I’m So Mad At The American Strategy to Win WWII That I’m Joining the SS

I’m really quite impressed with the level of stupidity put forth by Sullivan (that DougJ just highlighted). It isn’t easy to write something dumber than you would read in the comments at Hillary is 44, but Andrew was up to the challenge. That takes self-defeating to a new level, and if I didn’t know how irrational he often gets, I’d think it was spoof. I suppose it is only a matter of time before he changes the website color to signify his disgust with the Democrats who tried to repeal DADT.

But then again, what can you say about the guy who, when the DADT repeal failed, immediately decided the villains were not the Republicans who voted as a block to defeat the legislation, but Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and the Human Rights Campaign.

Just pure idiocy. Which means it will receive a hardy “Heh-indeedy” from the wingnut chorus.






150 replies
  1. 1
    ruemara says:

    Really? Are you surprised at all at the perversion of thought? I know I’m not.

  2. 2
    Lolis says:

    Exactly. Let’s not blame the two Republicans, Snowe and Collins, who claim to strongly back repealing DADT, but voted no for purely selfish reasons.

  3. 3
    jacy says:

    Sully’s hit the fainting couch so hard, he’s knocked it through the floor and clear into the basement.

    Someone should play into his inherent Catholic guilt and tell him the filibuster was actually his fault, divine retribution for all of his Marty Peretz apologia.

  4. 4
    Three-nineteen says:

    Sully’s just pouting. In a few days, he’ll be back to “Obama’s playing the long game” and “When Obama’s done hurting the Republicans with this he’ll get it passed” and “My husband is refusing to let me call him Barack when we’re in bed”.

  5. 5
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Lolis:

    Let’s not blame the two Republicans, Snowe and Collins, who claim to strongly back repealing DADT, but voted no for purely selfish reasons.

    But Harry Reid hurt their feelings by not letting Republicans propose as many amendments as they wanted! Surely you can see that’s much more important than repealing the law that makes it illegal for gay and lesbian people to serve in the armed forces!
    /wingnut

    ETA: Reid acted like the Republicans were untrustworthy or something! The nerve!

  6. 6
    Hugin & Munin says:

    Don’t everyone step on each other’s post at once. Not that DougJ hasn’t been doing a bang-up job of stepping on his own posts.

    Aqnd that’s without announcing thazt he’s taking a break.

  7. 7
    Emma says:

    I have never understood this fascination people have with Andrew Sullivan. He’s an overeducated British twit with a trainload of issues that will not be resolved until he finally, in his gut, realizes that most of the institutions he wants to cling to despise him and his kind and would rather set him on fire and throw him off a cliff than give him any sort of dignity and respect.

  8. 8
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Lolis: Do they claim to support repeal? I can’t figure those two out, other than that they’re just the stupidest pair of cowards in the Senate. I keep reading that they’re more popular with Democrats in Maine, which Obama carried by almost twenty points (IIRC) than with Republicans. Why do all those Maine Democrats love two Senators who side with Republicans to block what Obama and the majority of the country want?/barely on-topic rant

  9. 9
    Violet says:

    I suppose it is only a matter of time before he changes the website color to signify his disgust with the Democrats who tried to repeal DADT.

    Will he change his website color to red? Or rainbow?

  10. 10
    D-Chance. says:

    Well, to be fair, everyone knows how Sully gets his panties in a wad when he doesn’t get his way…

  11. 11
    mr. whipple says:

    Just pure idiocy. Which means it will receive a hardy “Heh-indeedy” from the wingnut chorus.

    And on a lot of ‘left’ blogs, too.

  12. 12
    Guster says:

    Obviously, that’s idiotic. But it’s completely understandable, too.

    You hate and fear the criminal who stabbed you in the neck. But you reserve a special disappointment for the EMT who said ‘wow, that looks painful, good thing I’ve got the tools to fix you right here in the ambulance’ and kept driving.

    Saying, ‘hate the Republicans for screwing the gays, don’t hate the Democrats for filing to protect them’ is almost exactly like saying, ‘but, but, but Saudi Arabia isn’t building any churches!’

  13. 13
    Midnight Marauder says:

    But then again, what can you say about the guy who, when the DADT repeal failed, immediately decided the villains were not the Republicans who voted as a block to defeat the legislation, but Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and the Human Rights Campaign.

    It’s not just his absurdity in blaming the defeat on the party who actually voted in favor of repealing DADT, but that he can then extrapolate that inanity into writing something like this:

    If I lived in Arizona Nevada and had the vote, even though Sharron Angle is beyond nuts, I’d vote for her. Better nuts than this disgusting, cynical, partisan Washington kabuki dance, when people’s lives and dignity are at stake.

    Because no one’s life and dignity are at stake with the election of Sharron Angle? Oh, that’s right. There are people who have their lives and dignity at stake, but since they aren’t Andrew Sullivan, he couldn’t give a fuck less about them.

    He’s about as useless as Log Cabin Republicans.

  14. 14
    Allan says:

    I thought Senator Esmerelda from Bewitched did a terrific job explaining why stopping Democrats from using legislative tactics to pass legislation is a greater threat to America than perpetuating civil rights violations. If you tried hard enough, you could almost believe that it really bothered her to vote no.

  15. 15
    Warren Terra says:

    Damn those Dems, so disinterested in repealing DADT that they mustered their caucus and passed an amendment in the House that attached it to the flag-wavingest Must Pass bill of the year, the one to Support The Troops, and got 57 Democratic Senators to back it. If they really loved Teh Ghey they’d have imposed a military dictatorship (complete with LGBT-integrated troops, of course) until DADT repeal was the law of the land.

    Honestly: in terms of flashpoint controversies, battle lines drawn in the sand with the Republicans when they could have been permitted simply to slide, this confrontation puts DADT repeal (together with the DREAM act) in the list of Democratic legislative priorities behind Stimulus, Health Care, and FinReg, possibly behind Energy (though the Dems folded like a wet tissue on Energy, so maybe it shouldn’t count) – and ahead of everything else. Even ahead of taxes. A lot of interest groups would cheerfully murder their grandmothers to be “neglected” in that fashion.

  16. 16
    Craig says:

    @Guster: I do not follow this last analogy at all.

  17. 17
    Allan says:

    Oh, and was the strikethrough an honest-to-God correction? People at the Atlantic really can’t be bothered with facts, can they?

  18. 18
    Roger Moore says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    But Harry Reid hurt their feelings by not letting Republicans propose as many amendments as they wanted!

    Because they never would have tried to stall it indefinitely by proposing endless grandstanding amendments. Instead that mean old Harry Reid forced them to stall it indefinitely by calling a filibuster.

  19. 19
    Guster says:

    @Guster: He really said this?

    If I lived in Arizona Nevada and had the vote, even though Sharron Angle is beyond nuts, I’d vote for her. Better nuts than this disgusting, cynical, partisan Washington kabuki dance, when people’s lives and dignity are at stake.

    I thought that was a spoof.

    No, that’s not understandable. That’s just crazy.

