See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On July 26th, 2004 at 1:33 pm, gawdamman said:

   Exactly….poor Andrew lost it over the gay marriage thing.

2. #2
   On July 26th, 2004 at 1:35 pm, Bob said:

   Sullivan writes as if nothing has changed since 9/11.

   The fact that Senator Kerry wants to return to a the “normalcy” of pre 9/11 and treat terrorism as something to be dealt with using police force and the law instead of a war using military force is enough reason to cast a vote to reelect George Bush.

3. #3
   On July 26th, 2004 at 1:37 pm, Ben said:

   I’d have a lot more respect for Andrew if he just said: “Look, I’m a single issue guy. If you’re opposed to same-sex marriage, I can’t support you.”

   Instead, he tries to pretend that he’s making a “conservative” choice in the election, in a piece so blindingly silly that he doesn’t even seem to believe it himself.

   C’mon, guy. Who are you fooling?

4. #4
   On July 26th, 2004 at 1:41 pm, HowAboutThis said:

   well said.

5. #5
   On July 26th, 2004 at 1:48 pm, kdeweb said:

   On what planet or alternate universe is John Kerry conservative?

6. #6
   On July 26th, 2004 at 1:48 pm, Jay Solo said:

   I’ve long wondered WTF with respect to Andrew’s fundraising, and plaintive pleas to donate so he can afford to keep the blog going. Not only that, but an assistant?

   We’ve come to a decidedly un-PC conclusion that he must count the cost of his drug regimen as part of the cost of blogging.

7. #7
   On July 26th, 2004 at 1:56 pm, John said:

   It is the beginning of the end of Andrew Sullivan.

   There is just no recovery from his lies to his readers re his phony pledge drive and phony argument about Kerry being the conservative choice.

   He’s not even a good liar. His motives are so transparent. Shame on him!

8. #8
   On July 26th, 2004 at 1:56 pm, jeff said:

   It’ll be interesting to watch all the lefty blogs that have ripped Sullivan apart for the last however many years all gleefully jump up and down over this.

   I call it the “Drudge Principle”. Ninety percent of the time, it’s always “oh, well, consider the source. it’s just Drudge”. But when Drudge or Sullivan say something the left likes, they can’t link to them fast enough.

9. #9
   On July 26th, 2004 at 1:59 pm, Laurence Simon said:

   Since Andrew Sullivan is begging for cash, I’m sending 10 bucks to Charles Johnson.

10. #10
    On July 26th, 2004 at 2:03 pm, joel said:

    oh yeah – this should not be a surprise. He’s definitely a one-issue kinda guy, but that’s okay… most of the Democrats’ supporters are one issue kinda people – Anybody-but-Bush.

11. #11
    On July 26th, 2004 at 2:05 pm, jeff said:

    One other thing regarding Sullivan is that if he’s going to constantly cry poor, he might not wanna keep talking about how he spends half the year in DC and half the year at his beach house in Provincetown.

    I know he refers to the place as a “shack”, but most of his readers probably don’t have a second house at the beach, shack or not.

12. #12
    On July 26th, 2004 at 2:06 pm, Valerie said:

    The tragedy is that John Kerry is not going to give him one thing he wants – not gay marriage (he can’t afford to buck the socially conservative African-American wing, which resents any comparison of their civil rights struggle with that of gays), not a more secure society, and certainly not fiscal discipline. I have supported him financiall in the past, but no more.

13. #13
    On July 26th, 2004 at 2:11 pm, Monkey Boy said:

    This begging for funds is a scam. He probably pays for his beach shack with them. He could easily offset his website costs with some blog ads. Hell maybe Kerry/Edwards will buy some from him.

14. #14
    On July 26th, 2004 at 2:19 pm, Hogarth said:

    I stopped reading Sullivan quite awhile ago. I tried checking in periodically every now and then, but quickly remembered what drove me away in the first place: entrenched mainstream media trying to pass as a blogger. His single-mindedness re: same sex marriage wasn’tquite the last straw, the pledge drives were. I also saw the eventual swing to the Kerry side coming a mile away. It was well telegraphed.

