doubt. Liberals always lie. That's all they do. They don't care about the poor, as they claim. Rather, they want only power and control over those who actually do care about the poor and show it by voting for Republicans -- the party of care, concern, and altruism.

Furthermore, liberals are authoritarians, or, directly, fascists. If liberals had their way, our society would be a military dictatorship ruled over by a junta of anthropology professors and literary critics, empowered to encamp or execute anyone they wished.

Although conservatives sometimes have gone to college, they are far too good natured to have been corrupted by anything as wicked as education, which is why they're not the uptight, controlling elitists that are generally called "liberals."

SoCon| 2.14.10 @ 6:08PM

Of course Liberals don't lie--'transparency' and C-SPAN, any one?

Spinny| 2.15.10 @ 11:13AM

Groucho,

Why dont you just give it up. You sarcasm is predicable and not particularly amusing. It is snide and unappealing....probably just like you. In any event, you tone and approach is ineffectual. You are not persuading anyone and you never will until you (1) change your tone and (2) work on moderating your towering sense of self-regard.

Groucho| 2.15.10 @ 1:29PM

Spinny's right of course. There's no sense adopting an uncivil tone when entering the fray of political discourse. Participants should be reasonable and participants should be genuinely interested in the reasoning of their opponents. Snide, sarcastic remarks exasperate us and spread cynicism about the ability of a free people to engage in energetic political debate.

In addition, people should moderate their self-regard by admitting doubt; that is, they should acknowledge -- both in their tone and in what they say explicitly -- that they are not omniscient or infallible. Acknowledging doubt further generates a spirit of healthy debate because it reinforces the sense that the contest is about something upon which reasonable people can disagree.

Poisonous to the debate are ad hominem attack, the use of straw men arguments, and the attribution of secret, wicked motives to one's opponents. This undermines the spirit of debate and also fosters cynicism.

SoCon| 2.15.10 @ 3:56PM

Nice name change attempt.

Groucho/Liberal Reader, if your blogging experience here is so miserable, why do you insist on staying?

Glutton for punishment or perhaps Axelrod's Astroturf paychecks are just too tasty to give up?

Spinny's right, of course, your trolling is an absolute waste. We don't give a fig what you think.

Go back under the HuffPo rock where you belong.

Spinny| 2.15.10 @ 5:20PM

You really have to get a life.

jamesafalk| 2.12.10 @ 9:03PM

Sullivan's decline is one of the sadder things I've witnessed in the sensible end of American conservatism.
How he has gone from a pragmatic Oakeshottian to a lefty rock star says more about the corrupting influence of celebrity than anything else. You can see the same thing in corrupted climate scientists - once the adulation starts and people start believing their own press, they lose the humility necessary to do the research, to keep their conclusions limited, to steer clear of cheap shots, to take criticism like an adult.
Ten years ago Sullivan offered an alternative path for conservatism. Now he doesn't offer anything at all.

jWarrior| 2.12.10 @ 9:38PM

Sullivan turned on Dubya when he wouldn't support gays in the military. He views the world through the prism of his homosexuality. He used to have something to say, but he is now long past his sell-by date.
His pursuit of Trig Palin's birth is delusional. The pot and the HIV meds have rotted his brain. Time to go back to the UK.
His visa is up next year. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Tassie| 2.12.10 @ 10:36PM

Better stop reading. If everybody would this he would stop writing. Never encourage troubled people like this guy.

CheshireCat| 2.13.10 @ 2:29AM

"So oft in constitutional wars
The disputants, I ween
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean
And speculate about a mysterious Birth Certificate
Not one of them has ever been allowed to have seen!

CheshireCat| 2.13.10 @ 2:31AM

"Like the nutty Obama birthers and all conspiracy theorists"

So oft in constitutional wars
The disputants, I ween
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean
And speculate about a mysterious Birth Certificate
Not one of them has ever been allowed to have seen!

Leeonious| 2.13.10 @ 5:52PM

Like most Liberals,Mr. Sullivan urgently needs an operation similar to a lobotomy yet far less debilitating to the patients ,mental faculties

No one's calling him an A hole, however Mr. Sullivan seriously needs an opthalrecectomy.

You see Mr Sullivan requires that his eyeballs be disconnected from his arsehole to relieve his crappy outlook on life.

jomo2009| 2.13.10 @ 7:30PM

From here on out, his name will be Andrew "the Gerbil" Sullivan.

Mel Gibson| 2.14.10 @ 12:59AM

You ever heard of Rahm Emmanuel? Trust me, the kikes are safe. They killed Christ, too.

wwwexler| 2.14.10 @ 2:35AM

The unhinged rants of a typical bigoted leftist; anonymous and vicious, your numbers are legion.

Steve Naive| 2.14.10 @ 9:58AM

Here's my question about Sullivan: why is it okay for him to insist that Palin prove that she is not the grandmother of Trig, rather than his mother, but when Sullivan got caught advertising for bareback sex a few years ago, he just insisted on his own privacy and refused to address it at all? It's the most rank sort of hypocrisy, yet everyone just lets it go. Sauce for the gay gander, I say.

Mark| 2.14.10 @ 5:43PM

Give Sullivan credit for at least admitting he was wrong in the first place.

wwwexler| 2.14.10 @ 6:10PM

You mean wrong about Trig's birth?

