Powered by TypePad

« Rudy Scores | Main | You Can't Say Kerry/Edwards Lack Optimism »

October 12, 2004


Frank IBC

Unless I've missed something, Andrew Sullivan, one of the loudest proponents of gay marriage, and part-time resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (which recognizes gay marriages) has yet to marry his longtime boyfriend. What utter hypocrisy.


No problem for me since I don't see how the Federal Govts. war on state marijuana initiatives could survive a strict constructionist approach.
Sorry the commerce clause wont do-see the recent "guns near schools" shutdown.

Mitch H.

You know, the last time I heard definitively from Mr. Sullivan on the subject, he was pro-life. Has he re-defined his "pro-life" stance along the lines of his new object of obsession, the good Senator from Massachusetts?

I suppose the question is hypocritical - I am, after all, a mostly pro-choice moderate who does not believe that fetuses are people - but one might say, takes one to know one. If he's sliding back into approval of abortion, I rather think that he ought to let on in a more direct fashion. Lord knows, I've been having second, demographic-related, thoughts on the subject recently...

Paul Zrimsek

In addition to being universally held up as an example of moral obtuseness, Dred Scott is also cited often by legal conservatives such as Bork and Scalia as an example of legal obtuseness-- this because (if they can be believed) it introduced to our jurisprudence one of their particular bêtes noires: the doctrine of "substantive due process".

Might that be what Bush had in mind? Who knows? But with the example of certain Kerry defenders to guide me, I plan to rant and rave about how, since Bush's remark can be interpreted that way, anyone who tries to interpret it any other way is a mendacious hack who's trying to twist his words for partisan ends.


Sooooo, Bush was telegraphing that there will be no appointments of jurists of the sort that pen morally, and perhaps legally, obtuse opinions? Due to the historical criticisms of the Dred Scott decision?

And Andrew Sullivan seems to have as many logically tortured policy straddles as Kerry (which makes sense), and therefore, is just as convincing.

Maybe the Daily Kosmos can contribute a compilation of the post-modern list of code words and definitions.

Cecil Turner

I stopped visiting Andrew because he's becoming every bit as shrill and unserious as those he used to deride. I decided to give him another shot, and managed to read his current tray down to where he quotes Kevin Drum as a reliable source on debate fact-checking:

It seems to me that Mark Halperin is correct. The distortions coming from Bush are markedly worse than those coming from Kerry. But decide for yourself.
Picking the first significant "lie" detected by Drum (Bush's, of course):
"I remember sitting in the White House looking at those generals, saying, 'Do you have what you need in this war? Do you have what it takes?'.... And they looked me in the eye and said, "Yes, sir, Mr. President.'"
He knows that's a lie because:
Eric Shinseki and several other generals expressed doubts about troop levels
The little fact that Eric Shinseki wasn't in the chain of command for OIF, and that those in the chain (e.g., Tommy Franks) are on record saying the same thing as the President, appears to elude him. There's more of the same, but nausea terminated my browsing.

To be fair, I think Kevin's main problem on defense issues is cluelessness . . . and Andrew is no smarter. But they're both fairly sharp as journalists, and the only way to support Halperin's biased position (that fact-checkers should be harder on Bush) is pure partisanship.

Gus M

To defend Sullivan on one point, it is not hypocritical to remain single. I bet there are a lot of single heterosexuals who support straight marriage. Does the fact that they aren't married make them hypocrites?

I do agree that, to a conservative like me, Sullivan has become nearly unreadable. I don't even think he realizes it, but his hatred of Bush because of the Constitutional amendment makes him not think clearly at all. His criticisms of Bush's handling of the war are from the right. How can he possibly think that Kerry would do a better job? (by adding 40,000 troops AND withdrawing within 6 months?) Add to that the fact that Kerry is on record as saying marriage is between a man and a woman, Sullivan's support for Kerry is strange.


If you're still wondering what lefties are calling partial birth abortion these days, it's: "a procedure opponents refer to as 'partial-birth' abortion."

Hope this helps.


Eqaul rights aren't the only issue with regard to gay marriage. A marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamental tenet of Judeo-Christian civilization. Allowing gay marriage (as opposed to civil unions) is a direct attack on the basis of our society. It is moving the goal posts from the original intent of the founders further down the road to complete secularism, and consequently ruin.


Late in the 2000 campaign, Al Gore said the following in a speech to a black church in Pittsburg, referring to Bush's answer to a very similar question about judges during a debate:

"When my opponent, Gov. Bush, says he'll appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, I often think of the strictly constructionist meaning that was applied when the Constitution was written -- how some people were considered three-fifths of a human being."

The moment Bush started to talk about Dred Scott, I was sure it was because this shameful, ignorant remark by Gore stung him.

Of course the 3/5's clause had nothing to do with strict constructionism, and was added by the northern anti-slave states to reduce the legislative representation of the slaveholders. The alternative was to count slave's fully in handing out congressional seats, even though they couldn't vote. And that would have significantly increased the slave states' power in Washington.

A report on Gore's speech from November 2000 is here:



I'm another one that deleted my bookmark to Sullivan's site earlier this year. As he became an almost single- issue writer, an issue that appears to inform and shape his views on all manner of other unrelated subjects, he grew tiresome and not worth the time to read.


lol. well done sir.

Gus M

Gus M: a "family values" activist who has been divorced, certainly meets my personal definition of hypocrisy. Likewise, someone with a political enthusiasm for the institution of marriage really ought to get married if said person has been living with their long-term significant other. I mean, I suppose there's an out if you're so personally loathsome that you can't attract a mate, but Sullivan doesn't have that out - it's pretty well-known that he has a long-term SO.


