As I have been collecting notes for a large post outlining my major areas of disagreement with Andrew Sullivan, I read his latest column in the Advocate, which, despite one sentence, shows that Andrew still retains the iconoclastic voice that gained him respect in conservative circles — and among other thinking people. But, it’s his choice to include that sentence which helps explain why so few conservatives take him seriously any more. (To be sure, if it turns out that the Advocate editors added that sentence without his say-so, I might develop (once again) a more favorable opinion of that columnist and blogger.)
First, I’m amused that the Advocate continues to call Andrew’s column “Against the Current,” something which applies more to Andrew’s opinions for the better part of the Clinton era and the first three years of the Bush Administration (when (the viewpoints of some conservative bloggers notwithstanding) he really did take positions at odds with those of the gay establishment) than it does to his writings of late. While Andrew may (as in the case of this column) write about things that other prominent gay writers fail to address, for the past two years (well, the past two years, one month and six days to be precise), he has been at pains to swim with the gay current, albeit (given the quality of his prose) with a much stronger stroke.
In his latest column, “World war on gays,” Andrew makes the valid point (with which I agree) that we need to “wake up” to the persecution of gays around the world. In Andrew’s words:
as gay people in the richest and most powerful country on earth, we owe our brothers and sisters facing terror and violence abroad more than passing concern. We owe them solidarity and attention and help—now more than at any time in the recent past. Our biggest organizations are, as so often, useless. We need to demand they do more. We are in a global war against fundamentalist religious terror. We are rightly alarmed by the rise of the American religious right. But compared to the Muslim religious right, empowered by weaponry and state violence, the American evangelicals are milquetoast.
Exactly. It is unfortunate that it is iconoclastic for a gay person to say as much, but as Andrew rightly puts it, “the gay movement seems [instead] stuck in petty domestic loathing of Bush.”
It is how Andrew follows that sentence which helps show why many serious conservatives no longer take him seriously as a critic of the president (or his Administration). He writes, “There’s plenty to loathe.” (Emphasis added.) Had Andrew changed just one word, “loathe,” to “criticize,” I would see this piece as a sign that Andrew was returning to his pre-02/24 self, a responsible, iconoclastic voice. But, his choice to include this one word is line with his over-the-top rhetoric since the President came out in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment. It’s one thing to disagree with the president, it’s another to join the unhinged radicals in hating him.
These past two years, my problem with Andrew has not been so much his ideas as his manner of expressing them. It’s too bad he has joined those he once derided in loathing the president because as this column shows, he still has something valuable to contribute to the debate. The more he demonizes the president, however, the less seriously those on the right will take him.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
These past two years, my problem with Andrew has not been so much his ideas as his manner of expressing them.
OK, then, I’ll take issue with his ideas. Andrianna supports a massive tax increase on gasoline and smugly asserts that it won’t apply to him since he doesn’t drive. This is the kind of position one associates with the San Francisco fart-smelling left, not conservatism.
Andrianna also supports judicial oligarchy, so long as the courts are creating through judicial fiat social policies that he agrees with. The conservative position is that the people, and not the judiciary, should decide social issues for themselves.
Then, there are Andrianna’s histrionics over so-called “torture” at GITMO, tortured defined by Andrianna and other lefties as any kind of discomfort or any degree or duration experienced by a terrorist, for example, because the air conditioning was too high or too low. Andrew Sullivan even praised Dick Durbin when he compared our soldiers to Nazis. (“DURBIN SAID NOTHING WRONG: I’ve now read and re-read Senator Dick Durbin’s comments on interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay. They are completely, perfectly respectable. The rank hysteria being perpetrated by some on the right is what is shameful.”–Andrew Sullivan, June 20, 2005)
And then there is the small matter of his endorsement of an indecisive empty-suit for the presidency in 2004; a man who, if elected, would have been a puppet of far-left groups like MoveOn, the ACLU, and all the Soros-funded socialist groups that were paying for his candidacy. Supposedly, Andrianna was ‘chagrined’ or ‘appalled’ or ‘disgusted’ with Bush’s profligate spending. Why then endorse a person who called for $2 trillion in spending beyond even Bush’s bloated budgets, and who advocated near-total socialization of health care?
