Since Andrew Sullivan is now DU's Golden Boy,

[QC]

I thought it might be worthwhile to post a few links to his history.

Here is a good overview of the barebacking scandal and related sleaze, by Richard Goldstein of the Village Voice.

Of course, what is likely to be of far more interest to Sully's new admirers at DU is his role in promoting The Bell Curve. When Sully was the editor of The New Republic, he devoted almost an entire issue to the book. Some people (probably aging hippies who need to step aside) had a problem with this, but Sully considered this act one of his most courageous, and was still bragging about it more than a decade later:

One of my proudest moments in journalism was publishing an expanded extract of a chapter from "The Bell Curve" in the New Republic before anyone else dared touch it. I published it along with multiple critiques (hey, I believed magazines were supposed to open rather than close debates) - but the book held up, and still holds up as one of the most insightful and careful of the last decade. The fact of human inequality and the subtle and complex differences between various manifestations of being human - gay, straight, male, female, black, Asian - is a subject worth exploring, period. Liberalism's commitment to political and moral equality for all citizens and human beings is not and should not be threatened by empirical research into human difference and varied inequality. And the fact that so many liberals are determined instead to prevent and stigmatize free research and debate on this subject is evidence ... well, that they have ceased to be liberals in the classic sense. I'm still proud to claim that label - classical liberal. And I'm proud of those with the courage to speak truth to power, as Murray and Herrnstein so painstakingly did.

Some of you who have so eagerly taken up Sullivan might want to put him down and have a good, hot bath.

[leftofcool]

1. This asshat is a DU golden boy?

You're right, I need a shower, just for repeating his name.

[Rageneau]

3. Sullivan is anti-Hillary, which makes him a saint to some.

There's no telling how far you can go in life if you focus your hate on the right people. Hillary is the Comstock Lode of prospectors and purveyors of hatred, of whol Andy Sullivan is only one among hundreds.

[leftofcool]

7. I am so glad you like him

[PM Martin]

11. And he is still a Conservative at heart.

What is to say that he would not turn on Obama in the fall?

[Zhade]

14. Even a broken clock sometimes finds an acorn.

NT!

[Renew Deal]

17. He was anti-Bush too

So his popularity has been growing since 2004.

[joeybee12]

45. One of the Iraq Invasions biggest supporters...n/t

[americanstranger]

20. I'll see your Randy Andy and raise you a Bobo Brooks.

Clinton supporters were quoting him as if he actually had an idea what he was talking about after one of his dopey op-eds last week.

Just pointing that out.

- as

[MADem]

9. Well, he dislikes one Democratic candidate, and is in love with another.

That's all it takes with the "history challenged" to put him on the Christmas card list.

[melody]

2. Since when?

[QC]

10. If I link to the offending posts, I will be calling people out.

Just search for "Andrew Sullivan" and you will find several people holding him up as some sort of authority.

[melody]

19. Rank idiocy, I'm afraid n/t

[PM Martin]

4. Why is a right wing source being allowed here?

I thought that violated the administrator's rules?
:shrug:

[QC]

5. Lately I have seen Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthammer, and David Brooks

treated as Delphic oracles here. Sullivan is only the latest, if sleaziest, in a trend.

[newfie4]

12. are we allowed to bring up the insidious trash written by RW columnists about Obama now?

Because I can guarantee you, his skeletons are a helluva lot scarier than hillary's.

[Skittles]

23. someone posted a LIMBAUGH TRANSCRIPT

I KID YOU NOT

[Critters2]

6. Not if Obamites do it, apparently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4996155

[WinkyDink]

8. See the other thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4996155

[wileedog]

13. If you have a problem with what he said

Attack the message, not the messenger.

Christ I think Pat Buchanan has made valid points this election, both pro-Obama and pro-Clinton, and he's fucking bat-shit crazy.

[Critters2]

15. Andrew Sullivan is a credible source to you?

Talk about bat-shit crazy!!

[LostinVA]

32. I've seen people here use Limbaugh as a credible source recently

It is bat-shit crazy.