Oh if only President Bush could be so nuanced as to inject such elaborate deepth into this nations political discourse. Are you freaking kidding me? You just posted the most elaborate spin on a very simple statement. If you think the same guy who loves to remind us that politics is "hard work" has the mental dexterity to court the gay vote by citing dred scott right after roe v. wade you have definitely been drinking way too much GOP Kool Aid.


Something happened to Andrew while he was on vacation in August. Since he came back, and especially since he reported on the RNC convention, his spleen has burst and he has reduced himself to a shallow minded hypocrite.

Blind Hen

Al Gore: "When my opponent, Gov. Bush, says he'll appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, I often think of the strictly constructionist meaning that was applied when the Constitution was written -- how some people were considered three-fifths of a human being."

First, Al, that was and is the actual text of the Constitution as adopted. Has nothing to do with a strict constructionist view of the constitution.

Second, Al, the effect of the section you quote was to REDUCE the number of representatives in Congress from the slave holding states. If each slave had been counted as a whole person for the purpose of determining population, the slave states would have been more influential in Congress than they were. Those states might have controlled Congressional thought on the issues which led to the secession, there might not have been a war, and the institution of slavery might have lasted much longer.

You, Al, are an idiot. You always were.

Blind Hen

Sorry, Dave, I didn't read your Comment before I posted.

I was redundant.


rofl! "windbreaker" i love it. i guess i just have a base humor, but finishing off a longwinded and semi-serious piece with a reference to bodily functions makes me laugh everytime.


Why not just say that Judges should always be against the murder of babies? The Demoncrats love murder though, so they will always howl and scream for monstrous selfishness.


I agree with anon's terminology, above, but here are some other options they might try:

selective partial birth reduction
partial interference with a woman's right to choose
partial fundamentialist fascism
an unlegislatable article of faith

Richard Weddle

The actual name of the Marines was codetalkers.

Cecil Turner

Yes. Usually the "Navajo code talkers" (to distinguish them from the hastily improvised WWI version, who were Choctaw).

"You just posted the most elaborate spin on a very simple statement."

That's the point. It's precisely as valid as Andrew/Kos's "repeal abortion" spin, which is: not.


Why doesn't someone just ask him what he meant? Or is that too easy?

Al Maviva

Gus, that's just silly. I like pro football - yet I don't play it. Am I a hypocrite? I support the Administration on the Iraq war, yet I'm not in the military any more, so is my support somehow more easily discounted? Your argument has the same validity as the Dems' argument that if you haven't been to war, you can't be commander in chief. (An argument that I will note was mothballed between 1972 and 2000, and only recommissioned for the current war.)


My personal take is that it is not code at all. Bush just isn't a codetalker normally, right? I think it meant nothing more nor less than, essentially, "Judges can make enormously bad decisions that hurt people when they disregard the Constitution."

The President simply cited perhaps the worst example of judicial activism in our history to illustrate what he wants to avoid. That's not code.

For fun, try a look at www.courtzero.org/past.html


I know that there's been a little Andrew bashing here, but just wanted you folks to know. I too have limited my reading of Andrew Sullivan. Every time I think that it may be safe to re-enter his site, I get ultimately disappointed, angered, and frustrated. For the record, I am a pro-life, conservative gay man, who happens to be an attorney. Despite my disagreements with President Bush on the gay marriage issue, I support his re-election enthusiastically. In fact, for the first time in my life, I gave money to his re-elect. I didn't really understand the Dred Scott reference by the President, but I'm glad that I read the analysis here today. It makes sense now.


"partial birth abortion (I apologize for the inflammatory language - I know lefties are marketing the partial birth ban under some other term, but I can't for the life of me remember what it is.)"

anon is right on:

"a procedure opponents refer to as 'partial-birth' abortion."

Of course, they neglect to mention that EVERYONE ELSE calls it that, too - that's its NAME.

(Actually, what they retreat to is: "intact dialtion and extraction", which is the clinical name. Of course, that's like saying "shots" are actually "subcutaneous injections". Morons.)

Finrod Felagund

Heh. I've known Kynn (aka Kynn Bartlett) for a decade now, and he just turns into more of a psycho liberal loonball with each passing year. If Andrew Sullivan had any self-respect at all, he'd take down his journal before linking to a crackpot like Kynn.

As a mutual acquaintance once said about him (Kynn): "It's so much fun to see someone wake up from a comic book and twinkie induced stupor for several seconds, get a tiny glimpse of the workings of the real world, and utterly freak out."

The only honest thing that Kynn has ever written was his report on going to a Michael Moore meeting and reporting what he saw happen, instead of Moore's relentless self-serving spin. (For the record, it was the one where Moore was at a school and it ran late and the janitors wanted to lock up and go home.) Kynn's version of the story is here: http://kynn.com/politics/moore/


For code words, how about Kerry's usage during his convention speech? There was the kissy-kiss to Michael Moore: "I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation – not the Saudi royal family. "

And the wink-and-a-nudge to gay-marriage supporters: "let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States."

Barney Krebs

A minor historical note regarding Dredd Scott v. Sandford.

Here is the money quote out of Justice Taney's opinion on the case, to make a Sullivan turn of phrase.

They [African Americans] had for more than a
century before been regarded as beings of an
inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate
with the white race, either in social or political
relations; and so far inferior, that they had no
rights which the white man was bound to respect;
and that the negro might justly and lawfully be
reduced to slavery for his benefit.

The pro-life take on Dredd Scott v. Sandford is that Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade takes the same view of the unborn child as Justice Taney does of the African American in Dredd Scott v. Sandford.


you should have animals in abc's order

The comments to this entry are closed.