Andrew is having his ten year anniversary of blogging, and asking people to roast or toast. I’ll choose neither, and stick to what blogs do best, which is navel-gazing.
Like many of you, I have a love/hate relationship with Sullivan’s blog. Some days, I’m ready to throw my monitor out the window- especially on days where he links to glibertarian economic analysis that has been debunked hundreds of times, yet he buys into it and calls it “interesting.” Other days, I’m standing up cheering, thrilled that he is standing up for something (I think we can all agree he has been a solid voice from the right on torture). And then the next day, I’m back to wanting to chuck my computer monitor out the window again, when he decides that the real villain in the gay rights debate is… the Human Rights campaign. Or wondering what exactly he thinks he is accomplishing changing the color of his blog to show “solidarity.” Changing the color of your blog to show solidarity with people who are going to get killed for their actions is slacktivism and wanking at its best. And then, the next day, he rips far and wide into the fraud that is the modern GOP. He gives me whiplash every time I open his blog.
But that is neither here nor there, really- because what really matters with a blog is whether or not it is interesting. And I think Sullivan is always interesting, he always writes with a personal touch, you know how he is feeling (even when it drives you insane), and he’ll never shy away from a fight. In addition, the traffic he (along with Kos and others) sent to this blog really made it what it is. A lot of you would not be readers here if it were not for Sully- you know who you are. And he has always been respectful and pleasant to me.
So here is a roast and a toast for Sully- happy tenth. I’m still a fan.
Redshirt
Are you growing a beard on Sully’s behalf?
Mr Furious
Agreed. I am finding less interesting stuff over there of late—but then again, I feel pretty fatigued with the intertrons in general these days. Sully’s batting average has slipped significantly since the end of the
SteroidBush/Cheney Era, but he still hits ’em out on occasion.John Cole
@Redshirt: I shaved that off this morning. Apparently ten days is my upper limit for unnecessary itching. Was making me mental.
Liz
I found BJ via Sully and will always be grateful. Now if he would only do cute pet rescue stories…
aimai
Well, I got here on my own. Can’t remember how. But I’ve always disliked Sullivan and can’t forgive him for the “fifth column” crack and the publishing of the bell curve. I don’t find him interesting at all–when he’s good he’s only saying what any sensible person would say and I tend to know lots of people who would say it, and damned loudly, if they had the perch he has. When he’s not interesting he’s utterly, selfishly, conventional and he has had enough reminders from his fans not to be permanently surprised by his own limitations. Has he grown,as a person? Not clearly. And the original one was no great shakes to begin with.
aimai
Martin
@John Cole:
How could you tell?
We couldn’t.
Xboxershorts
One of these days I’ll clean the lint out of my navel and be able to gaze with clarity.
Not today though
chopper
never been a big fan of his, mostly because i’m sick to death of bloggers who can’t be consistent. i get enough of the emotional-rollercoaster treatment dealing with regular people.
taylormattd
And in the interest of picking fights (isn’t that what dirty blog commenters are supposed to do?), let me say this: Andrew Sullivan to this day waxes nostalgic about launching the career of the racist authors of the Bell Curve.
So fuck Sully. :D
MikeJ
I realise everyone who would want to go there knows where it is, but it seems odd to devote an entire post to the critique of a web site with no link to it.
chopper
@John Cole:
weak sauce, cole. you’re the sarah palin of growing a beard.
Tim F.
@John Cole: The itching goes away after a month or so. It’s how your face separates serious beard growers from people who forgot to shave.
JGabriel
Liz:
I found BJ via Jane Hamsher, which is kind of ironic.
Edited to add: Actually, it was FDL, but I’m not sure if it was Jane, Christie, T-Rex, or someone else. It’s so many years ago…
.
jeffreyw
A fucking Drama Queen-not that that’s a bad thing.
What? Too soon?
freelancer
@chopper:
This. New Tag please.
eemom
fwiw, this post is a good example of why people come here: the honest, decent, nuanced, no bullshit POV that is uniquely John Cole’s. It shouldn’t be that hard to find in the political blogosphere, but it is.
Of course, when the topic is Sully, it’s generally gonna be downhill from there in the comments……
numbskull
Are you commenting on his blog writing skills or his personal want ad writing skills at Barebackcity.com?
