The thing that I really like about the Andrew Sullivan column I blogged about yesterday was that it was a quintessential pre-02/24 Sullivan piece. It reminded me why I had read Andrew’s blog so religiously in late 2003 and in the early months of 2004. His treatment of the president was even-handed. He identified Bush’s strengths as well as his weaknesses. While he criticized his missteps and failures, he did not suggest that they would give others a reason to “loathe” the chief executive.
Several of our readers also appreciated the old Andrew. Submandave writes that he once offered “a well reasoned voice with a perspective different from [his] own.” VinceTN said he misses “the enjoyment I got from reading Andrew.” Sarah Rolph recalled how he “eloquently” made the case for gay marriage.
The great irony about Andrew’s column was that I had discovered it while working on a piece (where I was goingn to) take Andrew to task for failing to acknowledge the Vice President’s opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment and the president’s openness to civil unions. Because he did note the president’s acceptance of gay friends, he did not need address the latter point. It was enough to acknowledge that the president does not have an entirely negative record on gays.
Some of our critics have taken us to task for our criticism of Andrew and Log Cabin. But, we have also striven to identify when they hold true to conservative and libertarian principles. Just as I praised Andrew for his recent column, I praised Log Cabin Executive Director Patrick Guerriero for chastising gay groups when they rushed to oppose the confirmation of then-Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr. I would rather praise than criticize.
If you see articles, columns or posts where Log Cabin or Andrew take conservative positions — or challenge the left, please let us know so we may post them as appropriate.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com