Andrew Sullivan’s Anti-Tea Party Tantrum(s)
In the days leading up to (or just after) his “Road to Damascus” moment on February 24, 2004, Andrew Sullivan described himself as doubly disenchanted with the GOP. It was not just the then-President’s social conservatism (e. g., support of the Federal Marriage Amendment), Andrew also lambasted Republicans Republicans for failing to hold the line on domestic spending.
Given his then-opposition to ever increasing levels of federal spending, you’d think Andrew would welcome a movement protesting the spending policies of Bush’s successor. I mean, it seems Obama is playing poker with the former president using our tax dollars as chips, “I’ll see your spending and raise you 10 trillion.”
Now, Andrew, recalling his past principles, tries to cover for himself while faulting the rallies (which is what all the “cool” left-wing bloggers are doing these days):
As a fiscal conservative who actually believed in those principles when the Republicans were in power, I guess I should be happy at this phenomenon. And I would be if it had any intellectual honesty, any positive proposals, and any recognizable point. What it looks like to me is some kind of amorphous, generalized rage on the part of those who were used to running the country and now don’t feel part of the culture at all. But the only word for that is: tantrum.
(H/t: Legal Insurrection.)
Um, Andrew, trying to figure out that first sentence there because it may be key to defining those who faulted Bush for his spending, yet now fault those criticizing Obama for his. So, you believed in fiscal conservatism when Republicans were in power? But, now that they’re out of power, you’ve changed your mind?
As to the point of the protests, we want make it known that we oppose the President’s spendthrift policies. We hope the size of our gatherings will stir our elected representative to end federal bailouts and enact a more responsible budget than the one the President has opposed and the Democratic Congress has voted on.
Given your criticism of these protests, I have a question for you: once you changed your mind on then-President Bush’s Iraq policies, did you ask what was the point of the rallies against those policies? Did you fault them for a lack of positive proposals?
Like many who will be rallying Wednesday, I hope our movement draws attention to popular discontent with the levels of federal spending the President has proposed. Moreover, I hope it will spur the GOP to return to fiscal conservatism, possibly stirring Congressional leaders to write a new Contract with America to show they’ve learned the lesson from their past profligacy and subsequent electoral defeats.
And like many bloggers who have been promoting the tea parties, we’ve been criticizing the Republicans’ profligacy for about as long as we’ve had a web presence.
So, to dismiss it generalized rage is to ignore our* own past criticism of W and the GOP majorities — when they existed.
Dan Riehl thinks Andrew has become a “one trick pony,” concerned only with gay marriage: ”But he might at least be a little bit honest and admit that anything pro the political party he sees as for it, or anything against the political party he sees as opposed to it, is just fine with him.“
If Andrew were truly committed to fiscal conservative principles, he would remove the conditional from the first sentence in the passage above and be pleased that those opposed to higher government spending are finally demonstrating their opposition to bloated federal budgets. Perhaps, he would fault us for not taking to to the streets to protest W’s (and the GOP’s) profligacy. And he’d have a point.
Maybe we should have done this sooner. Our rallies might have emboldened fiscal conservatives in the GOP to act more aggressively and to rally their more moderate colleagues to take a stand for fiscal discipline.
But, the point is that this is happening now. And instead of heralding a political movement, which I’ll grant is, as Andrew puts it, “kind of amorphous,” committed to principles which he once espoused “when Republicans were in power,” he joins the left side of the blogosphere in deriding it.
I guess he needs to prove to his new-found friends on the left that he really is one of them. Even as he calls himself a conservative.
—–
*By “our,” I don’t just mean Bruce and myself, but all conservative & libertarian bloggers who support the rallies.
23 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Was the past tense (“believed”) a Freudian slip?
Let’s put it this way, Andie: IF you were really a conservative, fiscal or otherwise, you would be spontaneously happy at “this phenomenon”. You wouldn’t need to “guess” whether you “should” be happy, like a cranky gay boy wondering if he should be happy that the cute girl said ‘yes’. Your task would be to *resist* being happy. You’d have to fight off your feelings of happiness. You’d find your emotions pulling you along. They aren’t, are they? Time to come out of the closet (again), Andie.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 13, 2009 @ 8:10 pm - April 13, 2009
So, people who are against the Tea Party movement… are they just okay with Obumble’s multi-trillion dollar deficits?
Comment by V the K — April 13, 2009 @ 8:12 pm - April 13, 2009
Wasn’t the point of our War for Independence that we don’t have to care what some old queen thinks about how to live our lives? Andrew Sullivan is garbage, and he knows it. His indictment of the Tea Party protesters is reason enough to show up.
“Give me liberty, or give me death!” – PH
Comment by Brendan In Philly — April 13, 2009 @ 8:13 pm - April 13, 2009
The only reason Sully still calls himself a conservative is that it gives him more press. He is the ‘conservative’ who agrees with liberals so they love him.
Thing is the rest of us figured out long ago that he can no longer carry that title. Unfortunately I don’t even think he can carry the title of a rational human being any more.