MattF
I’m a regular reader– ‘tho I skip the stuff that is genuinely inexplicable. HRC-hatred is one example. He’s lately backed off somewhat on Clinton-hatred and Krugman-hatred– and circumcision-hatred is, I suppose, a matter of taste.
In any event, Sullivan is the classic “When he’s good, he’s very, very good…” etc. But when he’s bad, it reminds me that there are some people whose judgment just can’t be trusted. And it’s too damn bad.
Linda Featheringill
@John Cole:
And this was different?
:-)
Guster
I found this blog from the ‘Jane Hamshers of the left’ thing, which I still find far more amusing that I should.
Sully’s great at the act of blogging. The content makes me crazy, because he’s a conservative and I’m a liberal, so we disagree on the issues. But he’s a fantastic _blogger_.
JGabriel
taylormattd:
To be fair, Sully has pulled back from that recently.
So, with that out of the way, fuck him anyway. I have problems forgiving him for publishing that piece of shite, too.
.
MikeJ
OT, but has anybody checked in on the Corner’s flirtation with comments yet?
Barb (formerly gex)
Well the thing I would say about Sully is that he is truly a conservative in my understanding of the word. Everything is about him. He feels strongly about torture because of his faith, he feels strongly about gay rights because he’s gay, he opposes abortion because he’s a Catholic and a man, and he feels it is entirely possible that black people are genetically inferior because he’s white. A true conservative.
gex
@JGabriel: Has he? The last I read he was still calling it “an interesting intellectual exercise”.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Sully has the typical conservative problem: Unless it pertains to him, he cannot see how it affects people. Which is why he can be gay and still vote for Republicans. (And yes, I know some Dems are not exactly exciting on this front.)
I read lots of stuff, including him, because when broken clocks are correct, you can still end up finding out something extremely useful.
taylormattd
@JGabriel: I swear he just wrote a post within the last few weeks talking about how proud of that he is.
Keith G
@jeffreyw:
And what’s worse, not even an entertaining ‘fucking Drama Queen”, and I’ve known many and dated a few.
Somewhat descent writer and able collector of talented assistants or not, the world has more than enough self righteous pricks.
Church Lady
I found this blog via a Sullivan link during the Graeme Frost counter tops controversy.
El Cruzado
Paraphrasing Churchill, Sully can be counted on reaching the right conclusion… after dabbling with all the wrong ones.
So half the time I go there for the mental health breaks, the other half to see if he finally has figured out the issue du jour.
John S.
@John Cole:
This OT, but your governor is a little mental.
Keith G
@Barb (formerly gex):
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Three minutes apart, you two do a great job of writing the book on Sully.
Awesome.
Xboxershorts
@MattF:
You’re lucky today’s an official holiday at work and almost no one’s here. Otherwise I’d be sending you a bill for a new monitor and keyboard….
jayboat
You guys can blame him for me being here.
I’ve been a long time fan of the Dish- mainly because of his willingness to admit a mistake, and the wide variety of things he and his staff find on the internets that are of interest to me. (Texts From Last Night – yay)
Lately, tho… I skip over more parts than I used to, probably because I spend so much time here- cheering from the sidelines as I read the best group of commenters in cyberville. This place actually manages to teach me something while entertaining me at the same time.
cat48
Yes, Sully, sent me; and I just keep coming back every day or so for more.
srv
What gex said before the sex change.
I’m pretty sure I found BJ via Unqualified Offerings, and, uh, first heard of Sully here during the rah-rah in 2003.
So I blame John for being exposed to the useless Atlantic bloggers and forever staining my image of the once respectable rag.
burnspbesq
FWIW, Andrew’s is one of only seven legal/political/economic blogs I have bookmarked. Even when he’s annoying, he’s thought-provoking.
Citizen_X
Clearly, proof that we need a blogger ethics blah blah &c.
DougJ is the business and economics editor for Balloon Juice.
I think that of the establishment blogs, it is the one I like the best. But I have grown bored with all establishment blogs.
I like that it actually tries to entertain you, though. There’s a side of that blog that is just trying to be fun.
I don’t find it particularly thought-provoking or intelligent, though.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Here’s where we differ. I find little he says the slightest bit interesting, which is why I almost never visit his blog unless linked from another one. His attempts to reconcile various political, religious, and personal impulses into a coherent viewpoint are usually a failure. His obsession with Sarah Palin can occasionally be interesting in a train wreck sort of way, but most days it’s just old. And I don’t need to go to a blog to view photographs if I want to view photographs. So that’s my take.
