The American Spectator

Julian Sanchez| 5.10.10 @ 5:25PM

Er, isn't one possible explanation that things were, in fact, different 20 years ago?

John Tabin| 5.10.10 @ 5:43PM

That might explain things if his views had followed a straight line, but it doesn't really account for the zig-zagging.

Samuel| 5.10.10 @ 8:48PM

Don't forget, Sully outed Ed Koch too - in a pretty vicious personal attack.

spool32| 5.10.10 @ 6:37PM

While I'm happy to pile on Sullivan, and my own experience with his writing is one of watching someone become increasingly willing to jump toward the edgy opinion regardless of where the instinct causes him to land, I don't think you've really demonstrated his zigzags on outing in this piece.

Travis McGee| 5.10.10 @ 7:40PM

Let's not talk about piling onto Sullivan. Please.

No neck| 5.10.10 @ 6:40PM

Perhaps what's happened is you've reversed the premises and the conclusion. Sullivan isn't worth taking seriously, so it's interesting to note his oscillations but nothing more than that.

Purpleslog| 5.10.10 @ 6:56PM

Who cares what he thinks or writes. Jeez.

Jose Mourinho| 5.10.10 @ 7:10PM

Apply Occam's razor to Sullivan: Why would a blogger (in an increasingly crowded cyber arena) be motivated to swing from one extreme to the other, thereby differentiating himself (and generating page views) from almost all other bloggers by virtue of his massive inconsistency?

Sullivan's seemingly wild shifts are a calculated (cyber)marketing tactic.

NS| 5.11.10 @ 12:33PM

Jose Mourinho, good luck with the Champions League Final !!!

Nicholas Kronos| 5.10.10 @ 7:19PM

Occam's Razor would say never explain by subtle cybermarketing what is more easily explained by emotional flakiness and/or chemistry.

John Rohan| 5.10.10 @ 7:45PM

It certainly isn't limited to homosexuality;
this is a self-described "conservative" who endorsed both John Kerry and Barack Obama (and became the quintassential "Obamaniac"). He calls himself Catholic, yet he wants to tear down the Church and replace it with a gay-friendly version.

He was for the Iraq war until it became unpopular; he was against universal health care until Obama brought up the topic.

I'm not sure why we should take this guy as an expert on anything. He doesn't have any special expertise or job experience; he went straight out of college to writing opinion pieces in a magazine.

Roy| 5.11.10 @ 1:15AM

I've always figured he was nothing more than an example par excellence of somebody who wanted to say "As a "[insert name of group that might not believe in leftist cliches - Catholic, "Tory", "conservative", "Republican", etc etc] I so happen to fully embrace the latest leftist cliche. Aren't I a brave, bold champion of dissent?" No, you're a believer in leftist cliches and the rest is fraudulent filler.

Carlos D| 5.10.10 @ 7:55PM

And to be fair...Andrew's rebuttal to this distorted piece.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlan.....loset.html

NS| 5.11.10 @ 12:51PM

@Carlos,
If this is what you call a rebuttal, then I have to say that you are very easily impressed.

Elena Kagan may have very well wanted to declare her sexual orientation but the Obama admin stopped her from doing so for its own reasons - she now has a choice - she can either let go the rarest of opportunities that a person can get or she can refuse the position out of indignation. We already know which way she went

Andrew Sullivan can sit in his ivory tower and babble about how homosexuality has become accepted more now than ever before - but he has NO IDEA of what went through Kagan's mind or her circumstances while accepting the offer. She observes American society as much as he does and has lived in it for a much longer time than Sullivan has.

Sullivan needs to respect her decision even if he cannot agree with it - and this is all assuming that she really IS gay !

He needs to remember his own advice - people will come "out" as per their own convenience and comfort and they cannot be coerced to do so. If he really believes in his own advice, he should have no problems with what is going on.

Elena Kagan has ZERO obligations to Sullivan or any one else in the gay community - she is an individual, a woman who can quite clearly think for herself.

Deal with it Sullivan... we live in a free country.

Bruce (GayPatriot)| 5.10.10 @ 7:56PM

Can we PLEASE absolve the world of the notion that Sullivan is a conservative. That is simply laughable.