[krkaufman]

24. You make an eminently valid point.

But that doesn't mean you won't be berated.

Sullivan says some stupid shit. And he makes some salient points.

Categorical hatred and bias, I thought, was supposed to be the hallmark of the authoritarian Right. I guess they're not alone.

[krkaufman]

26. I would think that many on DU would agree with this commentary ...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/conservative-co.html

... even though it's written by a total Conservative ass-hat (PJ O'Rourke) and promoted by another Conservative (Sullivan).

[bigtree]

36. so a freeper comes on, saying what you want to hear, just to advance his agenda . . .

and that's credible to you?

[krkaufman]

38. Where did I say or imply that? n/t

[bigtree]

40. "I would think that many on DU would agree with this commentary"

then you offered a clip from a freeper.

[krkaufman]

41. You seem to be misusing the term "freeper"

You haven't expressed agreement or disagreement with the content of the excerpt. But I don't suppose you're open-minded enough to be honest, if you did.

Try a simpler example... If Andrew Sullivan said the sun rose in the East, would we be obligated as Democrats/progressives to disagree with him?

As similarly stated earlier.

[bigtree]

42. no, I'm not 'open-minded' about the creep Sullivan

[AX10]

16. K & R! DU needs to be reminded of just who Sully really is.

[sandnsea]

18. I like him

In fact, I like him better than Arianna, Taylor Marsh, and a few other similar goofs. People can sort sensible opinion from the misguided.

[JohnnyLib2]

21. Score one, QC.

:evilgrin: :kick:

[QC]

29. Thanks! n/t

[krkaufman]

22. Sullivan's a total ass.

But if he told me my house was on fire I wouldn't ignore him outright. And if I turned around and saw that my house actually *was* on fire, I wouldn't believe that it is not simply to insure that my beliefs stay categorically opposed to Sullivan.

[fujiyama]

25. He supports the Bell Curve?

Yuck. What a piece of shit.

[QC]

27. Not only supports it, but led the charge to have it taken seriously. n/t

[Jamastiene]

28. ALOT of right wing sources are allowed to stand.

I still don't get it. :shrug:

[LostinVA]

30. And they didn't use to be

Oddly enough, I haven't noticed any changes in the DU rules.

[babylonsister]

31. Nothin' like dredging up an article that's 7 years old. I've

evolved from 7 years ago, I suspect he has also. Have you?

And is this the article you find so offensive? Because he's spot on, and thanks for the opportunity to repost it!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=343624

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/20...

The Clinton Rules

07 Mar 2008 12:42 pm



The new meme is that politics has returned to normal and that this election will now be run by Clinton rules. Many are relieved by this. You could sense the palpable discomfort among many in Washington that their world might actually shift a little next year. But if elections are primarily about fear and mud, and who best operates in a street fight, Beltway comfort returns. This we know. This we understand. This we already have the language to describe. And, the feeling goes, the Clintons can win back the White House in this atmosphere. What she is doing to Obama she can try to do to McCain. Maybe Limbaugh will help her out again.

What I think this misses are the cultural and social consequences of beating Obama (or McCain) this way. I don't mean beating Obama because the Clintons' message is more persuasive, or because the Clintons' healthcare plan is better, or because she has a better approach to Iraq. I mean: beating him by a barrage of petty attacks, by impugning his clear ability to be commander-in-chief, by toying with questions about his "Muslim past", by subtle invocation of the race card, by intermittent reliance on gender identity politics, by taking faux offense to keep the news cycle busy ("shame on you, Barack Obama!") and so on. If the Clintons beat Obama this way, I have a simple prediction. It will mean a mass flight from the process. It will alter the political consciousness of an entire generation of young voters - against any positive interaction with the political process for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure that Washington yet understands the risk the Clintons are taking with their own party and the future of American politics.