Redshirt
@John Cole: Sad. Growing a beard’s a lot like running, son: It’s the first few miles that are the hard part. Once you get through that, it’s smooth sailing.
Ross Hershberger
I read Sully for a week or two before I discovered he considers himself a Conservative. He seemed so reasonable.
I quit reading because he’s so damn prolific. I’d glance away and he’d be 10 posts ahead of me.
But he’s the one we love to hate.
Guster
@Redshirt: The other way it’s lot like running is that it’s something that self-impressed people do for no particular reason.
licensed to kill time
I used to go to Sully’s because he had interesting links. I found BJ through his site, but you know what they say:
Once you go BJ you never go back ;-)
D0n Camillo
I’m with Aimai. Has he ever apologized for “Fifth Column”? Then fuck him. That goes double for “The Bell Curve”.
Royston Vasey
A toast, with extra Vegemite, for Mr Andrew!
I likes ya (most of the time)!
New Yorker
I found BJ from him as well.
I get whiplash from him too. On the one hand, he’s got more of an immigrant’s optimist view of this country than I did (did he really think the election Barack Obama was going to put an end to the culture wars? I was ready for a fucking category 5 hurricane of insanity from the right after one of Those People took the White House away from Real America), and on the other hand, he thinks this country is going to put Sarah Palin in the White House in 2012. Even I’m not pessimistic to think we’re that crazy.
New Yorker
And I’ll add that I’m generally a fan of him. Yeah, I think he’s gone crazier than a shithouse rat when it comes to Palin, and I still shake my head at some of his economic analysis, but he’s on the right side of some very important issues, like the war crimes of the Bush administration (and Obama’s refusal to do anything about it).
Paris
Its annoying that Sullivan doesn’t have comments. Since he’s a full time blogger, I get the impression that he’s afraid to interact with his readers. The one way conversation is a touch narcissistic.
schrodinger's cat
I am one of those people who found this blog via Sullivan in the 2008 election season. I am no longer a fan of the Dish. In fact I find it increasingly tiresome.
Top 5 Reasons why Balloon Juice is better than the Daily Dish
5. A great comments section.
4. A diversity of voices on the front page.
3. Animal rescue stories and food blogging.
2. Insightful political analysis delivered with just the right amount of snark.
1. Tunch.
kevina
I’ve read Sully everyday since, I think, ’05, just as I have BJ (around the time of Schiavo and, esp. with Sully, the rise of Ratzinger/Benedict.).
Andrew is NOT a guy you’ll always agree or, when you don’t, just “mildly disagree” with. He can be infuriating (like on Harry Reid. Not a huge Reid guy-Durbin for Leader FTW!-, but he’s better than Angle.), but only reading stuff I agree with bores me. I read much less right-wing stuff than I used too, mostly b/c they’ve gone nuts, but Sully’s blog is a way to find opposing view points, w/o seeking out Malkin, etc.
Yes, changing the Dish’s scheme to all green was emotive silliness, but his coverage during that week-plus of Iran was unbeaten in ALL American Media.* You can say he was way too emotionally involved (and he was), but he understood that something significant had happened/was happening and helped spread and get out otherwise censored info all week.
In many ways, he has understood Obama better than many liberals/progressives do. B/c fundamentally, The President is, as Andrew would say, a “Whiggish Tory.” Wingnut frothing aside, he is no radical interested only in Rovian-style politics (WH actually sucks at pure politics). He is far more interested in good, solid governance, not the “Overton Window,” or other nonsense. He is, in truth, a Whiggish/Liberal pragmatic reformer. Sully understood this from day one.
Sullivan has, as was mentioned, mastered blogging. Unless he goes full-on wingnut, I’ll read him everyday, waiting to be infuriated, challenged, annoyed, and more informed.
*Eventually, unless we or the Israelis fuck it up, that regime will collapse on its own. Just too many internal contradictions.
Linda Featheringill
Never been to Sully’s blog. Never read him.
I came to BJ through a recommendation on Twitter.
Life can be fulfilling without several of the folks that drive John wild. Who needs Sully? Who needs Hamsher?
Dailypuppy dot com is nice, though.
EFroh
Me too. Those two actions will always be unforgettable and unforgivable marks on his career. Has he ever apologized for being completely wrong about that Fifth Column comment or the Iraq War in general? Just curious.