  20. 20
    Mister Papercut says:

    Awww, Sully, it’s okay! If something is too hard to do, then it’s not worth doing. You just stick that guitar in the closet next to your shortwave radio, your karate outfit and your unicycle and we’ll go inside and watch TV.

  21. 21
    Violet says:

    @Guster:

    You hate and fear the criminal who stabbed you in the neck. But you reserve a special disappointment for the EMT who said ‘wow, that looks painful, good thing I’ve got the tools to fix you right here in the ambulance’ and kept driving.

    The analogy doesn’t work. Using your analogy, what happened is more akin to the ambulance driver saying on the phone, “Sure I can help you, but the guy who stabbed you in the neck is holding me hostage and won’t let me drive the ambulance.” The driver (Democrats) wants to help, but can’t do anything without the neck-stabber (Republicans) letting him go.

  22. 22
    Guster says:

    @Craig: Well, first, I jumped in and responded after reading Sullivan’s site but not the right post on Sullivan’s site. Which is, um. Clever like a McArdle.

    But the analogy is this:

    We expect better of the US. Saying ‘Well, Saudi Arabia is even shittier than the US, so there!’ is stupid. Who cares? Don’t we think we oughtta be held to higher standards?

    And same for the Democratic Party. Saying, ‘Well, the Republicans are at fault!’ is completely true, and utterly unsurprising. The reason I blame Democrats is because we’re supposed to be better than Republicans. The fact that Republicans intend to harm gays is awful, but of course they want to harm gays. They hate gays. Harming gays doesn’t undermine their principles or fly in the face of their politics. Quite the contrary.

    The fact that Democrats failed to protect gays (and, more important to be, to protect equal rights) is awful and violates our principles and undermines our politics.

  23. 23
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @Guster:

    Obviously, that’s idiotic. But it’s completely understandable, too.

    In no way is the idiocy understandable. There is a direct cause as to why this vote did not happen, and it’s because of unprecedented obstructionism by Republicans in the Senate. This example:

    You hate and fear the criminal who stabbed you in the neck. But you reserve a special disappointment for the EMT who said ‘wow, that looks painful, good thing I’ve got the tools to fix you right here in the ambulance’ and kept driving.

    is not reflective of the actual situation we are discussing here. The more apt comparison would be if the EMT said “Wow, that looks painful, let me go ahead and take care of that for you,” and then a group of batshit insane hobos hijacked the ambulance and crashed it into a building.

    If you blamed the EMT in that situation, then you’re pretty much just an obtuse moron.

  24. 24
    lacp says:

    So his protest vote will be the straight wingnut ticket? Somehow I don’t think that will send quite the message he intends.

  25. 25
    Guster says:

    @Violet: Except that’s not true. Leaving aside the whole ‘bully pulpit’ thing, which I learned here on BJ is just a myth, Obama could issue a stop-loss order tomorrow.

    He’s saying, ‘you’re bleeding on the sidewalk, but I’m not going to apply pressure until I’m sure that you’ll have only the best of care once I bring you to the hospital.’

  26. 26
    Violet says:

    @Guster:

    The fact that Democrats failed to protect gays (and, more important to be, to protect equal rights) is awful and violates our principles and undermines our politics.

    That’s not how the Senate works. Enough votes are required to pass legislation. The Republicans refuse to vote for anything proposed by a Democrat. What are the Democrats supposed to do? There aren’t enough of them to pass the legislation and that is only going to get worse and more difficult after the election.

  27. 27
    Chyron HR says:

    @Midnight Marauder:

    The more apt comparison would be if the EMT said “Wow, that looks painful, let me go ahead and take care of that for you,” and then a group of batshit insane hobos hijacked the ambulance and crashing it into a building.

    Obviously that is the EMT’s fault. We expect hobos to be batshit insane (and they should, in fact, be praised and admired for it), but EMTs are held to a higher standard.

  28. 28
    mcd410x says:

    It’s reflexive. Just like his views of female sexuality.

  29. 29
    Violet says:

    @Guster:
    Obama is trying to get Congress to do its job so that it’s passed into law and not just an order that the next President can overturn. He’s been building consensus for overturning it and as he’s done so, public opinion supporting the repeal of DADT has been steadily increasing. It’s not a terrible strategy. It sucks at the moment for any gay servicemembers though.

    In the long run I think it’s probably the better strategy. Politically it’s not the best decision for him to unilaterally sign a bunch of orders changing things. And it makes better sense for the country to have Congress pass a law about it than for the President just to sign something unilaterally.

  30. 30
    cleek says:

    i’m just glad nobody on this blog has ever made an idle threat while upset about something.

  31. 31
    Three-nineteen says:

    I’ll see your Sully and raise you a Dan Savage (from before the vote):

    And if the Defense Authorization Bill that includes language that kinda, sorta repeals DADT sometime or other—the repeal isn’t instant, it has to be implemented, it has to studied, and expulsions will continue during the implementation “process”—should manage to get out of the Senate today, the Obama administration will try to take credit for it come hitting-up-gay-donors-for-gay-dollars time. They won’t deserve it—the credit or your gay dollars.

    See, even if the bill had been voted on and passed, it wouldn’t have been good enough anyway.

  32. 32
    ChrisNYC says:

    I think this is just an attempt at a threat.

    He had a fist-shaking earlier post where he wrote that gay people had to stop supporting HRC and Dems if there was no action in the lame duck session or Obama did not issue an executive order on DADT. He knows that people in the White House read his blog and he has got a big audience. The “vote for Angle” angle is still ridiculous, because the source for his urgency is supposedly that a Congress filled with GOPers will make DADT unrepealable.

    ETA: I see this has already been noted by the commenters.

  33. 33
    Nick says:

    @Guster:

    Except that’s not true. Leaving aside the whole ‘bully pulpit’ thing, which I learned here on BJ is just a myth, Obama could issue a stop-loss order tomorrow. He’s saying, ‘you’re bleeding on the sidewalk, but I’m not going to apply pressure until I’m sure that you’ll have only the best of care once I bring you to the hospital.’

    No, that’s not what he’s saying, he’s saying “I’m gonna get you as fast as possible to the hospital because if I take care of you here, they won’t let you in.”

    which, btw, actually happens sometimes.

  34. 34
    gbear says:

    But then again, what can you say about the guy who, when the DADT repeal failed, immediately decided the villains were not the Republicans who voted as a block to defeat the legislation, but Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and the Human Rights Campaign.

    Celticdragonchick will be along to explain it to you soon. Plus you forgot Harry Reid. He’s the worstest of all of them.

  35. 35
    Warren Terra says:

    @Guster:

    Leaving aside the whole ‘bully pulpit’ thing, which I learned here on BJ is just a myth, Obama could issue a stop-loss order tomorrow.

    Not really. He can’t legally and honestly issue such an order. Our nation’s defense doesn’t require preventing the small number of expulsions caused by DADT. Our nation’s honor and justice require ending DADT, but not our nation’s defense – and the latter (or some version of it, I don’t recall the details) is the requirement for Stop-Loss.

    In any case, Stop-Loss wouldn’t do the job: it does not block dishonorable discharges, it forces people to re-enlist. What you’re really thinking of would be an executive order saying that the military must ignore the law of the land, an executive order that would be both dishonest and illegal.

