Andrew Sullivan — Preferring Cheap Shots to Civil Discourse
In a snide little post which lacks the civility he claims to favor, Andrew Sullivan notes that the Vice President has “no issues with his openly gay and partnered daughter,” but asks us to “imagine if this were true of a Democratic duo. Can you imagine the attack ads that Karl Rove or his surrogates would be preparing?“
Okay, Andrew, since you think that Karl Rove would be eager to use a candidate’s acceptance of his child’s sexuality in a campaign, please provide examples where Rove — or another Republican operative for that matter — has attempted to exploit a Democratic candidate’s openness to his (or her) child’s homosexuality?
The only time I can think of a candidate or candidates making an issue of an opponent’s attitude toward an openly gay child was when the team Andrew backed in the 2004 presidential election brought up the Vice President’s daughter in the debates. Hmm . . . and now he thinks Rove would make an issue of a Democrat in a similar situation. I recall Andrew dismissing all the hullabaloo over Kerry and Edwards’ statements as posturing.
Once again, Andrew seems eager to use any news, even that favorable (on gay issues) to the President (or Vice President), to attack the president and his advisors rather than to consider the information in a dispassionate manner. Doesn’t seem very conservative to me.
(H/T: Washington Blade blogwatch.)
27 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I find Andrew’s atrocious memory lapse gobsmackingly vile.
Comment by Robbie — May 3, 2006 @ 11:51 pm - May 3, 2006
“Okay, Andrew, since you think that Karl Rove would be eager to use a candidate’s acceptance of his child’s sexuality in a campaign, please provide examples where Rove — or another Republican operative for that matter — has attempted to exploit a Democratic candidate’s openness to his (or her) child’s homosexuality?”
Well, I can’t recall offhand a campaign in which Rove was involved where there was a Democratic candidate with a gay child. However, Rove did try to “smear” Ann Richards with a whisper campaign that she was a lesbian http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/31/102952.php
So let’s not pretend that Rove and his ilk are somehow above working the gay angle in a campaign. As for Kerry and Edward’s comments about Mary Cheney, as I recall, they applauded Cheney’s acceptance of his daughter. Cheney even thanked Edwards for his kind comments about Mary. So what’s the beef? It’s not as if they outed her. And Kerry was asked a specific question about homosexuality being a choice or not. And this was after Bush had just reiterated his support for the FMA. And Mary was of course deeply involved with her father’s campaign. Sure it was a political point. But it was a legitimate one considering all the GOP pandering to its antigay puppet masters.
Comment by Ian S — May 4, 2006 @ 12:55 am - May 4, 2006
Good try, Ian, but I checked the link where the author repeated the oft-heard allegation without offering any substantiation.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 4, 2006 @ 2:18 am - May 4, 2006
From the post
Okay, Andrew, since you think that Karl Rove would be eager to use a candidate’s acceptance of his child’s sexuality in a campaign, please provide examples where Rove — or another Republican operative for that matter — has attempted to exploit a Democratic candidate’s openness to his (or her) child’s homosexuality?
Why do you limit it to issues relating to parents and their gay children? Because you know full well that Republicans in Texas used the allegation that then-governess Ann Richards had a lesbian in her administration–and that Richards herself was a lesbian–against her when she was running for re-election?
The poster is somewhat selective in his vituperations, which is no surprise.
Comment by raj — May 4, 2006 @ 10:27 am - May 4, 2006
Oh, and, by the way, it is fairly well known that Rove used one of his whispering campaigns–like the one he used against McCain and the “black baby” rumor in the South Carolina primary–when he was working in the election of one of the judges in the Alabama state court system. The whispering campaign involved the allegation–for which there was no evidence–that the judge who Rove’s candidate was opposing, was having sex with underage girls.
Rove seems to have had something of a fixation on sex. Not surprising, given the fact that an 11 (or so) year old Democrat girl beat him up when he was also 11 (or so).
Comment by raj — May 4, 2006 @ 10:32 am - May 4, 2006
Ian simply links to someone making an unsubstantiated charge and thinks that’s an authoritative footnote, and raj just seems to be making things up and saying something is “fairly well known.” This is why no one takes liberals seriously anymore.
Comment by rivlax — May 4, 2006 @ 11:04 am - May 4, 2006
“Rove seems to have had something of a fixation on sex.”
Actually, many on the left simply seem to have a fixation with Karl Rove.
Also, using unproven sources to back up your assertions that Rove has a history of such actions is tantamount to a whisper campaign to smear Rove, purely because you can’t prove your accusations. So in essence, you’re using ad hominem to defend and indefensible and unproveable accusation. That’s a losing strategy on our side of the blogosphere.
Look Ian and Raj, you can simply say that you think Rove would do something like that, even though there’s no true precedent. That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. But people like you and Andrew Sullivan can’t suggest that your presumption is based on a prior example that allows you to just “imagine the attack ads that Karl Rove or his surrogates would be preparing“ as though the there’s a logical line to follow.