15. #15
    On July 26th, 2004 at 2:19 pm, Peg K said:

    Ben’s right.

    Sullivan probably doesn’t realize it (the worst lies are the ones we tell ourselves) – but the issues of gay rights and gay marriage have turned his formerly excellent judgement to mud.

    Too bad. Sullivan’s smart, a super writer, and on many issues, fair and balanced.

    I support everything that Sullivan does. But I appreciate that those issues do not exist in a vacuum – and that getting to the promised land sometimes takes more time than one wishes.

    Too bad, Andrew. I remember when….

16. #16
    On July 26th, 2004 at 2:26 pm, Jeff Harrell said:

    Hey, it’s going around. I’ve got a begfest of my own. Thing is, I’m asking people to put a buck in my Paypal account if they like what they read. Which would have netted me a cool $1,200 bucks last week if every visitor to my site had chipped in.

    Apparently I have set my sights way, way too low.

    From now on, I’m going to fund-raise the INDC Journal way. The minimum donation is goin’ up to $1,000 dollars. Come on, people. I’ve got serious bandwidth to pay for here. Only the best. That’s right. Top-quality China White—er, I mean bandwidth. Top-quality bandwidth.

    Give ’til it hurts! Then keep giving, because sooner or later it’ll make you feel better. Or so I’ve heard.

17. #17
    On July 26th, 2004 at 2:37 pm, paralloyd said:

    The bandwidth fundraising scam is rampant. Chowhound.com has been doing the same thing for four years without raising nary an eyebrow (meanwhile promising to improve their lousy software). Maybe someone should report them to the IRS and then report them to the FBI for internet fraud.

18. #18
    On July 26th, 2004 at 2:42 pm, jack white said:

    I have always liked Andrew, but the timing of his pitch for donations seems suspicious. I can’t help but believe that since he has embraced his newly minted “conservative” candidate John Kerry, he anticipates left-wingers will shower him with funds.

    I fully expect he is right and they will, btw.

19. #19
    On July 26th, 2004 at 2:53 pm, Expertise said:

    I’m not even gonna hate…if there are people THAT stupid to give money just for him to keep his blog going, then that’s their problem.

    The man has no integrity, true…but that’s still stupid. Why the hell you are going to give money for information you can get for free from any blog? That’s stupid.

    Hell; if I could make high 5 figures every year just to write a blog, I’d do it. I definitely would not be working at my current job today.

    http://expertise.blogdrive.com

20. #20
    On July 26th, 2004 at 3:00 pm, clark said:

    “On what planet or alternate universe is John Kerry conservative?”

    The same one that George Bush and the Republicans are.

21. #21
    On July 26th, 2004 at 3:29 pm, sky king said:

    Is Sullivan pulling a slow-motion David Brock move?

22. #22
    On July 26th, 2004 at 3:35 pm, Steve said:

    Andrew truly suffers from a “blind spot” regarding gay marriage. Most bloggers do. (Mention the word “Wonkette” to a blogress we all know and love and I guarantee she’ll break out in hives.) Why this becomes a blind spot is Andrew’s irrational response to the spectrum of issues. Does he actually think that gay rights will become better/worse no matter who is President? If Bush is elected the Senate will prevent any backsliding on rights, and the same senate will not allow Kerry (if he were inclined – which he is not) to promote a “pro-gay rights” agenda. This effectively becomes a non-issue, so base your vote on something – anything – else.

    Alas, Andrew, still one on my favorite reads in the blogosphere, simply cannot get to that point.

23. #23
    On July 26th, 2004 at 4:05 pm, Brett said:

    Ditto Peg K. I still read Sullivan and agree with much of what he says. But to see his hang-up on the FMA issue slowly force him to fake the conclusion that Kerry is the conservative choice this year is just too much. I found myself just shaking my head at that entire article. Pre-9/11 notions of terror? Renewed UN obeisance? That is the “normalcy” to which we should return? Wow.