    In any case, the thing to do here is to keep up the pressure. DADT repeal isn’t dead – heck, so long as the Dems don’t cave and strip it from the Fund The Troops bill, they’re still on Plan A. We just need to remind the Dems that this isn’t the time for them to do their world-renowned jellyfish impression.

  36. 36
    AhabTRuler says:

    It’s reflexive. Just like his views of female sexuality anything he doesn’t see in the mirror.

    Fixeteth.

  37. 37
    Markk says:

    If I was, like Andrew, still a steadfast gay, conservative, Catholic and saw this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_0kFU7IfPM

    I’d be a self-loathing denialist, too.

  38. 38
    Steeplejack says:

    Front-pager alert!

    Cleanup in Aisle 7. I think someone hyphen-bombed the thread downstairs.

  39. 39
    Nick says:

    BTW John, remember when Glenn Greenwald told you on Twitter he didn’t hear of anyone who blamed Obama for DADT?

    Ask him what he thinks now.

  40. 40
    Hal says:

    I do not disagree with the President’s reticence in using Executive Orders to achieve legislative end runs when Congress won’t do it’s damn job, but; I honestly do not see and order in this case affecting Obama negatively at all.

    Course, 20% of the population thinks Obama is a space alien, so who the hell really knows?

  41. 41
    MattR says:

    @Steeplejack: Just noticed that when I went to post this link in the Open Thread.

  42. 42
    stuckinred says:

    @cleek: I prefer real threats followed up by real ass whuppins!

  43. 43

    Somebody kilt the open thread so here goes on an off topic.

    Oh Goody, if the wingnuts take back the House, relief is on the way Murrica.

    As the House GOP gets set to unveil its new agenda — the title, by the way, is the Pledge for America — the staff of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) sends reporters a 16-page report titled “A Constitutional Obligation: Congressional Oversight of the Executive Branch.” The document tips Issa’s hand on something that Democrats have been worrying about for months: If Republicans win the House, and he runs the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, what gets investigated?

    There are two lists: One of oversight totally neglected by Democrats, one of hearings requested by Republicans that never happened. The first list: federal agency performance management, federal emergency management, federal IT systems, federal financial management, the Presidential Records Act, ACORN, Countrywide, food safety, stimulus spending, the SEC, TARP, and “the independence of inspectors general.” The second list: Food Safety, Homeland Security, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Health care reform oversight, stimulus spending, the Minerals Management Service, and Climategate (which Issa’s staff calls “Politicization of Science”).

    Investigating FEMA, Presidential Records. boy, that’s a relief, maybe they can restore it to Bush era levels. And of course ACORN and the best Federal Financial Management.

    “Politicization of Science”) teehee

    Wolverines!!

  44. 44
    stuckinred says:

    MIAMI — Florida will immediately stop enforcing its ban on adoptions by gay people following a decision by a state appeals court that the three-decade-old law is unconstitutional, Gov. Charlie Crist said Wednesday.

  45. 45

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    I can’t figure those two out, other than that they’re just the stupidest pair of cowards in the Senate. I keep reading that they’re more popular with Democrats in Maine, which Obama carried by almost twenty points (IIRC) than with Republicans. Why do all those Maine Democrats love two Senators who side with Republicans to block what Obama and the majority of the country want?/barely on-topic rant

    I’m still waiting for them to realize it doesn’t matter how many times they vote against things like DADT repeal, they’re still gonna get primaried.

  46. 46
    MikeJ says:

    @Hal: If Obama did order the military to ignore federal law, at a minimum he’d lose half the votes to repeal DADT because he’d allow them to say, “look, nobody’s being kicked out, why should I take a vote that will piss off some percentage of voters?”

    That’s the best case scenario.

  47. 47
    Mark says:

    A lot of twisting in knots to understand Sully and his ilk here. Let’s start with a simple fact:

    In an election where the electorate swung very heavily to the Democrats, gay people went from 19% R (Bush 2004) to 27% R (McCain/Palin.)

    If you account for the ‘shy tory’ and further divide that by race and sex, what you find is that gay white men probably vote 40-45% R, while straight white men voted 57% for McCain/Palin. So the out-and-out bigotry of the Republican party costs them something like 15 points.

    So what you have with Sully and his ilk are a bunch of guys who are fundamentally Republicans but are – for the moment – somewhat turned off by homophobia. If the Democrats were to accomplish all of his demands – end DOMA and DADT, federal gay marriage, ENDA (not his demand specifically) – then he’d say “Ok, now that everybody agrees on my rights, I’m obviously a Republican because of economic and national security issues.”

    As a white male, I can say that I don’t think we, as a group, help the country. Some individuals, yes, but as a group, no. So we have to get used to the fact that gay white men are just as much a danger to the future of the country as straight white men. And we should be very suspicious of any white men who play the victim card.

  48. 48
    BlizzardOfOz says:

    @Midnight Marauder
    If Democrats can’t make Republicans pay a political price for engaging in “unprecendented obstructionism” in blocking popular legislation, then they are absolutely useless. If they can’t pass legislation when they have unheard-of majorities in both houses (that happened, remember?), then again, they’re useless, or worse. That sounds about right to me. Why are you defending them? I can only assume you’re either a Dem hanger-on, or another “former” George Bush supporter who, shockingly!, finds Obama’s policies to be perfectly awesome.

  49. 49
    That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN) says:

    @Guster:

    Except that’s not true. Leaving aside the whole ‘bully pulpit’ thing, which I learned here on BJ is just a myth, Obama could issue a stop-loss order tomorrow.

    Sure, if he wants to act like Bush. Go read the law giving him this authorization. The relevant paragraph is:

    “(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.”

    He has to make a determination that each individual is “essential to the national security of the United States.” The Bush stop-loss order was premised on the idea that we needed so many troops to fulfill the missions that there were certain specialties from which no one could be allowed to separate from the military.

    That’s a harder case to make now, except in a few specialties, like translators. We have drawn down to the point there is no longer a critical need for every body. Issuing a stop-loss order would be a pretty egregious violation of the intent of the law.

    For reasons that I fully support, Obama is extremely loathe to do that. It has gotten him into trouble with the base on a number of occasions. (This is related to his briefs supporting DOMA, which was argued about yesterday.) He respects the Law, even when he does not respect a specific law.

    Honestly, are our memories so short that we can’t remember why letting the President be as creative as he wants in interpreting the law is a really fucking bad idea? That’s what he would be doing if he issued the executive order everyone wants.

  50. 50
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @cleek:

    i’m just glad nobody on this blog has ever made an idle threat while upset about something.

    I think there’s a difference between an “idle threat” and lacking even the most basic of political awareness to realize that you are saying you would gladly cast a vote for someone who thinks you are less than the scum of the Earth.

    Especially when you hold yourself out to be some kind of voice of wisdom on the issue of equal rights.

    This is definitely not some new quirk with Andrew Sullivan.

  51. 51
  52. 52

    This seems to me to be a pretty clear look into the mind of an Obama supporter who is going to vote for a Tea Party candidate.