Comment by Granddaddy Long Legs — May 4, 2006 @ 11:06 am - May 4, 2006
#7 Granddaddy Long Legs — May 4, 2006 @ 11:06 am – May 4, 2006
Also, using unproven sources….
THis is a joke, right? Others around here don’t cite to sources. And you believe that I am supposed to?
Comment by raj — May 4, 2006 @ 11:16 am - May 4, 2006
Dan says:
Well lets see what “Conservative” means according to Karl Rove in his June 22, 2005 speech.
Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations; they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don’t. Conservatives believe in advancing what Pope John Paul II called a “culture of life”; liberals believe there is an absolute unlimited right to abortion.
Lets see:
Higher taxes are now guaranteed by the Bush and GOP deficit spending and insanely Pork bloated federal budgets.
Fewer regulations? Curbing the size of government? Let see, Bush and Co. created the bloated monstrosity that ate and destroyed FEMA, otherwise known as the Department of Homeland Security. And as for measuring a government program on basis of effectiveness. Does “Well Michael (Brown) your doing a heck of a fine job!” come to mind?
As far as a less litigious society goes. Remember the Terry Schiavo Act? With Congress and the President interfering in the personal lives of a single American family in such an intimate and unwarranted manner, they could not be described as “less litigious”. Maybe Rove means attempting to remove all environmental regulation whatsoever.
Accountability? In the Bush Administration, this means Bush rewards loyalty over competence. Rumsfield in, Shineki out.
Parental choice in Education? It means let parents send their kids to any private school they want to and then tax me to pay for it.
Culture of Life? When the Bush Administration outlaws fertility clinics, which throw away and and destroy far more embryo’s blastocists etc., than Abortion or Stem cell research could ever hope to do, then I’ll believe they want a “Culture of Life”. Get real.
Measured by Karl Roves standards, Bush and the rest of the GOP are not much in the way of being conservative either.
And of course wouldn’t ya know it, but Andrew also refers to yet another exhaustively documented report that shows that torture, murder, rendition, kidnapping and false imprisonment has occurred and continues to occur, in America’s military and CIA run prison systems, which we are not supposed to know about since they are “secret”. All under this Presidents rather odd view of defending American values by destroying them.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — May 4, 2006 @ 12:25 pm - May 4, 2006
Um, Raj in #4, I’m just responding to Andrew’s post. And following up on what rivlas said in #6 saying as you do in #5 that “it’s fairly well known” does not confirm that Rove was behind these smears. Remember, Andrew specifically said “attack ads.” So, can you find such ads — or as I put in the post, show a GOP candidate making an issue of his opponent’s child sexuality — as did Andrew’s team (Kerry-Edwards) in ‘04.
Well said, Granddaddy.
And Raj, I cited specifics — and if need be, could find links, even on this blog, to Kerry and Edwards’ comments on the Vice President’s lesbian daughter in ‘04.
And Patrick, as usual, a mix of honest (& valid) criticism — and a little bile!
In this post, I was referring to Andrew’s eagerness to attack the president and vice president as an indication that he’s not conservative.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 4, 2006 @ 1:15 pm - May 4, 2006
No offense, GPW, but Sullivan didn’t and doesn’t need to cite any attack ads by the Rove camp; you know they aren’t any. He merely suggested that if a Democratic (sic) duo had a daughter like Mary Cheney, it’s probable the Rove camp would come up with some attack ads… probably paid for by a state party or a 527 organ.
It’s a feasible and fair postulate by Sullivan –who I rarely read. It doesn’t translate into “Sulivan’s not a conservative” anymore. And when does attacking the Prez/Veep tranlsate into someone not being a conservative… does George Will ring a bell, Pat Buchanan? Bill Kristol?
And, just for the record Dan, you have GrampaGryph’s standard of mixology all wrong –that spew of his was 90% bile and pure Bush Derangement Syndrome in acute hyperventing presentation… about 3% of it was honest or valid criticism. But it was 100% Gryph.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 4, 2006 @ 1:50 pm - May 4, 2006
Rove seems to have had something of a fixation on sex. Not surprising, given the fact that an 11 (or so) year old Democrat girl beat him up when he was also 11 (or so).
Ick.
Comment by Butch — May 4, 2006 @ 1:52 pm - May 4, 2006
Well Dan, as long as are being civil
I just want to point out that Andrew is an editorialist, not a reporter, it is his job to evaluate information and give commentary in a passionate manner. He is not paid for just presenting information, he is required to also give his opinion on it. That means, at least to some degree, he must to care about the issue discussed.
The dispassionate observer and recorder of human events is the role of a regular reporter, not someone on an editorial page. There are vast variations in style, for example, compare Bill O’Reilly and Andrew, but both still have the same job.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — May 4, 2006 @ 2:15 pm - May 4, 2006
It is not his job to misrepresent himself as a conservative.
Comment by rightwingprof — May 4, 2006 @ 3:29 pm - May 4, 2006
Michigan-Matt, fair points all, but the issue is not Andrew has attacked the president, but his manner of doing so. Just check out Athena’s, er, Peggy Noonan’s columns to see how a conservative criticizes the president.
