Andrew Sullivan joins LGF's Charles Johnson in kissing off the current 'conservative' movement

Andrew Sullivan

is the poster-child of the self-hating gay, log-cabin republican, war-promoting flip-flopper.

People that have an inner sense of what is right and wrong don't support someone like Bush then later, when he isn't popular, flip-flop.  This isn't about right and wrong...expect that Sullivan found himself on the wrong side of public opinion and so changed sides.

He has done more to hurt LGBT Americans then any other gay person I can think of except maybe Ms. Cheney, who is probably his good friend.

---

by: Tom P @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 08:13:00 AM CST

SING OUT LOUISE!

You've nailed Patient Less Than Zero perfectly.

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 11:19:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

excellently stated

---

by: Kringas @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 11:45:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I've never been able to take him seriously before

so why should I now?

It is sad that the republican party has turned into the party of demagogues. Started in the mid 90's with Newt & Co. And I've been saying for some time that we are now in a cold civil war with these demogogues. I just hope it never turns hot.

"Any transition serious enough to alter your definition of self will require not just small adjustments in your way of living and thinking but a full-on metamorphosis."

---

by: thehawke @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 14:05:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

He is a hypocritical, opportunistic moron.

The second he thinks he can make a living shilling for the right again, he'll be right back with them.  I didn't read most of what was posted here and I certainly won't read what's linked to.  It's Andrew Sullivan.  By definition, he cannot possibly have anything of value to say.

He's not smart, he has no character, and he's an enemy of the LGBT community and an outcast from his previous cronies in the lunatic right fringe.  How he's remained in the public eye all these years is mindboggling.  Promoting him on this site is nothing short of a disgrace.  Seriously.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 18:41:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

condensed version of my comment:

Lips that touch George Bush's (ass) will never touch mine.

---

by: Tom P @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 08:17:24 AM CST

A number of these apply to the Democrats as well

I cannot support a movement that claims to believe in limited government but backed an unlimited domestic and foreign policy presidency that assumed illegal, extra-constitutional dictatorial powers until forced by the system to return to the rule of law.

What has Obama and the Democrats who control both houses of Congress done to reverse the illegal, extra-constitutional dictatorial powers amassed to the presidency?

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

What has Obama and the Democrats who control both houses of Congress done to rein in the spending and borrowing?

I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power.

Obama has shown no qualms about embracing right wing religious ideology to bolster his standing among right wing religious fundamentalists. While he has not been as blatant as the last president, he has made it clear that right ring religious ideology does influence his approach to law and his willingness to advocate for minorities.

I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes....

Is Mr. Sullivan willing to support a movement that is just as deeply homophobic, as long as they are too cowardly to be honest and open about that homophobia? What about a movement that cynically demands that gay men and women support them in exchange for vague promises that some day, maybe, the movement might tentatively discuss the possibility of supporting gay men and women?

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

Do I really need to point out the hypocricy on this one?

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

Obama and the Democrats that control both houses of Congress have had a year. What meaningful changes to rein in government spending have they put forth?

If Mr. Sullivan were truly committed to change, he would put his considerable skill into building up a third party alternative to the Two Party stranglehold on America. Alas, he is still just an attention-seeking wanker.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

---

by: TechBear @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 08:17:46 AM CST

And we must not let ourselves forget

that the Patriot Act is Democratic legislation.  It was originally proposed by the Clinton administration and rejected by the Republican-dominated congress, who didn't want to give Clinton such extra-constitutional powers.  Then when Bush was in the White House, they passed it only too eagerly.  Ultimately we have the Democrats to thank for it.  And Obama has embraced and even expanded ts provisions, such as domestic surveillance.

I harbor a faint hope (faint, verging on invisible) that we'll see a viable third party at least begin to emerge within the next few years.  Howard Dean would make a terrific standard-bearer--if he can shake free of the Democrats.

Americans suffer from an ignorance that is not only colossal, but sacred.  --James Baldwin

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 10:01:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Poor Sully

Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't. But the appearence of Barack Obama on the political scene has just turned him out.

I think he really, really likes Obama. A lot of it is physical and...yes erotic, but the also have similar minds.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 08:27:48 AM CST

"A lot of it is physical and...yes erotic" Indeed.

I trust we all remember "Brothers Welcome" on his barebackcity.com listing.  

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 11:21:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

These are people not Icons

A change of heart here, a disagreement there, such is life. I for one will likely never leave those I know and love who are conservative. Mainly because there are so many people I have been impressed by who are--including on occasion myself! They are people, actual people with real hearts and caring spirits just like liberals. All of this drama about the GOP being representational of the conservative movement is and has always been nothing more than smoke and mirrors. And it is as much of a joke as ascribing liberalism to the democrats. Politicians are by nature pluralistic, whatever title they wear means little.

On the other hand there are moments when the crazy side of any family gets together and all hell breaks loose. And frankly Andrew is doing a great job of defining his own values as a conservative, as well as pointing out where the more flighty and misguided of the conservative movement  has gone and left ground and continues to fly too close to the Sun. They are people who wrap their bigotry and their fears up in being conservative but never really understanding what it means to be one or how it should play out to their fellow human, like many liberals I know.