    “Obama was unable to singlehandedly deal with the issue that is most important to me, and thus this November I am supporting people who despise me and everything I hold dear… and no, nothing you explain to me about how the legislative process works or how objective realities on the ground effect it… is going to stop me from shooting myself in the face… and then blaming Obama. And Rahm.”

  53. 53
    Warren Terra says:

    What’s funny about this is that this administration and Congress have already done more to personally benefit Sully than the last four administrations combined. It was this administration and Congress that repealed the rules about crossing the border while HIV-positive, rules that meant that Sully could apply for citizenship and could travel abroad much more easily. Rules that Sully didn’t get from his bestest buddy Dubya when he was denouncing a fifth column of liberals who didn’t praise The Emperor’s New Clothes.

  54. 54
    gbear says:

    @BlizzardOfOz:

    If Democrats can’t make Republicans pay a political price for engaging in “unprecendented obstructionism” in blocking popular legislation, then they are absolutely useless.

    That’s right! They should take those issues straight to the press and get them publicized for everyone to see.

  55. 55
    Guster says:

    I’m having complete deja-vu. Partially quoting my own pearls of wisdom from December ’09:

    A president can sign a stop-loss order in an afternoon. Then fix the law later—without firing people for being gay in the meantime.

 
 A stop-loss order to prevent decorated fighter pilots and Arab linguists who WANT TO CONTINUE SERVING from being discharged does not seem, to me, to be an abuse of that legally-granted power.

    If Obama thinks that decorated fighter pilots and excellent linguists are essential to the national security of the US, he’s got every right in the world to issue a stop-loss order.
 My problem with Bush’s stop-loss orders were that I thought they hurt the troops and broke the military—not that I thought he didn’t have the legal right. He did. I think everyone agreed on that.



    1) Stop loss isn’t just a half-measure toward ending DADT. It’s a way to prevent valuable and contributing members of the military from being discharged when they wish to continue serving. The legal ability to do that, in the middle of two wars, is justification enough. More than enough.
    
2) Stop loss isn’t just a half-measure toward ending DADT. It’s a way to prevent people from being fired from publicly-funded jobs for their sexuality, right now. It’s a question of equal rights. That is also justification enough. 

    3) Stop loss is a half-measure toward ending DADT. Maybe you’re right [that stop-loss would remove Congress’s incentive to change DADT]. Maybe it’d slow down this current legislative juggernaut that’s currently hurtling toward ending DADT. Maybe I’m right. Maybe it’d speed up the meandering snail’s pace that’s not going anywhere in particular. Maybe neither of us are right. But that’s all arguable—while numbers 1 and 2 strike me as pretty damn clear.



    Another Guy, Quite Optimistic: “


I see no incentive for ending DADT with a stop loss. What’s wrong with waiting until 2010 to have the legislation? It’s right around the corner.”

    And Warren Terra: I’m pretty sure that gays get honorably discharged. I know I read that Dan Choi did.

  56. 56
    Seebach says:

    I can’t help but feeling this is a bit insensitive, but I’m not sure why DADT is the big deal it is. I understand it’s part of a larger system of bigotry, and should be rescinded as soon as possible.

    But compared to marriage, it’s small potatoes. Enrollment in the military is down. It’s becoming a right-wing politicized interest group.

    It seems to me that it’s like Martin Luther King winning the fight for civil rights and voting rights, but deciding to burn down the house because African-Americans still have to sit in the “coloreds” section of Denny’s and Cracker Barrel.

    It’s morally abhorrent, disgusting, unjust, but not worth setting the world afire while you’re still winning. Now, if the Supreme Court strikes down gay marriage, I will bring the torches and pitchforks myself.

  57. 57
    Mayken says:

    Once again, Sully is is an ass-hat and a drama queen. We listen to him why exactly?

  58. 58
    stuckinred says:

    @Seebach: “Enrollment” in the military?????

  59. 59
    stuckinred says:

    @Mayken: There’s no football on tonight.

  60. 60
    That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN) says:

    @Guster:

    If Obama thinks that decorated fighter pilots and excellent linguists are essential to the national security of the US, he’s got every right in the world to issue a stop-loss order.


    No. Re-read the law I posted. He doesn’t have to think that fighter pilots and linguists are essential to national security. He has to think that THIS pilot or THIS linguist is essential to national security. With linguists, he can probably make that claim, and I haven’t heard of any being discharged lately. With fighter pilots, he can’t honestly make that claim. Only a small percentage of them are actually involved in the wars, which are primarily small, ground-based affairs; the Taliban doesn’t have very many MiGs.

    As wonderful as I think their service is, and as much as I believe that they should be allowed to continue to serve, gay fighter pilots are not essential to national security. NO individual fighter pilot is. None of them. They can all be replaced.

    Obama would have to torture the law beyond all rational meaning, and far beyond the obvious intent of the Congress that drafted the relevant laws, in order to issue such a stop-loss order. He is obviously very reluctant to do that. I don’t want him to do it at all. As much as I want to see the end of DADT, I am MORE concerned that we try to re-establish the idea that the President must obey the law. For me, that takes precedence. Issuing the order you want would do serious damage to that idea.

  61. 61
    Eric U. says:

    I’m not sure that Andrew Sullivan really ever changed his shtick from when he was the republican tool that was called on to tv to play the liberal. Sure he makes sense sometimes, but so did Arlen Specter when he was still a republican. But when push comes to shove, Sullivan is still a republican tool and Specter voted for whatever the republican leadership told him to vote for.

  62. 62
    cleek says:

    @Midnight Marauder:

    I think there’s a difference between an “idle threat” and lacking even the most basic of political awareness to realize that you are saying you would gladly cast a vote for someone who thinks you are less than the scum of the Earth.

    the difference is a matter of mind-reading.

    you apparently assume he would actually do it and isn’t just venting.

  63. 63
    Kennedy says:

    Senate Republicans would have blocked the spending bill anyway because they have little incentive to allow President Obama to fulfill his pledge to end DADT.

    I am starting to think that the phrase “Republicans have little incentive” to cooperate with Dems is quickly becoming the new “no one could have predicted/hoocoodanode.” In any legislative clusterfuck where the Republican filibuster is sustained, this phrase is uncritically vomited up by the media, effectively excusing and dismissing the Republicans’ infantile tactics.

    What about an incentive to, you know, actually fucking govern? Or put principle over ideology? These are rhetorical questions, I know. I can only hope that the Dems don’t get pasted in the midterms as much as everyone seems to think they will and that maybe, just maybe, even a handful of GOPtards will decide that blanket obstructionism is not a viable electoral governing strategy.

  64. 64
    ajr22 says:

    Only explanation is that if we vote in enough closeted Republicans, one day they might be outed and decide it is time to stand up for gay rights. What is going on in America, we seem to place blame on the people who try to fix the problems as apposed to the ones responsible. By Sullivan’s logic, we might as well vote in crazy people who want to destroy the economy, because the people trying to fix it haven’t done it yet.