Quilly Mammoth| 5.10.10 @ 7:57PM

Do you know for sure that each cite is actually from Sullivan's Brain? I mean the greatest One Man Blogger isn't actually one man, he has staff that know how his juice run...er, whatever...ick.
QM

QUilly Mammoth| 5.10.10 @ 8:00PM

From his retort:
"I have always found the coercive exposure of details of people's private sex lives to be appalling and cruel. "

I guess unless it's about Palin's Vajayjay.

jr565| 5.10.10 @ 8:14PM

somewhere around the time of the Iraq war's beginning Sullivan was a cogent, deliberate and (so I thought) morally consistent writer. Then he got sleep apnea and got hooked up to a sleep apnea machine and he is a rambling inconsistent queen who espouses 180 degree turnarounds in his viewpoints (to the point where his conservativism of doubt is essentially an extreme liberalism). Mere coincidence? or a sign that sleep apnea machines cause your brains to turn turn to mush? You decide.
And yes, Andrew we doubt your conservatism too. Instead of saying you believed in a conservativism of doubt, what you should have said is you doubt your conservativism. Because we sure do.
Is there a statute of limitations on how long someone can profess to be something they haven't been in ages? Because having people describe Sullivan as a "conservative" at this point is becoming extremely annoying.

Larry in Iowa| 5.10.10 @ 9:51PM

Upon seeing Elena Kagan's picture I thought perhaps she was a contestant on Britain Has Talent.

kalligulla| 5.10.10 @ 10:26PM

Are you people reading the same blog i read? You simply can't be. Since when is consistency of thought something to be admired? How is it possible to engage fully( as fully as one can which fluctuates) to engage fully in one's life, to live the 'observed' life without there being some changes and evolution over time?

Anyone who is surprised that Sullivan calls himself a conservative simply does not read The Daily Dish regularly. From reading his blog daily, i have surmised that the kind of conservatism that Andrew embraces (heavily influenced by British philosopher Michael Oakeshott) places heavy emphasis on constant engagement with empirical reality. Staying as close as possible to the ground and making ones decisions based on careful and patient considering of empirical,measurable and verifiable FACTS(a word not popular among'st modern day 'conservatives') and taking in as many points of views as possible before deciding the best course of action.

I think Andrew sees the conservative approach as one that's primarily concerned with the business of governance, with special emphasis on placing a skeptical eye on the role of institutions as their natural tendency is to self- perpetuate. So he's a small government guy in that sense as opposed to the 'i hate small government' brain dead zombie chants that characterize the modern day GOP.

The above responses simply point to the fact that mr sullivan is waaay ahead of you guys. How could having the same opinions one had ten years ago possibly be a desirable thing?

Take the war in Iraq. Andrew's support was based on his reaction to 9/11 and the percieved/real threat from islamist terrorists and testimony from credible generals like Colin Powell that pointed to the fact that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. Of course we all now know that all that Niger stuff was a pile of crock, complete with forged signatures and all.

He also had no way of knowing how incompetently run and bungled both wars would end up being. Given new revelations of the mendacity that was employed by Rumsfeld and co to justify the war(not to mention the use of torture which is illegal under UNITED STATES law for those of you who disdain Geneva) how could one not change ones mind about occupation?

Also, why is it ok to ask Barrack Obama for his birth certificate but not Trig Palin's birth certificate? Maybe it's tacky and even crazy but just produce the damn thing and get it over with right?

The idea that Sullivan moves to extremes in order to generate page views is utterly ridiculous and one of the many personal attacks that this thread is just dripping with. No one has tackled any of Sullivan's so called 'inconsistencies' with any depth. It's just the usual attacks on his persona.

Quite revealing don't you think?

Usually, if people have substantive critiques, they focus on those. If, like most of this thread, they don't, then you get quotes like.........

'Let's not talk about piling onto Sullivan. Please'

'One Man Blogger isn't actually one man, he has staff that know how his juice run...er, whatever...ick.'
'Then he got sleep apnea and got hooked up to a sleep apnea machine and he is a rambling inconsistent queen who espouses 180 degree turnarounds in his viewpoints '

Really pathetic stuff guys. You call this wit?How is this substantive in any way?

Reminds me of the quote about not getting into a battle of wits with opponents that have no weapons.

Nick| 5.10.10 @ 11:37PM

Why are you posting as your hero, Mr. Sullivan?

bluecollarbytes| 5.11.10 @ 7:30AM

Thanks Mr Sullivan, for that defense. You might include your obsession with yellow tabloid journalism next time you make the rounds pushing your Palin- 'pregnancy ' slander.

John Rohan| 5.11.10 @ 1:07PM

1. You fail to offer a third option - that demanding to see both Obama and Trig Palin's birth certificates are both paranoid lunacy. But at least Obama is the President; Sarah Palin holds no office anymore at all.

2. If Sullivan is really "conservative" how do you explain his 180 degree turn on universal health care? He used to rail against it, and constantly told us horror stories about his dealings with the NHS in the UK. Then he falls in love with Obama, and kept writing "pass the damn [health care] bill", over and over and over.