But as conservative bloggers go, he’s probably the most readable one out there for me (after Larison).
Midnight Marauder
@aimai:
The answer is “yes, but with no real or actual long-term substance.” That’s why he can get enraged about the DADT repeal falling apart and still place all the blame on Harry Reid weeks later. To the point that he, once again, publicly states that he would be incapable of voting for Harry Reid over someone like Sharron Angle because Harry Reid has “a face so weak it changes depending on the way the wind is blowing” and “a voice so sad you think he’s a funeral director.”
So, naturally, it makes sense that you wouldn’t be able to support him over someone you declare to be “a nutcase, obviously.”
Sullivan is an intellectual fraud, period.
New Yorker
I’ll also add that if we’re ever going to have a reasonable right someday replace the Limbaugh/Palin/Beck lunatic asylum after they burn out, people like Sullivan (and Bruce Bartlett, and Daniel Larison) are going to important in building such a right.
freelancer
@kevina:
I’ll second this completely.
He is a great sieve for everything that is out there, but when he goes mental, it’s like WTF?!, Sir? Vote for Angle? are you nuts?
Citizen Alan
The thing about Sully and Palin is that it’s just the most extreme example of the misogyny that subtly permeates all of his work. The only women he’s ever spoken of approvingly that I can recall are Thatcher and Neda Agha-Soltan, the latter of whom had the virtue of already being dead and thus someone upon whom he could project all of his personal beliefs about what Iranian women should be feeling.
Other than the pregnancy weirdness, his hysteria over Palin isn’t really that much worse than his hysteria over Clinton in the spring of ’08. And if he’s come around at all on Hillary Clinton, it’s only because he perceives her as having been broken by her loss and made subservient to his man-crush Obama. I also remember when Napolitano made a single ill-advised comment after a failed terrorist attack and he pitched a screaming tantrum that lasted nearly three weeks.
His other quirk that drives me insane (I’m currently still on sabbatical from his blog from the last time he did it) is when he refers to progressive taxation (and especially the estate tax) as targeting not the “rich” but the “successful.” Because in Sullyworld, the definition of a “successful person” is someone who’s rich and who is therefore morally superior to a less successful (i.e. poor) person. The idea that America’s best school teachers, cops, fire fighters and even garbage men are less “successful” in their lives than people whose sole achievement was inheriting lots of money is repugnant to me. Given what I know of the New Testament, I might also describe it as heretical coming from someone who claims to be a Christian, but since Sully, like most Christians, worships Mammon and pretends its Christ, I’ll pass over that.
snarkypsice
Well, I see Andrew isn’t all that respected here but I love him and love his blog, even if he makes me nuts half the time. He’s a real person, a kind man, and a truly gifted – and I mean really gifted – writer. I do not always agree with him – in fact I probably disagree more than I agree – and being a Brit of the same age, his Margaret Thatcher love makes me question his sanity. But he’s one of the few bloggers willing to own his mistakes and willing to publish dissent regularly on his blog. (No doubt someone will now spring up to tell me about some mistake he hasn’t admitted to, to which I’ll just ask how many times a day do you walk up to people and tell them you’re wrong?)
Plus he sent me here one day, and for that I am eternally grateful.
El Tiburon
Hmmmm…let’s see what it means to Sully to be a conservative.
Subract the flat-tax clap-trap and what you have in today’s parlance is a goddamn liberal.
So Sully you can call yourself a conservative all day and night, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Dodgers ain’t in Brooklyn anymore.
geg6
@Guster:
This.
As many here have said, the things he’s bad on (the Bell Curve, the runup to Iraq, religion, Thatcher wanking, buying into libertarian bullshit, Trig Palin), he’s really, really bad about. But the things he’s good on (gay rights, torture and the national security state, hating on neocons, Palestinian rights, marijuana, the fraud that is Sarah Palin), he’s quite good.
And he has shown that you can grow and change. He did that on Iraq (read his post on the anniversary; he apologizes all over again), he’s done it on abortion, and he has finally accepted that the Church is a criminal organization (if not that it’s complete bullshit from the get-go). He has consistently had Obama’s back in the face of his compatriots’ complete and utter derangement on the issue.
There are days that I hate myself for going to The Dish. And there are days that I can’t quit quoting him to my friends. Whatever else Andrew is, he’s a fantastic writer and blogger. He is one of the people that really made blogging what it has become, for good and ill. I give him props for that and keep pounding on him when he’s wrong. But he’s interesting to me and I simply can’t quit him no matter how often he tempts me to.