Please note, V, that I did not say I agreed with Andrew’s ideas. It’s one thing to put forward an opinion. It’s another to do so in a juvenile manner. And it is his juvenile manner which I find more “troublesome” than his opinions themselves.
Andrew Sullivan is a man who will not compromise. He supported Bush right up to the time he decided to push for enshrining homophobia in the US Constitution. That was a step too far for him. You should respect that.
Well, that AND when it became apparent Bush and the GOP Congress were about as committed to a balanced budget as Bill Clinton was to his marriage vows. (threw in a Clinton jibe to make you guys feel better – i know it’s the republican elixir. HAHA!)
#2 — My point was that Andrianna Sullington’s ideas are not conservative.
#3 — No, I do not have to respect that. The necessity to defeat Islamo-Fascism exists independently of the president’s position on same-sex marriage. As GP and GPW have shown, you can disagree with the president on the latter and still support him on the former. Sullington has decided his disagreement with the president on the SSM issue makes the war on terror not worth fighting and Bush a figure of complete evil whose every policy is wrong. In other words, Andrianna Sullington is indistinguishable from any far-left BDS lunatic.
Oh yes, loathe is such a harsh word. Certainly not fit to describe a President, except, if you goggle “loathe” and “clinton”, you come up with about 450,000 hits. Now be honest wingnuts, don’t “loathe” and “Clinton” just go together in your minds like “peanut butter” and “jelly?”
make that “google”
#3 – Andrew a “man who will not compromise”????
What planet are you from, Erik? Andrew’s entire career for the last two years, one month and six days has been one gigantic compromise.
GPW has given one small, but perfect example. On some level, Andrew would like to make the point to Left gays that their heads are up their asses; Islamo-fascists are the real threat to gays. Yay. Wonderful. But how does he do it? He panders shamelessly to that audience’s emotions, bigotry and prejudice.
Where I come from, that’s called compromising.
I loathe both Bush and Clinton, just as I loathe most all politicians. Which is why I debate policy, not politics, and leave the partisan shilling to mindless partisan zombies like Ignorant and nauseating.
To put it another way:
Andrew KNOWS (as he says in the column he’s just published) that Islamo-fascism is the real threat to gays today, and must be defeated.
Yet, in 2004, he supported for President a man unwilling or incapable of defeating them… a man who openly supported the enemy on his return from Vietnam and who, in 2004, promised to submit our every Defense action and policy to a “global test”… a man who all but said that we just have Interpol get Osama, that will somehow be the end of the Islamo-fascist threat.
How is that principled, again? How is it “not compromising”?
How is that principled, again? How is it “not compromising”?
I guess it’s as principled and uncompromising as attacking Bush for spending too much, then endorsing a person (I will not call him a man) who wanted to spend $2 Trillion more than Bush.
Too bad for the Bush cultists that the American people are finally turning on Dear Leader. LOL! But I am glad to see that Ken Mehlman – played by Hillary Swank – has lashed the rest of the GOP to the proverbial mast of the foundering ship that is Bushco. Unfortunately, the rest of us will have to live with our incredibly weakened Republic and the disastrous consequences of the Bush reign of error.
#10: “get Osama”
Like Bush did? Oh that’s right, what Bush REALLY said about Osama was “I truly am not that concerned about him.”
#12 — In reality (something Ignorant and nauseating avoids dealing with) the conservatives on this board criticize Bush constantly. It is the left that behaves like a mindless cult. And it’s ironic that Ignorant and nauseating, a self-professed democrat tool who doesn’t care about anything except his side “winning” makes that accusation. Somebody is projecting big time.
Ian is not gay. I have proof, and I can show my work.
He used the term “bush” five times in just two short posts.
I assert that this belies a latent obsession with female genitalia.
Prof. Eric in Hollywood
#10 — And remember what John F’n Kerry said about terrorism… that it was “a nuisance.” (Presumably because the people who were most likely to be killed by terrorists were just working class proles, and not billionaires who could jet privately among their five palatial estates.)
Yeah, Andrianna Sullington thinks Islamo-Fascism is such a serious threat that he endorsed the guy who thought was a nuisance… like a crying baby on an airplane, or a neighbor’s dog that barks all night.
Sorry, but before Andrew DEMANDS solidarity on a global scale with gays, he needs to DEMAND the same thing with women. He has, but he hasn’t, then he has, then he hasn’t.