  65. 65
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @BlizzardOfOz:

    If Democrats can’t make Republicans pay a political price for engaging in “unprecendented obstructionism” in blocking popular legislation, then they are absolutely useless. If they can’t pass legislation when they have unheard-of majorities in both houses (that happened, remember?), then again, they’re useless, or worse. That sounds about right to me. Why are you defending them? I can only assume you’re either a Dem hanger-on, or another “former” George Bush supporter who, shockingly!, finds Obama’s policies to be perfectly awesome.

    Wow, there are a lot of ignorant and gross assumptions in this comment, not the least of which is your “pulled it out of FUCKING NOWHERE” insinuation that I believe all of President Obama’s policies to be “perfectly awesome.” Way to tip your hand with the rank intellectual dishonesty. But I digress…

    Part of what really infuriates me about attitudes like this is the assumption that the fight is, somehow, automatically over just because this round didn’t go our way. For starters, Democrats do not have “unheard of majorities” in both houses of Congress, as Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, and Evan Bayh will certainly affirm. So already, we see that you have created a false dichotomy in which it is only Democrats versus Republicans, as opposed to the actual battle of Democrats vs. Conservative Democrats & Republicans. That changes the calculus a little, doesn’t it? When you have to consider the fact that the Democratic Party has had to negotiate agaisnt itself for all intents and purposes. Moreover, this comment:

    Why are you defending them? I can only assume you’re either a Dem hanger-on, or another “former” George Bush supporter who, shockingly!, finds Obama’s policies to be perfectly awesome.

    is just all-galaxy ignorant. You are goddamn right I’m going to defend the people who passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, passed student loan reform, passed the Affordable Care Act and laid the foundation for universal health care in this country, who go to battle against the Pentagon to cut billions from the defense budget, who don’t unite their entire Senate caucus to filibuster the right for gays and lesbians to serve in the military, who passed historical financial regulation after one of the worst economic crises this country has ever seen, who are fighting to bring renewable energy and create a green economy in this country.

    Yeah, I’m going to defend those motherfuckers ALL DAY, EVERY DAY when the choice is them versus Republicans. I don’t even have to think about my feelings on the issue.

    And it’s fucking amazing that you think any comment I offered up in this thread thus far would indicate I’m a “former” George Bush supporter, facetious air quotes or not. Clearly, you need to step your critical thinking game up.

  66. 66
    Seebach says:

    @stuckinred: Enlistment, enlistment. They’re having to lower standards in order to let enough new people in. The economy is probably starting to change this, but I’m betting more gay people want to get married than to join the military openly, especially if higher ups keep coming out and talking about forcing them in the closet.

    With Christianists taking over, why would you want to join an organization currently stuck in two quagmires, with options open for a third, when people there may openly hate you? This is worth turning over America to the tea party? Really?

    Why is this the hill you’ve chosen to die on?

  67. 67
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @cleek:

    the difference is a matter of mind-reading.
    __
    you apparently assume he would actually do it and isn’t just venting.

    I could not give a fuck less if he actually does it or not. I just believe that his “venting” is beyond moronic and indicates that he is an utterly self-involved asshole who can work himself up SO MUCH that he would even jokingly contemplate voting for someone who thinks he is not a legitimate human being.

    It doesn’t have a fucking thing to do with mind-reading.

  68. 68
    Bruce (formerly Steve S.) says:

    Don’t you think two posts on another of Andrew Sullivan’s Shatnerian outbursts is one-and-a-half too many?

  69. 69
    Splitting Image says:

    @Mark:

    In an election where the electorate swung very heavily to the Democrats, gay people went from 19% R (Bush 2004) to 27% R (McCain/Palin.)
    __
    If you account for the ‘shy tory’ and further divide that by race and sex, what you find is that gay white men probably vote 40-45% R, while straight white men voted 57% for McCain/Palin. So the out-and-out bigotry of the Republican party costs them something like 15 points.

    In fairness, McCain voted against banning gay marriage in 2004 (probably out of spite for Bush) and many gays probably remembered this. There are a lot of gays in the media, y’know.

    Whether or not they’d vote for him now might be another matter.

  70. 70
    Keith G says:

    How natural it is for Sully to want to break bread with those who absolutely hate him, since he sounds like a man who spent a deal of his younger years hating himself (like any good gay catholic). Though now, he seems to have recovered and over compensated and is thoroughly egocentric.

    So Mr Sullivan, as a gay man I know that what you would do would directly harm me. *%#@ you.

  71. 71
    That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN) says:

    Heh. Both posts on this comment had 69 comments in their threads when I just reloaded BJ. Indeed.

  72. 72
    stuckinred says:

    @Seebach: Dog, that ship sailed for me 41 years ago! I had gay comrades in basic, Korea and Vietnam. Guess what, they did their jobs. On the other hand, people did anything they could, including faking being gay, to stay the fuck OUT of the military in those days!

  73. 73
    Steeplejack says:

    @stuckinred:

    I don’t suppose you would accept Tampa Bay vs. FTFY in a barn-burning pennant-critical game on ESPN?

    I didn’t think so.

  74. 74
    Gex says:

    @That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN): Nicely put. I agree with you wholeheartedly that rule of law is primary. Gay rights movement will benefit from that in and of itself, I think.

  75. 75
    stuckinred says:

    @stuckinred: Oh yea, I didn’t enroll. I joined, it was part of the sentence the judge handed down. Oh My!

  76. 76

    Does every thread about repealing DADT have to descend into executive order v. repeal? Sully’s asshattery is blatant, ignorant, buffoonish, and deserving of scorn, ridicule, verbal abuse and derision (and other terms that are escaping me at the moment).

    The reason he receives attention is because he’s not just an ill-informed asshat, but he’s an ill-informed asshat with a significant national media presence with a once-respected national magazine (c.f., Megan Fuckin’ McArdle). And anything that can be done to kill his influence with fire is a welcome addition to the national discourse.

  77. 77
    jfxgillis says:

    @Three-nineteen:

    In a few days, he’ll be back to “Obama’s playing the long game” and “When Obama’s done hurting the Republicans with this he’ll get it passed”

    Don’t be so sure.

    As I documented on an Ordinary Gentleman guest article Summer before last, that’s really the only thing he cares about. There’s no more perfect representation of a solipsist in American civil discourse.

  78. 78
    stuckinred says:

    @Steeplejack: Braves and Phil’s, bottom of 2 no score.

  79. 79
    DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective says:

    Thanks Congress for keeping this tired fake issue in front of us yet again. 17 years of this dumb rule and they still have to “analyze” some more? What a crock.

    I call upon the President to sign an order suspending this idiotic rule and shoving up the Republicans’ asses just in time for the election. If I were him I’d have done it this morning, but that’s just me.

  80. 80
    Rarely Posts says:

    @Seebach:
    Three reasons Repeal of DADT is so important:

    1) It is the federal gay-rights issue where the gay community has the most popular support: Gay activists are focused on this issue because it should be a political no-brainer. It’s true, ENDA and federal marriage rights (including immigration rights) would be much more important, but they’re also much less popular. Gay people focus on this issue because it should be easy; if they can’t pass this, what can they pass? If we could trade repeal of DADT for passage of ENDA, that would be great, but that’s not on the table. Thus, your analogy is wrong: it’s like 1948, but the racial integration of the military didn’t happen. Of course, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act are still over a decade away.