Not that the left is any better, calling themselves liberal but more than willing to hate those that don't agree or disparage and condescend those they don't support. The sad part is that to really understand conservative values and liberal values you have to come to the same conclusions--we are all equal and we can't do this alone; "Live and let live"; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". What part of these kinds of values are conservative and what part of them are liberal? Living is so much bigger than being conservative or liberal and until both sides figure that out we will all be stuck right here.

Always thinking about it...

---

by: kudo451 @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 09:37:44 AM CST

Didn't Sully leave the Right some time ago?

I could be wrong, but didn't Sully leave the right some time ago?  This post is just a recap of why he left.  Departed.  He's not on the Left.  

---

by: Edie @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 09:44:55 AM CST

Convenient, Johnny-Come-Lately, Publicity Whore

An incisive, articulate, scathing and absolutely right-on elucidation of Sully's recent "revelations:"

http://driftglass.blogspot.com...

Absolutely brilliant analysis and funny writing.

Sully and Lieberman are alike--always looking out for number 1.

---

by: RecoveringTexan @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 09:49:02 AM CST

Thanks for posting that link

Boyhowdy, that DG sums it up very neatly.

Sully's little "me too" missive seems to me that he's tiptoeing off the Titanic after Charles Johnson, leaving the same waft of batshit and Sour Grapes Koolade in their wake.  Their "sudden conversions" are about 30 years too late.  Ray Charles could have seen the mess we're in coming.  If it weren't for someone else's coattails to ride (and possibly our necks to step on), he'd be nowhere at all.

Pitiful.  Just plumb pitiful.

It got real old being called crazy when we pointed out that the emperor was nekkid.  Now the righties are suddenly shocked to see, yeah, their heroes have been butt-nekkid all along as if they didn't notice.

Or actively enable, excuse, aid, and abet.

Sully, I'm underwhelmed, as usual.  You're still a horse's arse.  Please just drift back into obscurity and stay away from sharp objects.

The Driftglass article is a good read.  Thanks again, RT, for cross-posting.

Anyone who says "Money can't buy love" never rescued an animal.

---

by: HillWilliam @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 11:44:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sully's BFF Bush is gone

so it is not a surprise that he has to carve new ground out for himself. Now, were to he demand a conservative movement that had LGBT equality, instead of protections for a few rich gay stockbrokers in suits, I would be a bit more impressed.

All too often, his views are far too reminiscent of a desparate single man in a bar in the last hour before closing, saying anything to find someone to crawl into the opposite side of the bed with him

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 13:35:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sullivan

I have never been able to forgive Sullivan for the swinish feature he wrote for the NYT magazine some years ago in which he announced that the AIDS crisis is over.  He wrote repeatedly that "this plague is over," "this ordeal as a whole may be over," etc., etc.

And it wasn't just a mater of denial, though denial is a Sullivan specialty.  He's never come to grips with the realities of the Catholic church, for instance.  And his article about "the end of the AIDS crisis" was written not long after the New Republic fired him as editor--one day after he came out as HIV+.  This is not a man who faces unpleasant realities honestly.

But the essay got even uglier.  At the same time that he kept telling us all that chipper stuff about no more AIDS deaths, he also said things like,

The vast majority of HIV-positive people in the world, and a significant minority in America, will not have access to the expensive and effective new drug treatments now available.  And many Americans--especially blacks and Latinos--will still die.

 But Sullivan thought that largely beside the point, and he said so.  The important point in his mind was that AIDS was allegedly no longer such a big deal for affluent gay white men like, well, Andrew Sullivan, who could afford the expensive new treatments then coming onto the market.  

This man has done incalculable harm to the LGBT community and, I daresay, to the nation.  If he has now abandoned the "conservative" movement, it can only be out of self-interest.  He has finally gotten it through his head that they don't want him.  (Good golly!  They don't like us gays!  Who knew?) His little manifesto smacks of sour grapes.

Americans suffer from an ignorance that is not only colossal, but sacred.  --James Baldwin

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 10:25:20 AM CST

Reagan

"To paraphrase Reagan, I didn't leave the conservative movement. It left me"

What kills me about all these people leaving the right wing extremist movement is that they all seem to love Reagan, the very person most responsible for changing the Republicans from a center-right to extremist party.

Profligate spending. Religious extremism. Unilateral militaristic belligerence? All these "leavers" can thank their buddy Reagan for those things.

---

by: kathygnome @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 10:45:28 AM CST

Bingo, Kathy!

The moderates were forced out of the GOP when the reicht came in pledging fealty to the party, until they were able to do what they came to do -- take it over and turn it into a party of religious fanatics, vowing to turn America into a theocracy.

How totally hypocritical that a movement that considered communism a threat to the country and claimed communist infiltration in government and the arts, then used those exact same tactics of infiltration to take over the GOP and purging anyone who refused to goosestep to their agenda!