Sorry, if Women, a more common mate for men are less than human, what do you think that the ignorant societies will think of gays?
Sorry, Gays, while _I_ a resident of the most wealthy and progressive nation on the planet belive that homosexuality is not exactly Equitable, but worthy of Equal treatment cannot believe for ONE SECOND that if it is okay for all these nations to DESTROY! their women and perform acts WORSE than slavery as it existed in the US, EVER, you cant ask that kind of society to accept gays.
I’m all about slaughtering villages filled with brutal men, who think they deserve seperation because their women are nothing, and they have a right to kill gays, I’m ALL about razing the RIGHT villages, but, before we hate a nation or ideaology because of their stance on gays, we should FIRST hate them because of their stance on women. Sorry, gays aren’t as common as women.
Till we realize that 1/2 of the procreative formula are worthy of rights, we will NEVER accept the 1% of homosexuals, and Feminists have PROVEN that they are NOT the doorway to that path of understanding.
Bush cultists, Ian? Come now. Sounds like you read a bit too much Sullivan who think we all are just ga-ga over the president while most conservatives who generally support the president, frequently criticize him on any number of topics.
And the serious polls have shown the president to be pretty consistently in the low 40s for the past few months, far better than many other recent presidents. And not a sign that the American people are “turning on” him.
It’s only Bush haters who claim that the president’s supporters see him as our “Dear Leader.” What are you guys projecting onto us? We generally support the man though we don’t always agree with him.
Perhaps they’re projecting their own tendency to blindly support “Dear Leader”.
As a longtime pro-gay Democrat, I voted for Clinton twice, and I spent a lot of hours in the 90s arguing to people that impeachment was excessive – we should just “censure and move on” (genesis of MoveOn.org, of which I was an early and BRIEF supporter). Having said that:
I have found to this day that if I point out to a hardcore Democrat the blatant truth – that Clinton did actually commit the legal crime of perjury, something Bush has yet to do – I am consistently met with some variation of either white-faced silence or red-faced outrage.
Ditto if I point out the obvious truth that Kerry betrayed the United States and cost thousands of lives, in his actions on returning from Vietnam.
Looks to me like they can’t handle criticism of “Dear Leader”.
Here we go again. I do not believe the Republicans are stronger on defense than the Democrats. The Democrats would fight the War On Terror just as effectively as the Republicans. And I don’t see the Iraq War as part of the greater War On Terror. Iraq was a political war, just as Vietnam was a political war. Both wars begun over political theory. In Vietnam, that was the domino theory. In Iraq, it was the doctrine of pre-emption. You should never go to war over political theory. And more importantly, you should never start a war whose goals are impossible to achieve. WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH A DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOES NOT HAVE THE CREDIBILITY IN THAT PART OF THE WORLD TO BE ABLE TO DO IT. They will not listen to us. You can have a dictatorship at the point of a gun. You can not have democracy that way. It just doesn’t work. Thus, arguing that the GOP leadership on the War On Terror is so invaluable that it trumps Bush’s support of the FMA just doesn’t work, either. After all, if the GOP’s leadership in the War On Terror was so infallible, they would have caught bin Laden at Tora Bora, 5 years ago.
And therefore, with a long hot summer, high gas prices, even higher home energy prices, civil unrest and protest over illegal immigration, warm oceans and gigantic hurricanes on the horizon, the Democrats are going to get their chance to prove my point sooner, rather than later.
And i’ll be here to watch you mourn… and offer you some champagne.
“I do not believe the Republicans are stronger on defense than the Democrats. The Democrats would fight the War On Terror just as effectively as the Republicans. And I don’t see the Iraq War as part of the greater War On Terror.”
Thank you for stating those things clearly, and in “I” statements.
I find them way out of touch with reality.
Given that, there is probably not a lot of value in you-and-I exchanging further – we disagree too much on the basic facts.
If you should want to discuss the facts themselves first and be open to new information, that could be productive.
But I expect you won’t. You ended by announcing, for all practical purposes, your hope that the U.S. will experience failure in Iraq – which incidentally tells me something (negative) about your psychology or character.
P.S. Erik, you should further note that Sullivan doesn’t share your views.