As for how I found you, Cole, it certainly wasn’t Andrew that brought me here. In fact, it was a certain reality tv message board that I used to frequent (before being banned for being too shrill and liberal for the commentariat) that sent me here. Another conservative-turned-DFH on that board sent me here, telling me that I would fit in well here. Not so sure about that, but it feels comfortable to me. ;-)
Maude
@schrodinger’s cat:
Shouldn’t it be:
1) Tunch
2) Lily and Rosie
And so on.
ornery curmudgeon
Andrew Sullivan is gay, and on the Right. Yup, great thinker, wonderful man. Whatev.
Would make a good Catholic priest, probably.
Joe Beese
@Citizen Alan:
He supported Bush’s war crimes in Iraq until Bush became publicly branded as a loser. He will continue supporting Obama’s war crimes in Pakistan until Obama is publicly branded as a loser.
Leading me to suspect that for Sully it has nothing to do with political convictions and plenty to do with some secret thrill he gets when the wise and mighty Leader displays his strength by killing brown people.
swalker
@kevina: I was gonna write alla that, but you beat me to it. This is how I feel as well.
Xenos
@EFroh:
Since I keep reading his blog for whatever reason, he has pretty much apologized for it. But he walked back that apology today in typical fashion with some half-hearted comment about disagreeing with the right people for the wrong reason.
And he has never apologized for imposing Murray on the country, and has never educated himself on the subject covered. How long would it take him to read Steven Jay Gould and reconsider his actions? It is pretty telling that he has never done it.
schrodinger's cat
@Maude: I was just saving the best for the last, my list is in descending order
5. 4. 3. 2. 1.
Corner Stone
@New Yorker:
If that’s going to be the working definition of “reasonable right” then we should lock them all in the town church before we burn it down.
Corner Stone
Fuck Sullivan.
D-Chance.
Et tu, Brute?
gex
@srv: Sex change? I’m just having problems upgrading my handle across various devices.
James E. Powell
I read Sully’s blog during the last presidential campaign when others linked to it. I remain unclear on exactly what he did to get that gig. Is he on TV shows because he has that gig, or did he get that gig because he was on TV shows?
Anyway, I do not see him or his writing as a substantial improvement over Megan McArdle. He is a regular source of completely stupid remarks. He appears to have no understanding of how the world really works. He is a gushing celebrity worshiper. And I cannot recall a single time that he had anything interesting to add to the national conversation.
So, what is the attraction?
Barb (formerly gex)
@Joe Beese: And this is what makes him a conservative. He’s an authoritarian.
schrodinger's cat
@James E. Powell:
View from your Window?
whetstone
@aimai:
This, basically. And then there was his pimping of Betsy Mccaughey’s flawed attack on the Clinton health care plan, which TNR was forced to disown.
What really made me upset about it wasn’t so much the piece itself–bad as it was, sometimes magazines and editors make mistakes, even horrible ones. It was Sullivan’s late, craven self-defense, which he eventually walked back to “I knew it was screwed up, but she made me do it!”
Dude, YOU WERE THE EDITOR. It’s YOUR JOB to not let writers walk all over you.
Sullivan’s just made too many horrible mistakes–and has been too pathetically weak in accounting for them when he’s not actively taking pride in stirring up discussion or whatever–for me to patronize him or anything he does. I’m in the same business, and it frustrates me to no end to see more careful, more ethical writers struggle while he’s survived his responsibility for some of the ugliest and most unconscionable things that have been written or published during my lifetime.
If that seems harsh, go back and read Bob Herbert’s review of “The Bell Curve.”
sparky
@aimai: yes
@Corner Stone: and yes.
@whetstone: yes, but then talent can always pretend the mishap never occurred, at least so long as the talent continues to produce. mammon, after all, has no memory.
i started lurking here sometime around Sciavo-time and so came to Sullivan via this blog. ironically, it was also via repeated links to him from here that convinced me reading him was worse than a waste of time. i’ll concede that he’s a good writer, but then so is David Brooks, and when good writers use their talents to justify their personal preferences (Sullivan) or legitimate mendacity (Brooks) i find no reason to pay attention to a word they scribble.
with apologies to Mister Gibbon, i believe this applies to Sullivan:
satby
@aimai:
@Citizen Alan: What aimai and Citizen Alan say. I find Sully barely readable on his good days, but that’s because I think he’s a rude, pompous ass.