Listen to "TransTalk" every Monday from 4-5pm ET on http://falconradio.org

We need your help to pass two referenda in Bowling Green, Ohio!! Find out how you can help by going to www.onebowlinggreen.org

---

by: Marlene @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 13:30:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Keep in mind that Barry Goldwater was effectively thrown out for being a "moderate"

The archetype conservative of the 60s, the establishment bugbear of liberals in the 70s, was dismissed from the GOP by Gingrich et al. for daring to actually believe in small government, conservative fiscal policy and a hands-off attitude towards regulating morality.

And today, even the Democrats are more conservative than him.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

---

by: TechBear @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 14:12:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I thought that was Goldwater

who said that.  When he came out in favor of LGBT rights, or against DADT.

---

by: PSzymeczek @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 19:13:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Its now time to pay up

In the 70's when it looked like the traditional big business, war hawk Republicans would be a permanent minority party, they embraced the emerging (after Roe v. Wade) religious right to gain the numbers they needed to be competitive.  This was a pact with the devil.  Now that the far right moralizing, know-nothing, fear mongers are taking over, they are facing the consequences of that deal.  

---

by: annwsc1 @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 11:07:24 AM CST

Perhaps . . .

. . . Andrew might find a home in the Republican Party's more moderate libertarian wing, which hews to the small government model while generally championing LGBT rights as an issue based on personal liberty.

Unfortunately, the GOP libertarians are way outnumbered by the neo-cons and christianist dominionists.

---

by: Joann Prinzivalli @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 11:34:45 AM CST

As a PWA I detested Sullivan advertising for bareback partners and outed for it

Any queer Conservative who didn't WALK from the RNC after self loathing fags Mehlman and Rove put 13 anti gay initiatives in battle ground states in 2004, and watched Kenneth Blackwell STEAL Ohio election shorting poor precincts voting machines causing 8 hour waits to vote.

uh......go straight to HELL, and say hi to the Catholic Bishop pedofiles, waiting there for you.  

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 11:39:34 AM CST

Really, Andrew?

I cannot support a movement that claims to believe in limited government but backed an unlimited domestic and foreign policy presidency that assumed illegal, extra-constitutional dictatorial powers until forced by the system to return to the rule of law.

So where were you in, say....

2002?

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

So where were you during, say....

the Reagan Administration?

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.

But 1987 was fine-n-dandy?

I cannot support a movement that holds torture as a core value.

First, define "torture."  Otherwise, I simply refer you back to the Reagan Administration and its covert wars.  Torture isn't okay - but going right for it and just killing is?

I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power.

So where were you in 1994?

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.

So where were you in 1996?

And what about 1983?

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

So where were you in 1988?

And, for that matter, what about 2000?

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

I refer you, yet again, back to the Reagan Administration.

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

So where were you...

well, for anything Republican after, say, the Ford Administration

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.

You haven't yet answerd as to where you were in 2000?  Or 2004?

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

Again, where were you during the Reagan Administration?

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

As to Rush, where have you been since 1988 Andrew?  

Let's face it.  If a Republican-led government decided to implement the Dead Kennedys' song "Kill the Poor" as policy, but the enactment bill contained language favorable to the tax burden of elite, white gay men such as himself, no one would ever hear a peep from Sullivan.

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 12:21:05 PM CST

Amen.

Sully is a pompous asshole who worships the very senile old f*ck who started ALL this shit we have to deal with today. Make no mistake about it: THIS IS ALL REAGAN'S FAULT. Period. If that senile old gasbag hadn't been elected, none of this would be happening now.
I do read his blog and did agree with his analysis about Obama, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. The fact that he waited until NOW to flee the "movement" that kicked him out years ago is not a surprise to me. Now if he would just WALK out of the Catholic Church before THEY kick him out. Not. Gonna. Happen. He doesn't have the sense the Goddess gave lettuce.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 13:28:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes!

Perfectly put.  

"Oh, I thought you meant a specific plan. With maps and stuff." -Buffy

---

by: Aspasia @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 15:56:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Blasting.

"If the time isn't ripe, we have to ripen the time."
DOROTHY HEIGHT

---

by: Orion45 @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 17:03:49 PM CST

....So put up or shup up.

Well, Dr. Sullivan, your next " kiss off" should be the Roman Catholic Church, whom you refuse to leave for the same reasons stated for your secular attachment. A refusal to listen to the Magisterium is literally "excommunicatio pro se" and Dr. Ratzinger has left no wiggle room for the exercise of an alternative conscience where the issue of "intrinsically disordered homosexuality" practiced is concerned. The pope has made it clear that "cafeteria catholicism" is now off the spiritual menu.

"If the time isn't ripe, we have to ripen the time."
DOROTHY HEIGHT

---

by: Orion45 @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 11:53:35 AM CST

Watch, Papa Nazi will end up kicking Sully out...

And he'll bitch and whine about it on the Daily Dish. And I'll say couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Like I said above, his belfry's short a lot of bats. If he can't get the fact that Natzinger hates gay people, he deserves what he gets.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 22:52:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]