Though he has frequently “gone wobbly” in the last two years, one month and seven days, Sullivan’s basically DOES see the Iraq war as an essential part of the War on Terror. (It is the position he held strongly before Bush’s FMA announcement, and that he cycles back to after his wobbly periods.)
Given that Sullivan basically knows Iraq is a key part of the war with Islamo-fascism: I say again that there is nothing principled or “uncompromising” about his periods of wobbliness on those issues.
You, Erik, may be reading into Sullivan’s behavior rather too much of your own position (that Iraq isn’t a valid part of WoT).
The Democrats would fight the War On Terror just as effectively as the Republicans.
ROFLMAO
Sure. The Democrat “retreat to Pakistan, don’t do anything that might get a soldier hurt, trust the French and the UN to capture bin Laden*” is going to have the Islamo-Fascist movement quaking in their boots.
* Because, according to Democrats, Osama bin Laden is the only terrorist in the world, and once he is arrested and given a completely fair trial under the auspices of the ACLU, all terrorism will be over forever.
The name of this site should be changed from “Gay Patriot” to “Loathe Andrew Sullivan”. Pointing out a single word in an essay you otherwise agree with, as a sign that the Andrew is “over-the-top” is just silly.
Lets look at the definition of “loathe” shall we?
Andrew is a low-taxes, small-government, pro-military, get government out of our lives as much as possible conservative. And he is socially conservative in the sense that he thinks gays should settle down in monogamous marriages.
Bush was low taxes, and he can say that he still is. But thats because his out-of-control massive budget increases in areas other than the military, such as new Medicaid entitlements has been mostly at the cost of an incredible budget deficit that future generations, or just the next President, whether he is a GOP or Dem, is going to have to raise taxes to pay for. Bush is for “low taxes” in the same way that the Palestinians say they “want peace”. By eradicating Israel.
Bush has ballooned the size of government far greater than any of his Democratic predecessors in the office.
He has consistently sided with, encouraged, and pandered to, those elements of the GOP, the “social conservatives”, who want to extend the reach of government into the every aspect of Americans lives, even the bedroom. He has replaced any semblance of rational decision making policy on such issues as health care, or environmental policy with religious ideology and corporate business press releases. “There’s no such thing as global warming!” as CRACK!, another chunk of the Antarctica breaks off.
But he’s good on the “War on Terror”,…you will not doubt moan. How good is he? Name the “good” decisions he made, and more importantly, describe how well he has carried out those decisions. He is better at delivering campaign slogans than he is at delivering competent leadership. And sometimes he even screws up the slogans as in the case of “Mission Accomplished”. He rewards those such as Wolfowitz, who made military policy decisions based on wishful thinking rather than reality, with the Presidential Medal of Freedom and a fat-cat crony-appointment to the World Bank. And some of his other crony appointments, like Brown to FEMA, did not turn out so well in the long run. Or the 20-something year old he hired to bring NASA to heel that had lied on his resume.
He doesn’t have any control or knowledge of what his own Administration is up too. Rumsfield vs. Powell, Rumsfield vs. Rice, Cheney blathering out ridiculous predictions on FOXNEWS every chance he gets. Rumsfield over-ruling or publicly rebuking and retiring good Generals who’s realistic assessments didn’t jive with the PartAY Line.
If you actually ARE a conservative, then yes, there is plenty to loathe about this President. And due note, I did not even bring up “the gay thing”.
The reason Andrew gets under the skin of GP and GPW so much, is because he is a voice of authority, he has the intellectual, Conservative credentials to back his words up.
But Andrew makes a distinction that Dan and Bruce do not: That there is a difference between “Conservative” and “Republican”. That they cannot tolerate. When they go off on these irrational riffs on Andrew what they really call into question are their own credentials as “Conservatives”, not Andrew’s. I think it demonstrates that they are NOT conservatives, they are Partisans.
Andrew could vote for a Democrat or someone else so long as they are “Conservative” or it can meet conservative ends, such as a divided government that would inherently limit government size and spending, which is what a Kerry Presidency would have meant. Instead we have a Rubber Stamp Congress for an out of control President.
Dan and Bruce are not capable of this making this kind of distinction. If nothing changed about Bush except that he changed his Party affiliation to that of “Democrat”, they could never, ever, vote for him. He would automatically become the Liberal Anti-Christ in their eyes by default.