24. #24
    On July 26th, 2004 at 4:06 pm, John said:

    An increasing problem with AS is that he is beginning to be a “black helicopter” guy: everything is a conspiracy to him to keep gays down. Yawn.

    He also has been doing his best Michael Moore by cutting and pasting random facts to make his points. He’s lying to his readers to further his fundamentalist gay agenda.

25. #25
    On July 26th, 2004 at 4:25 pm, jack white said:

    I do find it amusing that someone who takes such pleasure in bashing fundamentalist Christians employs the tactics of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.

    Those cards and letters will soon roll in from all those conservative Kerry supporters.

    Amen.

26. #26
    On July 26th, 2004 at 4:29 pm, Jeremy said:

    True, George Bush isn’t a traditional conservative, but he never claimed to be one – he’s a “compassionate conservative”, which seems to be mean one who spends like a liberal on social programs. But even so, there is no way Kerry is more conservative than Bush. Not even close. He’s not even more conservative than Ted Kennedy.

27. #27
    On July 26th, 2004 at 4:55 pm, Athos said:

    What an interesting analysis of the pledge drive…..I wonder if AS will actually take the time to attempt to explain it – as he is doing now to spin his endorsement and rebutal to those who believe he is a one issue person.

    I declined to contribute to his last pledge drive – and did my part to reduce the frequency I viewed his site from daily to weekly. Given his latest rants, and this, I may soon regulate him to monthly if that. Too bad he is making himself irrelevant.

28. #28
    On July 26th, 2004 at 4:57 pm, Steve Fye said:

    I wondered if I was the only one to think Andrew was going too far away – I deleted him from my favorates this morning.

29. #29
    On July 26th, 2004 at 5:05 pm, Daniel said:

    Fundraising issues aside, Sullivan’s attackers are overlooking something. There are good arguments that Kerry would be a conservative choice in the coming election. Certainly, the current administration is not an obvious convservative choice, with its blatant disrespect for state’s rights, nanny-state tendencies and the expansion of federal government and accompanying spending explosion. Maybe gridlock is the most conservative choice in this election. Just depends on what you mean by conservative, I guess.

30. #30
    On July 26th, 2004 at 5:08 pm, John said:

    Steve Fye,

    A lot of people are noticing. The folks at National Review are losing patience with him as are other conservatives, as this site evidences.

    I agree with Sky King that AS is getting ready to pull a David Brock.

31. #31
    On July 26th, 2004 at 5:22 pm, jack white said:

    There are good arguments that Kerry would be a conservative choice in the coming election.<<<<

    Daniel:

    You make a distinction Andrew doesn’t. You refer to the CHOICE as “conservative”, not Kerry himself. Andrew, in either the most contorted logic imaginable or, as I fear, as an act of intellectual dishonesty to generate left-wing funds refers to KERRY as “conservative”. Your point, Daniel, is at least debatable.

    It is sad, and I’m afraid those who see a David Brock moment may be onto something. I hope they are wrong.

32. #32
    On July 26th, 2004 at 5:34 pm, Tom the Redhunter said:

    Andrew Sullivan is…mercurial. He floats all over the political spectrum.

    A year ago I was an avid reader of his site. He concentrated on the war on terror and at the time was brilliant. However, as some previous commentors hav noticed, he’s let the gay “marriage” issue completely dominate his thinking. I hardly go to his site at all anymore.

    And as someone noted previously, being a single-issue voter is ok IF you would only acknowledge it. Andrew goes through all sorts of contortions to “prove” that Kerry is a conservative. He does not succeed and fools noone. It will be interesting to see what the lefties say about it, though.