NS| 5.11.10 @ 1:15PM

@Kalligula,
Please put down the koolaid - and while you are at it, try to get off your moral high horse - you exemplify one of the main reasons why I QUIT reading Sullivan - all his moral preening is but a facade

From reading his blog daily, i have surmised that the kind of conservatism that Andrew embraces (heavily influenced by British philosopher Michael Oakeshott) places heavy emphasis on constant engagement with empirical reality. Staying as close as possible to the ground and making ones decisions based on careful and patient considering of empirical,measurable and verifiable FACTS(a word not popular among'st modern day 'conservatives') and taking in as many points of views as possible before deciding the best course of action.

Constant engagement with empirical reality ?? This is the same guy who was digging around for Trig trutherism from day one... I am sure Michael Oakeshott would have admired that piece of "investigative" journalism. He revealed an ugly vindictiveness against Sarah Palin which showed how DEVOID he was of any basic decency let alone morality.

You see what you want to see in Sullivan - i would nt call it empirical reality.

How close to the ground did your wonderful Sullivan keep his ear when Scott Brown won the election in MA ? Where was his wonderful sense of empirical reality then, when EVERY poll showed people opposing health care "reform" ?

How Oakshettian is it to impose individual mandates on people to buy a service that they are not willing to out of their own free will ?

Surely, you jest.

He also had no way of knowing how incompetently run and bungled both wars would end up being. Given new revelations of the mendacity that was employed by Rumsfeld and co to justify the war(not to mention the use of torture which is illegal under UNITED STATES law for those of you who disdain Geneva) how could one not change ones mind about occupation?

It is exactly for ignorant people like you Peter Wehner has a devastating take down of Sullivan over his Iraq war prevarications. It goes into his support of the war EVEN if WMD were not to be found. Blaming this on Bush's disastrous prosecution was a convenient excuse for this extremely dishonest man.

There has never been a perfect war - and to think that America would have one in the Middle East was pure fantasy

This was the same man, who so shamelessly rooted for the surge to fail and was constantly whining about the troops not having retreated already.... he had ZERO concerns over what would have happened to Iraq but for the surge.

Iraq today is the only democracy in the ME with a chance to grow better - it all happened inspite of dishonesty and cowardice of men like Sullivan

The idea that Sullivan moves to extremes in order to generate page views is utterly ridiculous and one of the many personal attacks that this thread is just dripping with. No one has tackled any of Sullivan's so called 'inconsistencies' with any depth. It's just the usual attacks on his persona.

As though your Highness has the humility to admit that Sullivan is a deeply flawed man if we didnt attack his "persona"

Reminds me of the quote about not getting into a battle of wits with opponents that have no weapons.
You remind me of how liberal jackasses so easily expose your vapid ignorance.

TallDave| 5.10.10 @ 11:35PM

This is easily explained by the fact Andrew actually writes almost nothing that appears in his blog or books.

Come on, be fair. You can't really expect nineteen staff writers to maintain consistent messaging, can you?

wtf| 5.10.10 @ 11:38PM

testimony from credible generals like Colin Powell that pointed to the fact that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons.

Heh. Someone is not really remembering things very well. Andrew, is that you?

Tim*| 5.11.10 @ 12:07AM

Kagan will be grilled about her Harvard Law military recruiter flap and The Solomon Amendment litigation .

Her legal council records from The Clinton Administration will be accessed along with her SG record in The Obama Administration.

There's already talk.

Aaaaand , We Tea Party Rebels will Remember In November.

Only Turncoat RINO Specter will change his " No" vote on SG Kagin to a "Yes " Vote out of his loser political desperation not to get tossed out of his Senate Gig.
That leaves Kagan 30 in The Hole ,before the confirmation process starts.

m00se| 5.11.10 @ 8:43AM

Sully is a conservative in the same way lots of stoners are libertarian. They want access to their weed. Sully just wants to be left alone to be gay and lecture everyone else on their faults.

In another day he would have been an Episcopal priest.

whoissully| 5.11.10 @ 8:58AM

Who is Andrew Sullivan anyway? Isn't he a Bristol Palin blogger or something?

kalligulla| 5.11.10 @ 5:16PM

Scott Brown was a fluke. It's intellectually dishonest to flaunt his election without acknowldeging the failure of the tea party movement to materialise the same success in NY-23. Remember that one? The one that was supposed to be the symbol of the emerging power of the tea party movement.?

Talking to you people is like playing a guitar solo to an audience of goats and getting mad when they don't applause at the end.