So the next time you see GP or GPW criticize Andrew for not being “Conservative” enough, (and you WILL see it, they can’t seem to shut up about him), remember that it is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. They are not “Conservatives”, they are GOP Party Flunkies. And how “Patriotic” is that?
#24 – “Andrew is a low-taxes, small-government, pro-military, get government out of our lives as much as possible conservative.”
And for me, that’s the joke-of-the-thread statement.
Andrew favors tax increases, Gryph.
Andrew endorsed a Presidential candidate who promised the voters giant new programs – well beyond the damage Bush has already done.
If you think that’s “small-government” and “conservative”, well Gryph, you need to look those words up.
“Bush has ballooned the size of government…”
For which Bush is frequently criticized on this blog, and by conservatives generally.
“…far greater than any of his Democratic predecessors in the office.”
You had me, then you lost me. That’s a blatantly excessive and disprovable claim.
“He has consistently sided with, encouraged, and pandered to, those elements of the GOP, the “social conservatives”, who want to extend the reach of government into the every aspect of Americans lives, even the bedroom.”
Oh really, Gryph?
What exactly has the government done then, in the last 6 years, to insert itself into my bedroom? Or yours? I quickly checked my bedroom for warrantless taps and hidden cameras, and couldn’t find any. You should be able to name 1 instance in 6 years, Gryph. Anything?
I was going to read and respond to more of your garbage, Gryph, but I had to stop. It’s just so awfully boring!
#18: I certainly don’t believe all conservatives are Bush Cultists and I have never claimed they were. However, there are those who still extoll his Presidential performance who, if it had been an Al Gore Presidency where everything over the past five years had been done exactly the same as Bush has done, would have demanded that he be impeached and removed from office. Furthermore, there has been a tendency of many pro-Bush partisans to attack personally anyone who criticizes the Bush Administration. Virtually any “public” forum Bush has attended has had the attendees hand-picked for their devotion to Bush even to the point of requiring signed “loyalty” pledges.
Another sign of cult-like behavior is the flip-flopping his supporters frequently perform to keep in line with Presidential whims. A great example was the initial Bush determination to get Osama dead or alive followed only a few months later by his declaration that “I’m truly not that concerned about him.” Immediately, his supporters switched directioins and fell into line behind the new meme of Osama’s unimportance.
As for your “serious” polls, which ones would those be? As far as I can see from pollingreport.com, only one national poll in March – at the beginning of the month – had him above 40% job approval. The rest were all in the 30’s. And at this point in Clinton’s second term, his job approval was in the high 50’s to mid 60’s so I don’t know how you can claim that Bush poll numbers are “far better than many other recent presidents” unless you are excluding Clinton and virtually every other President – Nixon and Carter excepted – over the past 40-50 years. Did I mention that denial of reality is another manifestation of cult-like behavior? 😉
“There’s no such thing as global warming!” as CRACK!, another chunk of the Antarctica breaks off.
Poot! (Bends over) “Sniff! Sniff! Sniff! A-h-h-h-h!”
Re: polls…
First, why does it matter to you? The only poll that matters is Election Day.
Second, polls that put Bush’s numbers below 35 all oversample Democrats. You can do the legwork of looking it up (if you are as reality-oriented as you would claim).
Third, for Bush’s true number to be around 40 at this point in his second term (sixth year) puts him ahead of, yes, Carter, Nixon, and several other Presidents. You can do the legwork of looking up the precise ones. Bye.
BTW, Gryphie, you may be shocked to learn this, but icebergs have been breaking off Antarctica for millennia. It’s not like it all started with Bush. What do you think sank the Titanic? Knowing you, you probably blame Halliburton.
If you actually look at scientific reports and not alarmist hysteria from agendized eco-nazis, you would learn that 80% of the Antarctic coastal environmental monitoring stations have experienced “either an intensification of cooling or a reduced rate of warming; while four coastal sites and one interior site actually shifted from warming to cooling.” (Source: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change)
Finally, if there is any Global Warming going on, it is much more likely driven by solar activity than anything humans are doing on Earth. I don’t know what you and your smug compatriots propose Bush or anyone else to do about the sun.
Actually, I think the poll-gazers are kind of funny. When Bush’s poll numbers are low, they say it proves that the American people have “wised up.” When same-sex marriage polls in the low-20s however, they’re all “who cares about polls?”