Fair point, Gryph in #13, but again I refer you back to Athena, er, Peggy, who can be quite passionate without being snide or insulting.
And I tend to find BIll O’Reilly so irritating. Back in his saner days, Andrew delivered a stinging rebuke of O’Reilly which I thought so good I printed it out and kept it on my desk for months. Now, alas, Andrew seems to be imitating the man he once so effectively skewered.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 4, 2006 @ 4:31 pm - May 4, 2006
Another Serious Case Of……
Bush Derangement Syndrome! Whatever happened to the conservative for gay rights who could stand up to the liberal crowd guy we used to know? Yes; I’m afraid he has fallen prey to Bush Derangement Syndrome. Before Andrew became infected, he…
Trackback by what if? — May 4, 2006 @ 6:44 pm - May 4, 2006
Oh I don’t know, Sully amuses me. Poor boy doesn’t realize what a joke he’s become. Then again I have a quirky sense of humor…
Comment by Average Gay Joe — May 4, 2006 @ 7:24 pm - May 4, 2006
GPW, I have to agree with Michigan Matt up in comment number 11.
Comment by Trace Phelps — May 4, 2006 @ 11:29 pm - May 4, 2006
Sullivan asked that one imagine it, not prove it.
Comment by jimmy — May 5, 2006 @ 12:11 am - May 5, 2006
That’s because, Jimmy, for Andrew and other Bush-haters, the evils they imagine about the President and Republicans exist primarily in their imaginations.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 5, 2006 @ 12:21 am - May 5, 2006
#10 GayPatriotWest — May 4, 2006 @ 1:15 pm – May 4, 2006
Um, Raj in #4, I’m just responding to Andrew’s post.
And I was responding to your post. Hence my question in #4 Why do you limit it to issues relating to parents and their gay children?
And Raj, I cited specifics — and if need be, could find links, even on this blog, to Kerry and Edwards’ comments on the Vice President’s lesbian daughter in ‘04.
There’s no need for you to find links. I suffered through the 2004 debates–my partner likes to listen to these bloviation sessions–and I know what was said. But what was said by Kerry and Edwards is pretty much irrelevant to my question, isn’t it?
Comment by raj — May 5, 2006 @ 9:00 am - May 5, 2006
Raj. I limit to such merely to point out the absurdity of Andrew’s irresponsible rhetoric–the point of the post (as indicated by its title).
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 5, 2006 @ 11:10 am - May 5, 2006
#22 GayPatriotWest — May 5, 2006 @ 11:10 am – May 5, 2006
As you wish. Of course, the more limited the boundary, the more limited the applicability of the point.
Comment by raj — May 5, 2006 @ 11:52 am - May 5, 2006
Ian simply links to someone making an unsubstantiated charge and thinks that’s an authoritative footnote, and raj just seems to be making things up and saying something is “fairly well known.” This is why no one takes liberals seriously anymore.
That’s because they “feel” the story is true. For liberals “feelings” = “facts” and “opinion” = “truth”
Comment by J. K. Stonecipher — May 5, 2006 @ 10:12 pm - May 5, 2006
Feeeeeeeeelings! Oh, oh, oh,
Feeeeeeeeelings! Oh, oh, oh!
Comment by rightwingprof — May 6, 2006 @ 2:32 pm - May 6, 2006
I just love watching y’all eat your own. What’s funny is, it seems to be happening more and more: staunch conservatives slowly turning against the current presidency because they’re adult enough to finally admit how bad Bush and his minions are for all people in this country, no matter what their political affliations. They’ve wisened to finally say that Bush is not about the people of this country – he represents the self-interests of large, rich business people and no one else. He’s cleverly used hot button topics like the Estate tax (affects less than 1 percent of Americans) and gay marriage (affects no one except the ones who want to get married) to make believe he stands up for them when in in fact he doesn’t.
And let’s discuss Karl Rove for a bit. This guy is without a doubt the nastiest, meanest, slimiest closeted homosexual since Roy Cohn or J. Edgar Hoover. If the stories are true, who’d want to run into *that* thing in a leather outfit. yuk. Of course this guy’s history proves that he’d kill his own mother to advance himself, so being gay or not probably really dont’ matter with him.
Comment by Kevin — May 6, 2006 @ 5:22 pm - May 6, 2006
Kevin, I don’t think you need worry about meeting up with Rove in one of your famous leather pig dens for aging, overweight bears. He isn’t gay; hasn’t been; he’s one of those hetrosexual gay-loathing Christianists you GayLefties like to annoint in order to discredit.
As raj would write, everyone knows….
But you get merit points for pure, hateful speech. But you’ll need to go an extra mile next time to eclipse some of the others here who up their merit points on hate speech by mixing in a goodly dose of religious bigotry and intolerance.
Get those added into your speech and you’ll be heading for the top of the heap.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 8, 2006 @ 11:37 am - May 8, 2006