His hatred of women is almost palpable at times.
And I have Kung Fu Monkey to thank for leading me here.
New Yorker
@Corner Stone:
Yes, the idea of murdering people en masse for philosophical disagreements appeals to me greatly.
Irony Abounds
Another person guilty of having found BJ through Sully’s site. He’s a convenient way of hitting a number of blogs that I like, and my take on him is similar to Mr. Cole’s.
asiangrrlMN
Count me as not a fan of Sully. If he weren’t gay, he would totally be a Republican. He reeks of white male privilege (and I’m not using the term lightly) in that he has to have something personally affect him in order for him to even think about changing his mind. I used to read him occasionally, but I turned off him for good when I saw him on Olbermann after Dr. George Tiller was killed. I have no idea why Sully got to be the one pontificating on abortion, but he was. And, with a furrowed brow, he said because of his Catholic convictions, he personally couldn’t condone third-term abortions, whatever the reason. That did it for me. I haven’t read him since except when someone links him.
Yes, I know he printed the poignant stories from all the women who had them and slowly, agonizingly started to change his mind, but the point is, he shouldn’t have had to need all that in order to be convinced. What’s more, who the fuck cares what Sully thinks on abortion, anyway? It really rankled me to watch two men (Olbermann and Sully) solemnly discuss the ramifications of third-term abortions.
Sully tries so hard to fit the world into his view. He clings to the same beliefs over and over until he is bludgeoned with how wrong he is. And yet, next issue, he will do the same damn thing over and over again–defaulting to his original position. He is a conservative in that he has no empathy at all. No amount of good writing (and he’s a great writer) can make up for his shortfalls.
Catsy
@aimai:
This. For a conservative, Sullivan is pretty progressive. As a gay conservative, Sullivan is pretty moderate. But on his own merits as a pundit–without handicapping the evaluation with “for a conservative” or the like–Sullivan is a tedious hack. I appreciate the way that he thinks out loud and walks through the evolution of his personal views, but more often than not the end result of that process is still vapid, short-sighted crap riddled with false balance and manufactured “my esteemed colleague”-style hollow civility. And the lessons he learned in the process seem to magically vanish the next time he has to apply his worldview to a new issue.
To the extent that Sullivan is ever insightful or even tolerable, it’s when he’s managed to meander his way into a sufficiently decent or sensible position that ought to be the bare minimum expected of a thinking person with a moral compass, but this accomplishment is treated as evidence that he’s not a complete idiot or douchebag as if it somehow redeems the parade of idiocy and douchebaggery that is the norm for his writing. It’s the whole “soft bigotry of low expectations” dynamic: a gay conservative gets credit for opposing homophobia and torture. Really? That’s the bar we’re setting now?
No, I take that back. His “view from your window” posts are usually interesting, but since they contain photos and almost no opinions of his own, that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement.
HyperIon
@Xenos wrote:
WTF?
I’m not sure how someone can “pretty much apologize” for something. Especially someone whose “reputation” is based on being such a fabulous writer. Either he said he was sorry or he didn’t. In my book “to pretty much apologize” means weaselly non-apology. Which fits perfectly with my idea of Sully as a pompous, bare-back loving drama queen.
HumboldtBlue
Fuck Sullivan, he’s about as interesting as a new disease. He’ll pique your interest long enough to discover how disgusting he truly is.
As for links, I got here through TBogg when you were still a baggage-carrying rent-boy for Bush and Cheney.
kc
Fuck him.
Glenndacious Greenwaldian (formerly tim)
Oh please…Sullivan’s self righteous hysteria about torture was/is just his mechanism or pivot point for turning on the Bushies. This way he gets to pretend it was over some core, fundamental, universally abhorrent policy difference rather than that he simply realized he had been a completely insane dick, and should have seen the Bushies for what they were long before he did.
Torture is a completely predictable result of war/violence/hatred, which Sullivan and John both fomented in Iraq.
How Sullivan has any credibility at all mystifies me other than as an examplar of the degraded nature of public discourse in the U.S.
stormhit
@ornery curmudgeon:
Yes, he really would.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/03/two-catholics-debate-gay-rights.html
Unless you meant that as a moronic insult, of course.