I think the meds are getting to him, his attacks on the Palins, his meltdown when Ann Althouse announces her marriage, his anger at the tea parties and his more vocal antisemtism. Rational and Sully can no longer be used in the same sentence.
Comment by Leah — April 13, 2009 @ 8:34 pm - April 13, 2009
“But I am glad that many are concerned about the growth of government and the necessary increase in taxation/borrowing/inflation that it must and will bring about. I stick by my view, however, that railing against pork is insufficient. The major issues are Medicare, Medicaid, defense and social security. Until conservatives offer clear alternatives to our current trajectory, alternatives that will indeed higher premiums or fewer healthcare services for middle class retirees, considerable deleveraging of our neo-empire, and unpopular trimming of social security or increases in the retirement age, the protest is theater, not politics.”
From Sullivans blog today. He has posted several times about the need for entitlement reform.
Is he being picky? Yes.
Comment by Chuck In Del — April 13, 2009 @ 8:35 pm - April 13, 2009
Chuck, I don’t read Andrew’s blog any more save when linked from other blogs.
So, as per your comment, two questions naturally arise:
(1) Has he criticized left-wing protests as theater?
(2) Has he criticized the size of the “stimulus” and the amount of Obama’s spending increases (i.e., in the federal budget)?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 13, 2009 @ 8:44 pm - April 13, 2009
I keep hoping in all the bullshit Levi and Chuck dump on here that there might be some sort of explanation for their support of our money being spent. Unfortunately, there’s no explanation. Just blind support of Il Douche.
I keep asking liberals to explain all this spending and how kicking back our money to Il Douche’s cronies will stimulate anything and nobody seems able to answer.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 13, 2009 @ 10:29 pm - April 13, 2009
Question: Who came up with the “teabagging” label that the wingnut media has been using? Was that Gay Patriot, or was it gay patriots within Fox News?
Comment by Terrible Leftist — April 13, 2009 @ 10:39 pm - April 13, 2009
It is truly appalling that anyone can be so oblivious as to attack the current administration on fiscal matters after Bush presided over the tanking the economy that was so bad, he and his people pushed the Fed and other government bodies to give/pledge/lend SEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS to banks, insurance companies, and other large corporations.
This isn’t from some fly-by-night website… it’s from a CNBC site listing the giveaways AS OF LAST NOVEMBER… two months before Obama even took office.
Here is the web page:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27719011
If you want to be fiscal conservatives, that’s one thing, but, that doesn’t justify being a Republican!
—
Also…
If Republicans wanted my vote in the past 30 years, they should have asked for it, or at least not insulted those whom I love (and me) by questioning my very right to exist.
The Republican party is like an elephant carcass that’s stinking up they entire country.
Effff the GOP forever.
(And, a Spanish court is looking in to indictments against six members of the Bush adminstration for TORTURE… which kind of puts some icing on that rancid Bush cake.)
HOW CAN ANY SELF RESPECTING MEMBER OF THE LGBT COMMUNITY EVEN THINK OF VOTING FOR THE HATE-MONGERING REPUBLICAN PARTY?
Comment by Anne Reginald — April 13, 2009 @ 10:48 pm - April 13, 2009
#3: “Wasn’t the point of our War for Independence that we don’t have to care what some old queen thinks about how to live our lives?”
Now THAT is a priceless comment! Kudos Brendan!
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 13, 2009 @ 11:06 pm - April 13, 2009
#8 – I always thought that “teabagging” came from those closet cases at CNN and PMSNBC. You know, like Anderson “Prada” Cooper, Keith “Bathtub Boy” Olbermann, Chris “Tingles” Matthews and David “S&M” Shuster.
As far as I know, the only one who doesn’t do “teabagging” is Rachel Madcow, and that’s only because she uses a strap-on.
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 13, 2009 @ 11:08 pm - April 13, 2009
But they do. Queen Andie simply chooses not to notice. In fact: she *needs* to not notice. Because otherwise she could no longer preen and posture at being an alleged “conservative”, who has only been let down by the paucity of ideas among conservatives.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 13, 2009 @ 11:41 pm - April 13, 2009
Here’s one very simple, clear, effective and important alternative that I’ve seen you conservatives offer to “our current trajectory”. And correct me if I’m wrong, but that is: How about simply NOT INCREASING the frickin’ deficit from the 400-800B range up to the 1.6 trillion range?
Just that much, to start with. It’s not a complete solution to the nation’s problems. Much more would need to be proposed and done (i.e., cut). But it’s understandable, it’s real, it’s relatively easy (i.e., there was no good reason to boost the deficit to 1.6 trillion to begin with), and it would leave the country a damn sight better off than where it’s now headed under Obama.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 13, 2009 @ 11:45 pm - April 13, 2009
Andrew calls the movement a “tantrum” because it’s all he knows anymore. His blog (which I once used to read regularly) has devolved into nothing but tantrums over the past five years.