#28 Fine forget the polls. Everything is rosy. Believe it. Whatever.
Patrick — and I had though you were a serious critic. It’s unfortunate that your comment ignores the essence of my post. For while I note that Andrew has joined the angry left in his rabid hatred of the president, I make clear here the good sense of his most recent column, saying that it shows “he still has something valuable to contribute to the debate.” I even praise the power of his prose!
In this post, I did not even address the issue of whether Andrew is “conservative enough.” Perhaps though you were reading my mind. For in the post I am working on (which I mentioned in the first paragraph of this piece) I intend to question his conservative credentials this past two years, contrasting what he said (via a quote you cut and paste from his blog into a comment to a recent post on this blog) to some things he has said in the past two years, one month and seven days. While I do intend to question his conservative credentials, I do not do that here. You could at least acknowledge that I praised his column.
To call this a Rubber Stamp Congress is just plain wrong.
Um, Ian, I love it when the president’s critics say such things as “there has been a tendency of many pro-Bush partisans to attack personally anyone who criticizes the Bush Administration.” Actually it’s the tendency of Bush opponents to attack personally both the president and his supporters. Another case of projection?
And do you have actual evidence of such “loyalty” pledges that participants in fora where the president speaks must sign. I have heard this notion bandied about on the left, but have yet to see real evidence. I also know that Clinton tended to “hand-pick” the guests for venues where he spoke. So it seems the president is just repeating pattern of his immediate predecessor — if indeed he is doing that.
And it’s laughable to say that his supporters flip-flop to fall into line with the president. At least from the conservative blogs and columnists I read, it seems that most on the right who generally support the president are often at odds with him. This notion of us as mind-numbed followers is a fiction cooked up by the president’s opponents who want to spare themselves the difficulty of taking seriously our arguments.
So, I guess this denial of reality (is in your words) a manifestation of cult-like behavior.
And I’ll have to acknowledge that I was wrong on the polls, having been so busy that I have not looked at them in several weeks. When I did check them, I noted the president has slipped into the high 30s. But, then again, Carter, Truman, Johnson and Bush (41) were all lower at certain points in their administration. Still that’s not a sign that the people are turning on him.
Perhaps if the president has as good a press operation as his predecessor, his numbers would be a little higher than they are now. He only has himself to blame for that.
Who said everything’s rosy, Ian? You are full of non sequiturs today.
Sorry I just don’t care to give more time and attention to whatever else you wrote. (Scanning it much too quickly and, I admit, barely understanding it: it appears to be as much of a yawner as Gryph’s.)
P.S. I grant one real instance where Bush’s poll numbers sank down to the 30 range: during the Harriet Miers episode.
Why did his numbers sink then? Because conservatives turned on him. Anytime Bush’s real number is 35-40, it’s because, despite his many flaws, most conservatives are still with him. Anytime his number sinks (for real), it’s because even conservatives are throwing up their hands.
As I am no conservative, I probably shouldn’t try to speak for them… but my impression is that Harriet Miers was simply too lacking in basic judicial qualifications for many conservatives to rally behind. Bush apparently resolved that with Alito.
Oops, I left my point unclear. Here is the P.P.S.
You can’t have it both ways, Ian. You can’t claim simultaneously that the conservatives / Bush supporters are all a cult who support Bush blindly, and also claim that everybody (which would necessarily include the nation’s 30-40% conservative chunk) is turning on Bush. OK?
See here for interpreting polls.
#36 – Very interesting.
Other stuff I’ve seen that limits people to a strict “conservative – moderate – liberal” type of choice, puts the country at roughly 35% solid conservative, 45% moderate, 20% solid liberal.
As I’ve said, the left-MSM routinely inflates liberal or Democratic representation in their own polls. That’s why they’re always so shocked on Election Day. Republicans generally do 3-5 points better than the MSM assured its blind little readers they would do.
So for example, if the MSM predicts a 55-45 defeat of Republicans, disappointment ensues as the ‘Pubs only suffer a 51-49 type of defeat. Or if the MSM is predicting a 52-48 defeat of Republicans, disappointment ensues as they gain a 49-51 victory.
That’s what Ian, Erik, etc. have to look forward to this November. The ‘Pubs may well suffer a defeat this. But it won’t be all that stinging. It will be discouragingly close. In fact, there’s a still some chance they could win.