TEL
Count me as one of this site’s loyal (mostly lurking) readers who discovered Balloon Juice by linking over from the Dish. While I often disagree with Sully, I enjoy his blog – perhaps partly because he has a very different point of view than me on many issues.
Edited to say: Just wanted to chime in with some of the other posters – I do find his understanding of women to be appalling and have to skip over any of those posts.
kc
I found this blog via Thers and/or The Poorman.
Good times . . .
Glenndacious Greenwaldian (formerly tim)
@snarkypsice:
But he’s one of the few bloggers willing to own his mistakes and willing to publish dissent regularly on his blog
Again: oh please. The “dissent” he publishes is carefully screened because it has to be emailed; he has not comments section. He has no comments section because he knows said section would be a riotous, 24/7 takedown of every post he utters.
He is a blogger/coward.
Corner Stone
@New Yorker: Good, then we’re in agreement.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
> A lot of you would not be readers here if it were
> not for Sully- you know who you are.
Not me. I’m here because President Obama and his amazingly awesome and efficacious team of bipartisan rivals recommended you highly.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
@New Yorker:
Do you sponsor your own President Obama-brand drone?
Kiril
I originally came here through this Fafblog post, but didn’t really start reading it regularly until the GOS and couple other blogs suggested that JC was making sense on something or another.
Svensker
Sully mostly drives me insane, much the same reaction as John Cole, with the added anti-female thing that he does that really irks me. But I have stopped reading all other “conservatives” entirely, unless linked to by someone else, so he is my small window into the Right, such as it is. And I like the VFMW contest.
Anya
I am one of those readers. I read a link of your epic Clinton related rants at during the 08 Dem Primary, and I immediately fell in love with this blog.
EconWatcher
I believe Sullivan helped move the needle of national opinion on the torture of WOT detainees. He sunk his teeth in and did not let go. This is worth something, and he is worth something for doing it, whatever his other sins.
I’ve been writing to him occasionally to try to get him to take up the cause of prison rape in the same way. Someone needs to do it, and I think he’s the guy. It’s an issue where even a slight shift in public opinion and priorities could save many lives and help prevent a vast amount of human suffering.
How many others have the power to move the needle as he does, and also have basically decent intentions?
psychobroad
@asiangrrlMN: Exactly! I read him with varying degrees of disbelief/skepticism until the abortion thing. That was the last straw for me. The idea of a man condemning a woman for having a late-term abortion, which are often done for the sake of the health of the mother, is absolutely disgusting. I only wish he had been asked whether he was comfortable with asking a woman to carry a dead baby to term, and deliver it.
HyperIon
@EconWatcher wrote:
My god, what complete BS. He’s a blogger. He occasionally is on CSPAN. He may have changed some minds on the intertubes but…
1. what evidence is there that the needle of national opinion on torture has moved? NYT using the word?
2. supposing #1 is demonstrated, what evidence is there that AS deserves credit?
I hope you are better at watching the economy than you are at watching the needle on national opinion on torture.
Mike Furlan
Sullivan and Larison are the Jack Henry Abbotts of this blog. Their sins will be forgive as long as they remain interesting.
NobodySpecial
Except, of course, for the complete lack of being interesting, and being a racist schmuck and a pro-war right wing zombie, I guess Sullivan is okay in small doses. Typically five seconds or less every three years or so.
I got to BJ from DailyKos, though, so there you go.
DaveInOz
If it hadn’t have been for Sully’s blog, I’d have never known the Tunch.
I followed a link many years ago and have stayed. Always an enjoyable read. Keep it up!
Triassic Sands
I have a love-hate relationship with Sullivan too. I love to hate him. Actually, I don’t put that much effort into it. It’s a better use of my time to just ignore him completely.
gogol's wife
@DaveInOz:
Yes (very late post), I wouldn’t have known Tunch if it hadn’t been for Sullivan linking to BJ because of a video of a guy singing his puppies to sleep. I’m very grateful.
celticdragonchick
@geg6:
What you said. I can’t top that, so I will just say “This!”.
I’m another one who found BJ through The Dish.
Phoebe
@Liz: me too, on both counts.
celticdragonchick
@Glenndacious Greenwaldian (formerly tim):
He polls occasionally to see if his readers want comments.
Those of us who vote overwhelmingly say “No!”
We can comment here. I am not interested in having a comment section at The Dish overrun by teatard idiots screaming about “Sodimite Andrew sux giant cock!” or whatever. Any comment section would have to have a full time moderator just to keep the most egregious bullshit out, and you know it.