    2) The gay community is relatively small. I have several gay and lesbian friends who are active service-members, many more who are veterans (many older gay men served), and I know two who died in active service. It really hits you when you know people who have to live under DADT.

    3) Military service plays a unique role in our society. It merits a certain level of respect, and it’s a unique way to serve the community and Country. It’s particularly egregious to be told you’re not fit to serve if you’re honest about who you are. Moreover, it really reduces the potential for advancement and fighting certain stereotypes. For example, as long as we have DADT, we can never have a gay Collin Powell (typing that, I’ll acknowledge that it’s a bit of a blessing, still . . .).

  81. 81
    cleek says:

    @Midnight Marauder:

    . I just believe that his “venting” is beyond moronic and indicates that he is an utterly self-involved asshole who can work himself up SO MUCH that he would even jokingly contemplate voting for someone who thinks he is not a legitimate human being.

    um, no.

    there’s no way someone with that low a tolerance for idle threats could possibly read this blog for more than a week.

  82. 82
    stuckinred says:

    Military service plays a unique role in our society. It merits a certain level of respect

    Only if it suits their purposes. Ask John Kerry.

  83. 83
    schrodinger's cat says:

    Shorter Sullivan:
    I iz on you internets being a drama queen.

  84. 84
    Amanda in the South Bay says:

    @Seebach:

    The reason why LGBT/queer/progressive/whatever people should join the military is to stop it from being taken over by fundiegelicals and their ilk. The military needs to be representative of our society as a whole, and just giving up and admitting failure will only make things worse.

  85. 85
    wasabi gasp says:

    I bet the view from the window he threw an office chair out of is fabulous.

  86. 86
    Mnemosyne says:

    I have to admit, it does kind of crack me up to see some of the same people who spent months swearing up and down that they’d be perfectly happy with a loss where the Democrats tried to get important legislation passed are now absolutely livid that they failed!

    Of course, the excuse now is that they didn’t try hard enough, because of course if they had, Snowe and Collins would have totally come around and there would have been unicorns for all.

    So much for people supporting a noble loss.

  87. 87

    @stuckinred:

    Oh yea, I didn’t enroll. I joined,

    I was given a full scholarship and everything paid for with an offer I couldn’t refuse. All I had to do was sit on a street corner with my tooth brush, waiting for the bus to take me away to class.

  88. 88
    stuckinred says:

    @General Stuck: I used to have a “MacNamara Institute of Southeast Asian Studies” t-shirt!

  89. 89
    Cacti says:

    It’s Barack Obama’s fault Susan Collins is a feckless liar.

    Dontcha know?

  90. 90
    Mayken says:

    @stuckinred: LOL! Oh, yeah, I forgot.

  91. 91
    zzyzx says:

    @Allan: Yes. The post said Arizona for a long time before he fixed it.

  92. 92
    Professor says:

    FYI, Andrew Sullivan had not always been a gay activist. When he lived in the UK, he supported Margaret Thatcher’s Local Govt Act 1988. Under Clause 28 of this Act, it was prohibited for teachers to inform/teach school pupils that homosexuality was normal. Andrew Sullivan didn’t say Squat about this law and continued to support the Conservative Party and Margaret Thatcher. So I find it funny when I read about his antics about gay actvism. Please next time ask him about Clause 28. A lot of gay teachers lost their jobs due to this act.

  93. 93
    Kiril says:

    @Midnight Marauder:

    There are people who have their lives and dignity at stake, but since they aren’t Andrew Sullivan, he couldn’t give a fuck less about them.

    DING! We have a winner!

  94. 94
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @cleek:

    um, no.
    __
    there’s no way someone with that low a tolerance for idle threats could possibly read this blog for more than a week.

    Why are you so focused on whether or not he would follow through with the vote? I don’t think anyone here is seriously arguing against the idea that his comment was anything other than overwrought, melodramatic hyperbole. What people are saying, however, is that Sullivan’s tendency towards hyperbolic inanity discredits his seriousness as an intellectual (if such a thing ever truly existed). Not for one second did I think, or even care, if he was actually going to move to Nevada, become a legal citizen and registered voter in the state, and cast a ballot for Sharron Angle. That’s just nonsense. The entire point is that he allows himself to get worked up over things that are demonstrably false or gross distortions of reality, and he proceeds to speechify about the issue as though his position has legitimacy. The result is that he discredits himself as a person whose opinion should be considered reasonable or rational.

  95. 95
    Rarely Posts says:

    @Professor:

    From serious matters to trite ones, Sullivan always gravitates to the views that most flatter himself and serve his self-interest. I remember seeing some recent essay he wrote in praise of bears (hairy, bigger, gay men (HOT!)). He is currently a bear. Someone linked to another essay he wrote back when he was a younger, more svelte guy, dissing on bears. Whatever he is, that’s what’s hot.

    Similarly (and more importantly), when it comes to politics, he usually only sees injustice when it’s occurring to him. Hence, Conservative.

  96. 96
    Restrung says:

    ot: thanks Anne Laurie for the last thread. It’s all spooged for comments, somehow. But I got the links. fywp.

    someone said: Require every bill to be certified as constitutional before it is voted on.

    Legislating from the bench! ( that’s my comment)

  97. 97
    Gex says:

    @Midnight Marauder: I wonder what he thinks his responsibility as a pundit is? I know it is to pursue whatever his mind pursues, in the name of “interesting intellectual exercises”, but what if this TV and Internet pundit convinces someone to actually do this? And what if others who feel that way about the Dems for other reasons, actually put Angle in office?

    I’m in complete agreement with you. I think comparing Reid to Angle or the Dems to the Reps is actually dishonest. For instance, he argues Christianists are different than the Taliban in kind and not by degree. (I think they are closer to Taliban than they are to wanting secular law without religion, which I think is degree. The all fags must die crap is popping up more frequently in powerful circles. Tell me that’s not a little Talibany.)

    But I digress. He thinks the difference between the Dems and the Reps differ by degree and not by kind on this issue. Again I disagree. We didn’t get the results we wanted from the Dems, but they clearly take the policy issues around this more seriously. The are coming along on this. The Republicans demonstrated that there is no conservative case he can make that will convince the right. Either they think gays are bad for society or they demagogue for the power or money. Neither group will budge on this issue.

    He is a conservative through and through no doubt. If it is about him, it is the utmost priority.

  98. 98
    schrodinger's cat says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: oops I dropped an r…

  99. 99
    Steeplejack says:

    @stuckinred:

    Yeah, just got switched over after Rays-FTFY got a rain delay. Not sure I need to actually witness the late-season implosion of my beloved Braves. I think they’ve got the wild card locked up, but this last week cannot be good for morale. Not mine, anyway.

  100. 100
    stuckinred says:

    @Steeplejack: It’s tough, Prado just smashed one off the wall in rt center and limped into second. He’s hurtin and losing Chipper was a real blow. I just hope they do get that Wildcard.

  101. 101
    Steeplejack says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    You’re fretting about LOLcat grammar?! Really?