The reason so many people have re-engaged with politics this year is because many sense their country is in a desperate state and because only one candidate has articulated a vision and a politics big enough to address it without dividing the country down the middle again. For the first time in decades, a candidate has emerged who seems able to address the country's and the world's needs with a message that does not rely on Clintonian parsing or Rovian sleaze. For the first time since the 1960s, we have a potential president able to transcend the victim-mongering identity politics so skillfully used by the Clintons. If this promise is eclipsed because the old political system conspires to strangle it at birth, the reaction from the new influx of voters will be severe. The Clintons will all but guarantee they will lose a hefty amount of it in the fall, as they richly deserve to. Some will gravitate to McCain; others will be so disillusioned they will withdraw from politics for another generation. If the Clintons grind up and kill the most promising young leader since Kennedy, and if they do it not on the strength of their arguments, but by the kind of politics we have seen them deploy, the backlash will be deep and severe and long. As it should be.

He has a million little donors. He has brought many, many Republicans and Independents to the brink of re-thinking their relationship with the Democratic party. And he has won the majority of primaries and caucuses and has a majority of the delegates and popular vote. This has been a staggering achievement - one that has already made campaign history. If the Clintons, after having already enjoyed presidential power for eight long years, destroy this movement in order to preserve their own grip on privilege and influence in Democratic circles, it will be more than old-fashioned politics. It will be a generational moment - as formative as 1968. Killing it will be remembered for a very, very long time. And everyone will remember who did it - and why.

[QC]

33. Do you agree with him about The Bell Curve?

Do you really think that it speaks truth to power to say that blacks are dumber than whites?

[babylonsister]

37. Of course I don't, and I'm sure if you asked him, he's probably

sorry he wrote that. Have you ever done anything you regret? I have.

[bigtree]

39. So he regrets his vocal support for Antonia Scalia, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas?

[QC]

43. He was still bragging about promoting that book in 2005,

eleven years after the fact.

Believe me, this is not a person you want to embrace.

[joeybee12]

46. He never apologized for his fervent support of Bush and the Iraq Invasion...

...he's worthless, so stop trying to defend him just because he bashes the Clintons...honestly...is there anything you bots won't try to look the other way at???

[babylonsister]

47. Wrong-o...

and you're welcome to your opinion as I am to mine. He's a gifted writer who I agree with on many things, the Clintons and Obama included. So sue me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan

Sullivan has harshly criticized the Bush administration for its postwar efforts, however, especially regarding the numbers of troops, protection of munitions, and treatment of prisoners. Sullivan strongly opposes the use of torture against detainees in U.S. custody and has had heated disputes with Heather MacDonald<28> and fellow British-American John Derbyshire, among others, on that issue. Though Sullivan believes that enemy combatants in the war on terror should not be given status as prisoners of war because "terrorists are not soldiers,"<29> he also believes that the U.S. government must abide by the rules of war—in particular, Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions—when dealing with such detainees.<30>

In recent times, Andrew Sullivan has changed his position on the Iraq war and described it as a mistake. On the October 27, 2006 edition of Real Time with Bill Maher, he described conservatives and Republicans who refused to admit they had been wrong to support the Iraq War as "cowards." On February 26, 2008 he wrote on his blog: "After 9/11, I was clearly blinded by fear of al Qaeda and deluded by the overwhelming military superiority of the US and the ease of democratic transitions in Eastern Europe into thinking we could simply fight our way to victory against Islamist terror. I wasn't alone. But I was surely wrong."<31>

[QC]

48. He never apologized for calling liberals a "fifth column" who would sell America out to bin Laden,

either.

"The decadent left in its enclaves on the coasts...may well mount...a fifth column." But he doesn't like Hillary, so we can overlook this, I guess.

[bigtree]

35. Andrew Sullivan's Evolved? Are you sure that's your position?

[bigtree]

34. yeah. I love the way he's been insinuated into the advocacy of Obama

But, Obama supporters would NEVER advantage themselves of republican attacks . . . would they

[theHandpuppet]

44. THANK YOU, QC!

Just the mention of that worm's name makes me want to scream. Anyone who now touts any endorsements from Sullivan is either unaware of his history or has a convenient memory. What a repulsive jackass that man is!

[QC]

50. I agree--he is utterly repugnant. n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

49. And don't forget how he dissed Al Gore back in 2000!