Marc Jeric| 2.15.10 @ 12:59PM

The Versailles Peace Conference "elegantly" solved several national problems; for example it combined Sunnis, Kurds, and Shiites in a single British protectorate; also it "solved" the problem of the Balkans by combining Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes into a single kingdom.
In both of these cases one should remember that only the geographical neighborhood was common to these insane combinations. Differences among peoples in these combinations were and still are insurmountable. For example, combining Sudan and Denmark into a single state would be similar in its consequences - just imagine these two were geographically neighbors. And just as Yugoslavia had to split up, so will Iraq but only after a bloodbath.

Marc Jeric| 2.15.10 @ 1:01PM

Another thought: Why is Obama (or, as I call him, Abu Hussein from Kenya) paying several dozen lawyers in several states to defend his right not to show his real birth certificate?

Brian| 2.15.10 @ 3:51PM

Regarding Sullivan's visa, I read an item awhile back (it may even have been here) about Sullivan getting charged with possession of marijuana on federal lands. The Obama justice department moved to dismiss the charges, and the judge was not happy about it. He wrote a detailed opinion stating that he couldn't do much if the government wanted to dismiss, but that the government had prosecuted many others for the same offense. The government's motion noted that Sullivan had a pending visa extension or citizenship application pending and that a conviction could result in deportation. Now, his head is so far up Obama's backside he can see Obama's tonsils. Hmmmm.

Mike| 2.16.10 @ 11:16AM

Sullivan was a neo con darling when he was proposing that we nuke Iraq.

All of the sudden that he has at least come to his senses on Iraq, he a AID riddled, mentally impaired homosexual.

I'll give him credit for at least having the courage to admit he was wrong about the Iraq fiasco. Cheney and Bush know it was a mistake but they are not men enough to admit it.

german sex movie| 12.15.10 @ 2:03PM

online full Thank you very much for this information.

Good post thanks for sharing.

L Tod Schlosser| 11.4.11 @ 12:38PM

this is one of the best article
L Tod Schlosser

แรน| 4.22.11 @ 12:50AM

You can agree with her or disagree with her. I really don't care and neither does anyone else. But I am willing to wager that you have not (and will not) accomplish what she has managed to accomplish.

Superclub888| 5.25.11 @ 1:05AM

All of the sudden that he has at least come to his senses on Iraq, he a AID riddled, mentally impaired homosexual.

Puma x Alexander McQueen| 8.12.11 @ 11:09PM

is good

Soni Leon| 10.6.11 @ 6:01PM

This is cool. Thank you for the informative post. The shared views are worth keeping.
weber grills e330 review

yanyan| 10.10.11 @ 12:00PM

oved what youve done here. The design is elegant, your content classy. Yet, youve got an edginess to what youre offering here. Ill definitely come back for more if you keep this up. Dont lose hope if not too many people see your vision, know youve got a fan right here who values what youve got to say and the way youve presented yourself. Good on you!mesothelioma attorney

malibu real estate| 10.11.11 @ 2:13AM

This is so cool. I am such a huge fan of their work. I really am impressed with how much you have worked to make this website so enjoyable.

yanyan| 10.11.11 @ 2:39PM

Really like your blog content the way you put up the things…I’ve read the topic with great interest and definitely will stick your blog routinely for other great posts..zoloft lawsuit

balcuizar62| 10.12.11 @ 8:47PM

I harmonize with your conclusions and will thirstily look forward to your upcoming updates.
yaz recall

ruth| 10.17.11 @ 10:43AM

actually what I was looking for, and I am glad to came here! Thanks for sharing the such information with us

silver spot price

fiance visa| 10.17.11 @ 9:02PM

In fact your creative writing ability has inspired me. Really the article is spreading its wings rapidly... !!!

fiance visa

creamer| 10.19.11 @ 8:28PM

keep doing work like this for the further also..Thanks Buddy
actos lawsuit

love| 10.20.11 @ 5:46AM

I am really impressed that there is so much information about this subject that have been uncovered and you did it so well, with so much class. Thanks.
Actos side effects

yanyan| 10.20.11 @ 4:40PM

hi thanks
accident attorney dallas

yaz class action| 10.22.11 @ 2:45PM

HEY BLOGGERS CAN YOU PUT YOUR MIND HERE?" Modern conservatism" = neoconservatism, i.e. anti-conservatism.

HOW COULD THIS AFFECT WHEN INDIVIDUAL HOLDING POLITICAL POSITION IN THE GOVERNMENT.

devourment| 11.4.11 @ 1:38PM

I think you made some good points.this is very useful information. I actually appreciate your own position and I will be sure to come back here.

L Tod Schlosser

PIERCE| 11.8.11 @ 2:57AM

I usually don't post in Blogs on the other hand blog forced me to, amazing work. beautiful.
filipina girls

chester| 11.11.11 @ 1:32AM

This is a very informative article. I was looking for these things and here I found it. I am doing a project and this information is very useful me.

zoloft lawsuit

Perfect !!!| 11.14.11 @ 4:03AM

I thought it was going to be some boring old post, but it really compensated for my time. I will post a link to this page on my blog. I am sure my visitors will find that very useful...
mesothelioma lawyer