33. #33
    On July 26th, 2004 at 5:34 pm, Professor Kaos said:

    Rather than donating money to one note Andrew, why not throw a little support to the Protest Warriors?

    http://www.protestwarrior.com

34. #34
    On July 26th, 2004 at 5:38 pm, Daniel said:

    The civil tone of your response, Jack, is appreciated, but I don’t think your point is valid. I could try to defend Sullivan’s intellectual honesty. I could try to list all the examples Sullivan provides of Bush’s nonconservatism, but I don’t need to. Sullivan’s blog has it all, from Bush’s nanny-state tendencies to his disrespect for states’ rights (and this disrespect goes beyond the issue of gay marriage). Under the circumstances, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to examine closely the alternative, which in this election happens to be Kerry. As far as I can see, Sullivan’s been doing this for a long time. I know that my office mate, a major hawk and conservative, got frustrated with Sullivan more than 8 months ago over just this sort of dithering.

    As for the fundraising, Sullivan’s attackers have a point. He shouldn’t ask for money for bandwidth, and he should fix the phrasing. Maybe he’s not that technically literate to know how silly it sounds. Maybe. But what’s wrong with asking for money for the obvious hard work he puts into the blog? Not to feed the Sullivan sellout conspiracies, but just this morning Glenn Reynolds suggested that Sullivan go on NPR because Reynolds saw his his tip jar fill up during this morning’s appearance on the excellent Brian Lehrer show. Money isn’t red or blue.

35. #35
    On July 26th, 2004 at 5:50 pm, Kong said:

    Bush on his most libral day is still gonna be more conservative than Kerry, ever.

    Kong

36. #36
    On July 26th, 2004 at 6:09 pm, jack white said:

    Daniel,

    I strongly disagree. What Andrew has done is the oldest, most intellectually dishonest tactic on earth–twisted facts to fit a theory. Not to reduce this to a bumper sticker, but what someone else posted is true. Bush on his most liberal day is more conservative than Kerry. Despite the binge spending, Bush’s firm commitment to national defense and intelligence matters makes him far superior to Kerry (and you don’t have to be conservative to accept this viewpoint). Both men have records; this is most unfortunate for John Kerry on the main issue of this election.

    As for Andrew’s fundraising, I don’t have a clue but my glib remark earlier that it smacks of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker wasn’t totally in jest. Since I don’t have facts to back this up, though, I won’t make as blanket a statement as I do about the incredible assertion Kerry is the conservative in this race. I know it isn’t true, you know it isn’t true and–this disturbs me–Andrew has to know it is true, as well.

37. #37
    On July 26th, 2004 at 6:23 pm, vanyogan said:

    What’s up with Sullivan raising funds on the very week he decides to cross swords with many of his readers? Is he being funny? Or is he trying to pick-up funds from those non-conservatives who now support him, namely the ABB crowd?

    What’s up with that Andrew?

38. #38
    On July 26th, 2004 at 6:56 pm, Ryne McClaren said:

    Or Andrew can just ask for money and people can freely give it to him. What in the hell is the big deal?

    I don’t plan on giving him any, but it sounds to me like a lot of people are a little envious of his traffic and cash.

39. #39
    On July 26th, 2004 at 7:42 pm, Old Patriot said:

    I watched Andrew Sullivan go from someone I admired and respected to someone I skipped over to get to someone else I could at least read without losing my stomach over a two-year period. He’s not the first, and he probably won’t be the last, writer that has found that his philosophy and his financial success shaped by personal events. Life goes on. There are other writers, equally brilliant, equally talented, and far more in line with what I personally believe (right, Michelle?), whose writings appeal to me far more now than Andrew Sullivan. If I support anyone, it will be those whose ideas are closest to mine, whose writings best reflect what I believe, whose words best express what I wish to hear. If Andrew Sullivan can’t support himself on what’s left, that’s too bad. That’s how capitalism works, and we’re still a capitalist society – even if Andrew Sullivan and friends don’t think so, don’t like it, and want us all to change.

40. #40
    On July 26th, 2004 at 9:34 pm, BorderAgent said:

    I too used to read Andrew Sullivans website on a daily basis. My first stop was at Powerline and then I would take my time and go through all of their links, one of which was to Andrew Sullivans weblog.

    Then, slowly, he started talking about the ‘rights’ of gay people to get married and mocking conservative views on gay marriage. I asked the powerline guys to get rid of the link so that I would no longer be tempted to visit his site.