The Democrats would fight the War On Terror just as effectively as the Republicans.
Can we just laugh at this one again? Just the thought of the democrats being in charge of the WOT terrorizes me. I wouldn’t trust them to defend my back yard from skunks (but if Kerry has a plan for this I just might vote for him), much less defend anyone from terrorism.
As for Sullivan-I admit it-I don’t see how anyone who is for low taxes, small government, and strong defense could have supported Kerry in the last election cycle. Kerry is the opposite of all these positions, as are most democrats that were running. I can maybe see going third party, or doing a “hold your nose and vote” but I just can’t see why he would get behind and support any candidate that is the antithesis of what he purports to believe.
This is one reason that as frustrated as I can get with the GOP leadership (I admit I get more frustrated at congress than specifically the president) I also recognize that the democrats are even more off the mark from what I believe.
#35 You must learn to read better. Here is what I said in my post #26:
“I certainly don’t believe all conservatives are Bush Cultists and I have never claimed they were.”
I think there is some subset (maybe 1/2) of the 30-40% who currently approve of Bush’ job performance that would support him no matter what their “lyin’ eyes” might observe. I notice nobody has stated that if we had had the identical five years under a President Gore, they would have supported him to the same extent as they have Bush. In fact if you’re honest with yourselves, you’d admit you’d have been calling for Gore’s impeachment from just after 9/11.
#37: “the left-MSM routinely inflates liberal or Democratic representation in their own polls”
It sounds like you’re equating liberal with Democratic. Yet in the same post you claim there are only 20% liberals. So how on earth is it possible for Democrats like Kerry to get nearly 50% of the vote?
Ian, Gryph, et al:
Go to your rooms until you grow up.
Regards,
Peter Hughes
#41: “Go to your rooms until you grow up.”
Translation: I can’t refute their arguments so like so many other conservatives here, I’ll just fling insults.
Since the topic seems to have shifted toward “polls” about President Bush, I thought I’d pass on a little “poll” that still has me in a state of near shock.
I live in a heartland county where Bush took 71 percent of the vote in 2004, where voters cast 82 percent of their ballots for a so-called anti-same sex marriage constitutional amendment that went far beyond the marriage issue.
Today, at dinner after church services, the subject of politics came up at our table. Of the 14 adults at the table, two said they’d voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. The other twelve said they’d voted for Bush in both elections. Someone asked an interesting question: forget, for a moment who his opponents were, how many of the twelve were sorry they’d voted for Bush? Nine of the twelve said they were sorry! Of those, four said they might not have supported Bush in ’04 had someone other than Kerry been running. Ten of the twelve said they would have a hard time voting for Bush in ’08, if he were running again.
No single issue dominated the reasons given for being unhappy with Bush. Included were the war In Iraq, deficit spending, the Medicare drug plan, No Child Left Behind, the amount of money being spent to rebuild New Orleans, illegal immigration.
#20
And therefore, with a long hot summer, high gas prices, even higher home energy prices, civil unrest and protest over illegal immigration, warm oceans and gigantic hurricanes on the horizon, the Democrats are going to get their chance to prove my point sooner, rather than later.
Soooo…..am I to understand that if “Democrats” are elected, the summers will be shorter & cooler, gas prices will be lower (despite OPEC and NYMEX), energy prices will be lower (see previous), there will be no protests over illegal immigration (the fact that a liberal used “illegal” astounds me), and that there will be no hurricanes?
Soooo…..am I to understand that if “Democrats” are elected, the summers will be shorter & cooler, gas prices will be lower …
Maybe. Remember John “Hair Pony” Edwards proclaiming that if he and John Kerry were elected, the crippled would walk again.
First rule of surveying: Never give an response option that allows the subject to weasel out of the question.
The battleground options are extremely cons, somewhat cons, independent/unsure, somewhat lib, and extremely lib. If you add moderate, which doesn’t mean anything, you allow the subject to weasel out of the question.
#42 – Ignorant and nauseating, based upon the way you’ve been trounced by so many people on this board responding to your pathetic arguments, I would suggest taking that advice so as to spare you any more embarrassment.
And I don’t need to insult you in order to prove my point.
Regards,
Peter Hughes
#47 “Ignorant and nauseating… I don’t need to insult you.”