Comment by Kurt — April 13, 2009 @ 11:52 pm - April 13, 2009
Yeah, we know. The liberals were just spectators on the sidelines. They had absolutely nothing to do with it. Makes you wonder why Rep. Henry Nostrils (D,CA) won’t investigate THAT, don’t it Anne?
Nevermind that the Spanish court has no jurisdiction for doing so. But hey, it’s just more masturbatory material for mindless liberal lemmings, right? Not only that, but it’s yet another example of liberals taking the word of those taught since birth to lie to the Infidels and trained to claim they were tortured if captured.
Further, if allowed, it could also apply to the Il Douche “administration” if they do something the Spanish don’t like. You’ll recall that he decided to reserve the right to “torture” if he sees fit.
Easy. We put the country and other Americans before ourselves. Not to mention that we see the hatred, rage and bigotry of the liberal left and want no part or it. We see the hypocrisy of gay liberals telling us how much democrats love us and then we get Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act, Clinton’s refusal to issue an amicus in Romer v. Evans etc. etc.
Couldn’t help but notice Chairman Obama ignoring the gay media, running around with homophobic and anti-American bigots. Couldn’t help but notice the racism and sexism coming from the left during the campaign. Couldn’t help but notice that no serious democrat contender in the last several elections support gay marriage and that they hold they SAME view as George W. Bush.
What’s more, Republicans are far more accepting of us than gay liberals are.
So my question to you, Anne, is why in God’s name would a so-called self-respecting gay or lesbian support the liberals? Why would you want to surround yourself with such blatant misery, anger, hatred, rage etc?
I, for one, am Conservative BECAUSE I respect myself and others. What’s your excuse?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 14, 2009 @ 2:36 am - April 14, 2009
Hate-mongering? You mean like the tolerant leftists who viciously attack young kids for posting their opinions on gay marriage and abortion on YouTube? Like the tolerant leftists who assault C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-s in the streets, vandalize Holy places, harass people for not voting the way they like?
Oh, yeah… nothing but love on the left. /sarc.
And maybe… just maybe… there are a few gay folk who think it’s a bad idea to run up trillion dollar deficits year after year. Maybe some gay folk think a strong national defense is preferable to bowing to dictators. Maybe some gay folk aren’t ashamed of America, and don’t feel the need to apologize to the rest of the world for being what we are. And maybe, just maybe, some LGBT folk think that freedom is better than being part of the kitchen staff on the Democrat plantation.
Maybe some members of the LGBT community just respect themselves enough to put the needs of the country ahead of their selfish little wants and desires.
Comment by V the K — April 14, 2009 @ 6:23 am - April 14, 2009
Shorter annne: Bush ran up big deficits, which was evil; so it’s okay for Obama to run up deficits ten times as big because Bush did it first.
“HOW CAN ANY SELF RESPECTING MEMBER OF THE LGBT COMMUNITY EVEN THINK OF VOTING FOR THE HATE-MONGERING REPUBLICAN PARTY?”
…because they think that being American is more important than being gay?
Comment by DaveP. — April 14, 2009 @ 12:43 pm - April 14, 2009
Hi ThatGayConservative,
I was just attempting to point out what Sullivan believes, and that is entitlement reform, which he does not see as a top priority of the TeaParties. And he also thinks the TeaParties if they had a large march on Washington, would lose its core message, just like the anti war protests of the Liberals. I get the impression he is waiting the TeaParties out to see exactly what forms.
To answer your questions:
1) Yes, he was critical of the anti-war march on washington as something that devolved into just every disaffected group getting on stage to speak. People such as “free mumia abul jamal” spoke at the event. which had nothing to do wth the anti war movement.
2) Yes Sullivan is troubled by the massive debts and deficits. He was very skeptical of the bank bailouts.
Comment by Chuck In Del — April 14, 2009 @ 1:15 pm - April 14, 2009
have you noticed that fox news praise on low middle class people that conservatives are the morale party. bush had 6 years and never touched abortion but people voted under that and every time a dem goes in there going to take our guns, cant grow your on garden,socialism and it never happens they spend 4 years ramming it threw our brain so next time will vote republican so can they get there tax breaks all about more money
Comment by m-class — April 14, 2009 @ 2:42 pm - April 14, 2009
#19 – WTF are you talking about? Is English your second language? Translate from hysterics to English, please.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 14, 2009 @ 4:08 pm - April 14, 2009
As for -A-n-d-r-i-a-n-n-a- Sullington, why the guy has even a scintilla of credibility left after obsessing for months over whether Sarah Palin really is Trig Palin’s mother is a complete mystery.
Comment by V the K — April 14, 2009 @ 5:48 pm - April 14, 2009
#19 – WTF are you talking about?
Little letter person FAIL!
Comment by V the K — April 14, 2009 @ 5:49 pm - April 14, 2009
[...] took Republicans to task for his profligacy, we never took to the streets to do so. Perhaps, as I suggested in a recent post we might have gotten more attention from our elected officials if we [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Tea Parties:Channeling Frustration with Ever Bigger Government Into Action — April 15, 2009 @ 2:51 pm - April 15, 2009