  102. 102
    Seebach says:

    @Rarely Posts: @Amanda in the South Bay:

    Good points, both of you, and ones I hadn’t thought of before. I am completely supportive of trying to do everything it takes to repeal DADT…

    but I don’t include burning down the country as particularly constructive, though I’m sure we’re all in agreement there. Why Sullivan and Savage feel this is specifically worth attacking the Democrats over is still a bit puzzling.

  103. 103
    That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN) says:

    @Steeplejack: The ESPN website has the Atlanta/Philadelphia game highlighted in blue on the list of box scores, apparently because Tommy Hanson has gone three whole innings without giving up a hit.

    It’s a little early to be getting excited, isn’t it? In addition to the inning, he only has one K, which suggests to me that his stuff isn’t overpowering tonight.

  104. 104
    Steeplejack says:

    @stuckinred:

    I have never been a big fan of Chipper, but he really has been a horse. Bravos have missed him.

  105. 105
    stuckinred says:

    @Steeplejack: I hear ya. Fuckin Gator!

  106. 106
    Steeplejack says:

    @stuckinred:

    To me Chipper has always typified the haw-haw, chaw-chewin’ redneck jock that I always hated, even back when I was a jock (in the late 19th century).

    I’m sure he’s a wonderful person in real life and is kind to his mother, but that’s how he comes across to me in the media. Oh, yeah, knocking up that Hooters waitress didn’t help.

    But he has been been a mighty pillar of the Braves for a long time, and I salute him for that. Somewhat reluctantly. And I do love the way he drives the Mets’ fans absolutely nuts.

  107. 107
    stuckinred says:

    @Steeplejack: Larrrrrrryyyy. That was an amazing play that he got hurt on.

  108. 108
    Jager says:

    @General Stuck:

    Too bad Issa didn’t have to do time for car theft, filing false insurance claims and registration violations, imagine a car thief getting rich making car alarms, then getting elected to congress, only in America!

  109. 109
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    I just finally made myself watch the video of McCain on DADT. Is that tantrum getting any play outside the blogosphere?

    and would it be wrong for me to chuckle at the fact that Air Force reserve officer Lindsey “Pittypat” Graham is sitting next to him?

  110. 110
    Elie says:

    @J.W. Hamner:

    Well, that says it as plainly as anyone could have it. Sadly.

  111. 111
    stuckinred says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: KO is on it like a duck on a june bug.

  112. 112
    Steeplejack says:

    @stuckinred:

    Yeah, he definitely left it all on the field. Gotta acknowledge and honor that.

  113. 113
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @stuckinred: He’s laying waste to the Repubilcans and Blue Dogs and “small businesses”, too. Reminds me of how much I like him when he’s not puffed up with sanctimony.

  114. 114
    Steeplejack says:

    @Steeplejack:

    WTF?! ESPN (at least here) switched to the Giants vs. the craptacular (i.e., .453) Cubs. How is that a better game than Braves-Phillies?

  115. 115
    stuckinred says:

    @Steeplejack: Maybe you have the braves on local channel, that’s what they do in Athens.

  116. 116
    AhabTRuler says:

    @stuckinred: To be fair, although the usage isn’t as common in modern American English, enroll is an acceptable term for joining the military.

  117. 117
    BTD says:

    This Sully post is the one you accused me of writing yesterday.

    The difference is Sully DID write that post, and I did not.

    Today was a mess so I have not had a chance to respond to you.

    But for now, let me say I urge everyone to vote for Dems this November.

  118. 118
    Amanda in the South Bay says:

    @Kiril:

    Yes, just look at his comments from the Fall of 2007 when Barney Frank stripped trans people from ENDA. Doesn’t want us gender weirdos from muckying up the good name of white upper middle class gay men.

  119. 119
    WereBear says:

    @stuckinred: That’s marvelous. Finally.

  120. 120

    Fuck Andrew Sullivan with Ronald Reagan’s dessicated dick.

    That is all.

  121. 121
    stuckinred says:

    @AhabTRuler: Well I’ll be goldagned! Maybe in the French Army! :)

  122. 122
    Gex says:

    @kommrade reproductive vigor: So you want to reward him for this ass-hattery?

  123. 123
    Tecumseh says:

    I think Sully is kinda cute here in that he’s basically turned into a Progressive/Liberal/Daily Show writer. To whit:

    -Sees Obama moving slow on something in an attempt to follow the process and bring everybody on board and gets frustrated about the speed despite the fact Obama ran partly on saying he’d do so
    -Demands the Democrats finally take a stand and vote on it and vote on it RIGHT NOW
    -Sees the Democrats doing so but complains about how they’re doing it (ie, the why can’t we be more like Republicans whine followed by the we can’t do that because we’re better than them whine)
    -Watches them lose the vote despite getting at one point 59 votes for it
    -Then blames the Democrats for it and complains that Obama didn’t use the bully pulpit, Harry Reid couldn’t figure out how to circumvent Senate rules, and Democrats didn’t add their most important issue to the list of 100 Most Important Things We Have to Deal With Before the Country Falls Apart
    -Completely forgets that the other party refused to let it even be debated or that several Republican Senators said they’d vote for it and didn’t and several supposedly told Reid they’d vote for it and they all chickened out

    We all know the drill.

  124. 124
    Steeplejack says:

    @stuckinred:

    No, I’m in NoVa now, so I get every game of both the Nationals and the Orioles. The third-worst team in the NL and the second-worst team in the AL. Hear me weep.

  125. 125
    AhabTRuler says:

    @stuckinred: Have you ever seen Apocalypse Now Redux? Especially the added scene at the rubber plantation with the French colonials (and where Willard smokes opium ;-) )?

    I actually found that scene to be more interesting than most of the rest of the movie.

  126. 126
    eemom says:

    ahem….

    John Cole, afternoon:

    Whatever happened to debate and just being able to disagree?

    John Cole, evening:

    Just pure idiocy.

    Jussayinzall. : )

  127. 127
    stuckinred says:

    @AhabTRuler: Yea, I thought it was really interesting that the woman in the plantation scene had NEVER seen her work in the film until then.

  128. 128
    AhabTRuler says:

    @stuckinred: I didn’t know that.

    In general, I felt that the scene reconnected the story with its roots in Conrad’s work and the Colonialism that drove the exploitation of the Belgian Congo. It’s an essential part of both stories that I felt was missing from the original film.

  129. 129
    stuckinred says:

    @AhabTRuler: Frank didn’t like the lighting.

  130. 130
    stuckinred says:

    @AhabTRuler: Have you seen the documentary on the making of the film shot by Elanor Coppola? Heart’s of Darkness

  131. 131
    stuckinred says:

    @stuckinred: Documents the sensational events surrounding the making of ‘Apocalypse Now’ and Francis Ford Coppola’s struggle with nature, governments, actors, and self-doubt. Includes footage and sound secretly recorded by Elanor Coppola, wife of Francis.

  132. 132
    AhabTRuler says:

    @stuckinred: I’ve never actually seen it. I tend to try to avoid making of and behind the scenes type stuff, although I know that AN was a special case.