LOL! At least if you’re going to insult someone, why don’t you try something a little more original?
#39 – Ian – As I indicated in #33 and #25, which hopefully you have read with your really fantastic skills, I have found your posts and Gryph’s simply too boring over time (as a general track record) to read them all that closely anymore. My bad. But there it is. Situation explained.
#46 – RWP, I agree and disagree.
First, the general import of those other surveys is much the same as what you quoted: that the conservatives have a significantly larger built-in base. America is much closer to being a conservative country, than a liberal one.
Second, though, in this particular instance, I think the label “moderate” is meaningful, while the labels “somewhat conservative” and “somewhat liberal” are not. The latter labels mean in essence that the respondee is moderate at heart – disliking the extremes (real or imagined) and perfectly happy to change his or her vote.
Also, none of the labels describe me or let me answer honestly, which is another problem with all of these surveys 😉
#40 – Wow Ian, I guess this really is your thread to be mentally-challenged on.
If the country is 35% conservative (say), that means the Republicans must persuade at least 15 points of moderates to join them, if they want to win elections. And sometimes, they do.
If the country is 20% hard liberal (say), that means the Democrats must persuade at least 30 points worth of moderates to join them, if they want to win elections. And sometimes, they do.
In both cases: their base alone is not enough, and there is a large pool of moderates out there that both parties must (and do) persuade or tap into. OK? Clear?
#43 – Doesn’t surprise me Jack. As many have said, including GWP in the post that started this thread: with Bush there is a lot to criticize.
My choices in 2004 were between voting Bush or sitting out the whole election (as Kerry and all the third-party candidates were way out of the question). I voted Bush most reluctantly. Only because, in the end, I decided the country simply could not afford to have Kerry driving it off a cliff.
As many wags have observed: the Republicans have a lot of things wrong with them, but they possess a huge structural edge in that they get to run against (today’s) Democrats.
#48 – Okay, Inserted Anal Nozzle. How’s that for originality? Actually, it is pretty damn descriptive of your posts, if I do say so myself.
Regards,
Peter Hughes
And that, Calarato, is why so many of us think Andrew Sullivan has lost his marbles; if his point in opposing Bush was to protest Bush’s stands on everything, why did he endorse Kerry, whose stands are the same or worse?
This whole thing reminds me of a memo Bob Stempel sent around GM once about being overly dependent on focus groups; as he tartly put it, what people actually buy is far different from what they want if you give them a “blue skies” scenario. Sort of like my aunt’s Chrysler; some focus group no doubt thought it would be cool to have your car say, “Your door is ajar”, but it drove her crazy in practice.
The existence of the “somewhat” options allows the subject to avoid extremes. Using “moderate” allows the subject to avoid the question entirely, when the point is to find which direction people lean on issues.
It’s like student evaluations. You never put “undecided” as an option. All options on a survey should lean in one direction of the continuum or the other.
Understand, nobody — okay, well, nobody who knows anything about statistics — takes surveys and polls seriously. It’s pop statistics. There are all kinds of reasons that surveys are not statistically reliable but that’s another topic.
#49: “I have found your posts and Gryph’s simply too boring over time (as a general track record) to read them all that closely anymore.”
If they are too boring to waste your time reading them, why on earth do you waste time responding? But hey, if you want to keep responding after not bothering to read a post very closely, I’ll be more than happy to keep pointing out the resulting errors. 😉
#51: You’re still equating liberal with Democrat. That’s a bad assumption. There are many “moderates” who still identify themselves as Democrats.
#57 – Man, you are S-L-O-W! I already well covered that, LOL 🙂
I am agreeing with you (in fact, I never contradicted you to begin with) and you STILL don’t get it!!! 🙂
This is why I am bored by you, Ian. You are repetitive and dumb.
“Loathe” is precisely the right word.
#59: Well, your numbers don’t seem to hold up. In 2003, Fred Barnes (http://tinyurl.com/hwm5w) discussed the results of a poll that “pegged Democratic ID at 32 percent, Republican ID at 30 percent.” So where you got your 20% and 35% I have no idea. Well, actually, I do, you make the mistake of assuming that all Dems are liberals and all Republicans are conservative. Neither assumption is correct. Therefore your conclusion that the Dems have to attract far more of the non-committed in order to win elections is invalid.