No thinks. Plenty of other venues for that.
Corner Stone
@celticdragonchick: Bullshit. He isn’t answering your requests. He’s hiding.
I tell you what. How about 7 days of open comments? Let’s see what happens.
Never happen. And not because of tea tards.
kevina
@asiangrrlMN:
Where to start. For one, to say “if he weren’t gay, he’d totally be a Republican” is a) meaningless since, you know he is, and it DOES define him. How could it not?
B) Yes, he’s an “old-school,” Bush 41 (sorta, he’s more liberal than that) conservative. Other than, MAYBE, Lugar and the Maine twins, that strain is DEAD in the Republican Party. Calling him Republican today is wrong and insulting.
I realize that abortion is a very passionate issue (full disclosure, I’m moderately pro-life*. I’d keep ALL first trimester and, I think, most, if not all second trimester abortions legal, though I’d try strategies in the hope-nothing more-of reducing them. I WOULD restrict third trimester/late-term procedures to health, rape and incest. Also, it never has determined my voting. Ever), but I think its too bad that his increasingly nuanced view on this made you shut him off. Because, like it or not (and I suspect this is very personal to you, so I understand the passion), at least 40-45% of people disagree with you.
Will you shut out people, in your daily life, who disagree with you on this one issue?
Look, you will NOT find any public person or public official who agrees with YOU on every single issue you deem important. 90% agreement? Sure, but if you find a high-profile pol. who agrees with you on EVERYTHING, well, run. Immediately. B/c chances are that person is either a charlatan (Hi John Edwards!) or insane.
In the end, those who tune out the Sullys of the world for one or two transgressions hurt themselves really. I know the wingnut blogosphere is unreadable, but Sully too? I guess I loathe echo chambers and like to have my views challenged and questioned occasionally. Sully does that, not too much, but enough to be important to me. In the process, I understand why I hold the views I hold better than before.
*This comes out of my own disability. Sorry, but I’m not thrilled that some may abort b/c the fetus has been diagnosed with a disability, as if someone with a disability is inferior or “undesirable.” Not true. Period.
kevina
Moderation? Why?
Redshirt
I like Sully, warts and all.
And I’m a full fledged Obot. Figure that out.
Jim Crozier
I found this place from Sullivan and I still like him. Is he right on everything? Nope. Is he just about the best influential conservative blogger out there? Definitely.
I like the fact that he’s willing to admit he’s wrong about things. Sometimes he has to be smacked in the face a couple of times to admit it, but overall, the guy’s a thoughtful, interesting read.
Gus
I came here first from the Daou Report at Salon. It was during Mr. Cole’s conversion from the dark side, and it was listed among the conservative blogs. I wanted to switch up my usual list from Atrios, Steve Gilliard (RIP) and Sadly No, and try to incorporate some conservative blogs. Friday beer threads were the initial attraction.
Joe Buck
I’m one of those “fifth columnists” that he once wanted rounded up, and in those days you probably agreed with him, John.
Mark
@kevina
Come on. Sully’s got more than one issue where he’s a disaster even in recent memory:
– He was opposed to health-care reform in really any form throughout most of 2009 and it took him maybe six months to get to a point where he recognized that something needed to be done for the 50-odd million people who’ve got nothing. He spent a lot of time trying to scare his readers with stories of “socialism” in the NHS. All this from a guy who has AIDS and is completely uninsurable outside of a large group plan.
– He constantly bitches about progressive taxation as though it’s immoral and argues in favor of a VAT and says nothing about regressive taxes like SS/FICA.
– There’s his weekly paean to Thatcher and Reagan (even though he now admits that Reagan was fiscally insolvent.)
– He’s a total misogynist. See his treatment of Hillary Clinton, Naomi Klein, Elana Kagan, even Sarah Palin. He had nothing to say about Peter Thiel opposing the vote for women, but he called out Amanda Marcotte as “shrill” for attacking Thiel.
– The gobbledegook about Dems being to the right of the Rs on gay rights
– Bringing up Kagan’s sexuality even though he is the poster child for “sexuality, no matter how disgusting, is your own business.”
– Loads and loads of false equivalence…Links to McMoron…Numerous attempts to portray David Frum as anything other than a dirtbag.
I could go on. It’s just 20 things he does that piss me off.