  133. 133
    Steeplejack says:

    Okay, ESPN is just screwing with me. Now they’re back to the Braves-Phillies game, after half an hour of game-surfing and chatting in the studio. This game is 0-0 in the eighth, and it means something. What’s not to like?!

    Hell. Back to studio chat now. WTF?!

  134. 134
    stuckinred says:

    @Steeplejack: Jesus this is a great game. Infante just made an amazing catch with runners on 1st and 3d. Oh, 3 hits for the Phil’s.

  135. 135
    stuckinred says:

    @Steeplejack: I don’t get what feed you have?? My ESPN has it in “special coverage” right now.

  136. 136
    Elie says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    It is, without a doubt, the most challenging of times. I am rendered almost speechless anymore with how to think about our insanity.

    Make no mistake, the insanity is not just in the public and political arena, but throughout much of our society and its institutions. \\

    One can only hope that we are in some transitional period of delirium — some withdrawal from the toxic effects of the Bush and prior years, to which we cannot do

  137. 137
    Steeplejack says:

    @stuckinred:

    I’m seeing Baltimore-Boston on ESPN right now. ESPN is dead to me.

    And this is my “main” ESPN channel. I’m on Cox Cable in NoVa (outside D.C.).

    I think you live somewhere where you got Braves-Phillies as the main game for tonight. I got Rays-FTFY, but since that hit a rain delay I have gone down the Floyd hole.

  138. 138
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Three-nineteen:

    Maybe so. Sully is bad about writing things while angry, and GLBT people are royally pissed around the country right now. Expect more of this. It won’t make much sense, and I am guilty as charged, but angry people say things they wish they hadn’t when calmer. In other news, dog bites man.

  139. 139
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Amanda in the South Bay:

    Yes, just look at his comments from the Fall of 2007 when Barney Frank stripped trans people from ENDA. Doesn’t want us gender weirdos from muckying up the good name of white upper middle class gay men.

    That.

  140. 140
    Mike in NC says:

    Maybe Sullivan has finally come around and gone back to his roots, like when after 9/11 he loved George Jesus Bush with a burning passion, and denounced the “coastal elites” who were all traitors rooting for Osama.

    And circumcision is bad, also too.

  141. 141

    Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal is in the Defense Authorization Act. It’s already in there, and its opponents don’t have the votes to remove it.

    The Defense Authorization Act is ultimately going to pass. It’s the damn Defense Authorization Act!

    This is not over – and I don’t mean “someday soon,” I mean this particular fight, inthis legislative year, in the still-to-be-passed Defense bill.

    We can still win – in fact, we still hold the superior position. Everybody stop the doom-saying.

  142. 142
    burnspbesq says:

    @Amanda in the South Bay:

    Sorry, but I thought at the time that that was the right call, and I still think it was the right call. Not because I don’t think trans people should be treated exactly the same as any other American in the workplace (I do think that), but because in 2007, everything about ENDA was pure political theater, and I wanted the most effective kind of political theater.

    The whip-count arithmetic was indisputable. The inclusive version of the bill couldn’t get out of committee. The exclusive version could get to the floor, where it would be voted down. I thought that the floor vote was a bigger stick that could be used more effectively to beat on Republicans in 2008.

    I don’t doubt that you were hurt by that decision, and I don’t doubt that you’re tired of being told to take one for the team. And when it becomes possible to pass ENDA, it should be the inclusive version that passes. But, sadly, we’re not there yet, and I do think that what happened in 2007 moved the ball a few yards in the right direction. People who were paying attention and thinking clearly got their consciousness raised. That’s not a unicorn, but neither is it a shit sandwich.

  143. 143
    Binzinerator says:

    @Mark:

    what you find is that gay white men probably vote 40-45% R

    No wonder it’s been a slog. Damn near a majority (just add 6% to the upper end of that range) want to be second class citizens, want to be forced in the closet.

    I have little respect for gay repubs. Mostly pity. Or contempt.

    I once knew this ex-marine who would say this to other men who gave him a hard time about being openly gay: “I’m gay. And there’s two things I like to do: Fight, and fuck. And if you don’t like my being gay I’m going to make you pick one.”

    Ya think he was republican? Ya sure.

    If I had a son who was gay, yes I would pretty damn proud of him when he came out but I would be just busting with pride if he could do what that man did. It takes some big balls to come out. It takes two big brass ones to do what that marine did.

  144. 144
    burnspbesq says:

    @Steeplejack:

    I have access to streaming audio and video of every out of market game on my iPad thanks to MLB AtBat. Steve Jobs is your friend, and he wants you to be happy.

  145. 145
    Steeplejack says:

    @burnspbesq:

    I’m sure he does. Thanks for the tip. But (at this point) I don’t want to watch TV on my iPad; I want to watch TV on my TV.

  146. 146
    Frankie T. says:

    If you’ve been reading AS for the past year or so you know he’s got the Tea Party pegged as a right-wing temper tantrum that the Republican party is using for electoral octane. So I thought it was ironic that Andrew’s outburst about voting for Angle over Reid perfectly expressed the kind of inchoate anger and irrationality that animates the Tea Party. Different ox getting the gore, but the impulse to lash out and tear something down in helpless rage is the same. After he recovers, maybe Andrew can give us some insight into how to talk our fellow citizens in the Tea Party back from the brink.

  147. 147
    Alex S. says:

    Sullivan simply hates Democrats. He grew up with this hate because he felt instinctively affiliated with the Tories and so he hated Labour, then he transformed this hate into the american polticial system when he moved over. And since he deems himself an intellectual – but in reality, it’s just pride – he is unable to lay off this hate against the Democrats, because it would mean than he somehow, somewhere made a mistake. And so, no matter how much he argues in favor of Democrats, how often he calls Obama a conservative, how much he tries to convince himself, he won’t change his opinion, because it would be admitting he was wrong about something essential. This is also why the republican base is so isolated, mentally. It’s ironic that Sullivan himself discussed the “epistemic closure” so often without checking himself.

  148. 148
    Bulworth says:

    Sully hates the HRC for some reason. Can’t figure out.

  149. 149
    cleek says:

    @Midnight Marauder:

    The entire point is that he allows himself to get worked up over things that are demonstrably false or gross distortions of reality, and he proceeds to speechify about the issue as though his position has legitimacy.

    i’m not getting that impression from what he wrote.

    seems to me that he has real cause to be mad at the Dems.

  150. 150
    agorabum says:

    Sully had a “green lantern” theory of repeal.
    Sure, more than 90% of the democrats voted for repeal.
    And all the republicans (100%) voted against repeal, even the ones who has previously said they backed repeal.
    Instead, he’s mad that the democrats didn’t “lobby harder.”
    If they had just exerted more willpower, you see, then those republican votes would have magically become for repeal, because if you want something bad enough, the republicans change their minds.
    A tried and true pattern these last 18 months; never fails.
    That’s why so many republicans voted for the stimulus and HCR. Democrats actually wanted that, with all their might.
    Not so much on DADT.

    Angry at the side that overwhelmingly votes for your interests… sounds like someone needs to officially become a Democrat!

Comments are closed.