Comments on: Lord(s & Ladies) of the Blogs

By: sean

sean — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:33:06 +0000

“The Angry Left”? So this blog now engages in characterizations not unlike Lord of the Rings or Dungeons and Dragons? LOL. The Righteous Right? Can we use that? What kind of silliness is this, after all?

By: sean

sean — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:30:11 +0000

when will this blog re-name itself MoreOnAndrewSullivan?

By: raj

raj — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:38:33 +0000

[Comment deleted.]

By: Frank IBC

Frank IBC — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 04:51:57 +0000

Hey, how dare you apply your rules uniformly, GP?

By: Frank IBC

Frank IBC — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 01:54:30 +0000

[Comment deleted.]

By: raj

raj — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:29:49 +0000

[Comment deleted.]

By: Anwyn

Anwyn — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:57:12 +0000

While both are wise and suffer from an obsession, Andrew certainly has not gone as far over to the dark side as had Saruman. It seems those who compare Sullivan to Denethor may be closer to the mark.

Well … only if he’d rather cling to his obsession to the point where it drives him to his own death. Saruman was dogged enough to drive others to put him out of his misery.

By: Patrick (Gryph)

Patrick (Gryph) — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:33:51 +0000

Since 02/2404 when the president came out in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, Andrew’s rhetoric increasingly resembles that of the Angry Left. And that’s just not conservative.

Then I think you must also then admit that neither Michelle Malkin or Hugh Hewitt are “conservative” as their rhetoric has often been more vitriolic and unhinged than Andrew’s ever has.

By: Uncle Jimbo

Uncle Jimbo — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:40:00 +0000

Drinking or not, I was pleased to be included in some weighty company.

Cordially,

Uncle J

By: lobbey_dosser

lobbey_dosser — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:10:57 +0000

I am assuming this is a joke, or were you drinking last night?

By: Frank IBC

Frank IBC — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:18:04 +0000

And a good evening to you, Deafie.

By: Ringer

Ringer — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:15:19 +0000

Actually, wait. Chuckles Johnson more resembles Frank Burns from M*A*S*H.

By: GayPatriotWest

GayPatriotWest — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:03:54 +0000

Those who criticize my choice of Andrew as Saruman raise some very valuable points. While both are wise and suffer from an obsession, Andrew certainly has not gone as far over to the dark side as had Saruman. It seems those who compared him to Denethor may have been closer to the mark.

Patrick, let me repeat again, it is not merely Andrew’s criticism of the president, but it is the manner of his criticism. It has becoming increasingly angry and unhinged.

I recognize that there are many conservatives who have become disenchanted with the president, but the serious conservative critics use arguments that differ greatly from the rhetoric of the Angry Left. Since 02/2404 when the president came out in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, Andrew’s rhetoric increasingly resembles that of the Angry Left. And that’s just not conservative.

By: Ringer

Ringer — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:07:59 +0000

Haha. Wow, Panties Media proving all by itself that it is populated by obsessive dorks with no social lives. Chukles Johnson is a perfect Merry – he was the dim-witted one.

By: Patrick (Gryph)

Patrick (Gryph) — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:17:44 +0000

Your comparison of Andrew to Saruman is unfair. Saruman’s obsession was with obtaining power over others. Andrew shows no signs of megalomania beyond that which is normal for any media figure. He has also never back-tracked in his resolve against terrorism AKA “against the evils of our time”. Indeed he often points out instances of terrorism far more often than this blog does. He has also never back-tracked on his basic support for invading Iraq, although he thinks he was wrong to trust this President to carry it out competently. And many people agree with his positions, myself included. He has his followers.

Therefore a more apt comparison would be to Theoden. He had his own ideas about fighting Evil than others did. And some of those ideas were very unpopular, and (from your point of view) turned out to be wrong.

GPW, you and much of the right-wing blog-group-think believe that Andrew’s disapproval of Bush is solely because of the gay marriage issue. But that is a point of view, not a fact. And I think its one you should start reconsider, especially given the ever-growing numbers of dissenters among the ranks of conservatives that have become disenchanted with Bush.
_____________________________________

And I nominate Karl Rove for role of Wormtongue. (of course!)

By: Frank IBC

Frank IBC — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:38:19 +0000

At the very least, Andrew puts a great amount of thought into what he is writing about

Some of the time that’s true. The rest of the time he’s driven by knee-jerk emotion or the buttkissing of the latest Moby, er, “email of the day”.

By: raj

raj — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:23:03 +0000

Hewitt’s a jackass, of course, but why not broaden it out a bit? How about extending the question to–say–Dr. Strangelovian characters?

LotR is cute escapism–which is probably why Hewitt was directed to that. For those of us who grew up in the cold war era of the 1950s and 1960s, Dr. Strangelove hits a bit closer to home–regardless of how well LotR was translated to the screen using blue-screen CGI techniques. And Strangelove a bit more real than the movie fantasies of LotR.

Money quote from Strangelove:

President Merkin Muffley (Peter Sellers, to George C. Scott as Gen. ‘Buck’ Turgidson and Peter Bull playing the Russian ambassador, after the American B52s had been sent to attack Russia): Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here! This is the War Room!.

It was absolutely hilarious.

By: Bruce (GayPatriot)

Bruce (GayPatriot) — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 14:52:39 +0000

Oh silly you, lester. Most of those people aren’t making a dime now off of blogging unless they are being supported by a politician’s coffers (*cough* KOS *cough*)

By: lester

lester — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 14:27:49 +0000

thanks for the great list of people who will be out of work and begging for spare change in a years time.

By: Jim G

Jim G — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 06:37:05 +0000

Saruman who was once good, actually turned evil, wicked and knowingly malicious.
Andrew Sullivan, though you may not agree with him (and sometimes I do not) is none of the above.
It was a cheap shot.
At the very least, Andrew puts a great amount of thought into what he is writing about, and even if one does not agree with his conclusions I believe that he comes to those conclusions from a point of integrity.
You have done Mr. Tolkien a disservice.