    They got rid of a link to his page awhile ago and since have added several other links, like this one to Michelle’s weblog. Now I can get my fix reading Michelle instead of Andrew. Too bad too, I enjoyed Andrew Sullivan even when I disagreed with him, until he became a one issue advocate.

41. #41
    On July 26th, 2004 at 9:38 pm, Matt said:

    I basically stopped reading Sullivan when he became a one-trick pony. I think he’s eating the seed corn of past accomplishment – sic transit gloria mundi.

42. #42
    On July 26th, 2004 at 9:46 pm, Fresh Air said:

    I too stopped reading Sullivan when he started doing cartwheels over the FMA. I would guess his traffic is way down if this blog’s commenters are any indication.

    As for him doing a slow turn into David Brock: Didn’t Brock originally write for the American Spectator? I mean you can’t get any further to the right than that. But old Andrew never really has left the reservation, still penning away at the oh-so-fashionable New Republic. He really is clever; he knew he would need his liberal friends if things got to cold out there on the right wing. Now they can take him back and give him a big squeeze and a noogie. Can you feel the warm fuzzies starting to return?

43. #43
    On July 26th, 2004 at 10:48 pm, Sekimori said:

    Not naming any names, but a certain hosting company would have been more than willing to cut Sullivan a hosting deal that would have made these little fund-raisers meaningless. Small wonder they never heard back on their reply to his query. Martyrdom is *so* much more profitable.

44. #44
    On July 26th, 2004 at 11:54 pm, The Liberal Avenger said:

    Andrew Sullivan, like Adam Clymer of the NYT, is a “first-rate a##hole.”

    He has long since been abandoned by all by the most delusional, knee-jerk liberals out there.

    Regardless of where we stand with regards to gay marriage or John Kerry (I give gay marriage a BIG THUMBS UP, btw, and John Kerry an unenthusiastic thumbs up…), gen-u-ine Liberals, the bi-coastal, educated elite, like myself, forgot about Andrew Sullivan years ago.

    You should, too.

45. #45
    On July 26th, 2004 at 11:55 pm, The Liberal Avenger said:

    P.S. I don’t really think Adam Clymer is a first-rate a##hole… Your boy-hero President said that and his arch-villain sidekick enthusiastically agreed with him.

46. #46
    On July 27th, 2004 at 12:10 am, onecent said:

    “P.S. I don’t really think Adam Clymer is a first-rate a##hole… Your boy-hero President said that and his arch-villain sidekick enthusiastically agreed with him.”

    Please! Got a link to back up that statement?

47. #47
    On July 27th, 2004 at 1:42 am, chris ashworth said:

    The day Sullivan mentioned his second favorite comedian is Bill Maher, is the
    day I lost most respect for his judg-
    ment and taste. How could anyone find
    Maher’s obnoxious, breathtakingly arro-
    gant personality pleasant and entertain-
    ing? To make matters worse, he gives
    true libertarians a bad name, when he
    claims to be one. Except for decriminalizing drugs and prostitution,
    Maher wants a very left-wing government.
    And who could forget, that on every epi-
    sode of his former ABC show, he deliber-
    ately would stack three lefties and him-
    self against one tormented conserva- tive? If Sullivan were truly a Reagan-ite, why would he condone and enjoy such blatantly unprofessional and classless treatment of his own kind?

    Sullivan is either very confused, very
    beaten down by radical gays, or a very
    slick and shady character. Or perhaps
    he’s all of the above.

48. #48
    On July 27th, 2004 at 2:01 am, Sydney Carton said:

    Sullivan IS losing readers. On average, he used to get around 80-90 thousand people per day, sometimes in the mid-90′s.

    http://www.truthlaidbear.com/TrafficRanking.php

    Now, he’s in the mid 50′s. Glenn gets almost tripple the number of readers Sullivan does.

49. #49
    On July 27th, 2004 at 2:44 am, JimK said:

    I lease a fairly good server. Dual Xeon, big drives in a RAID, etc. It costs about $3200 per year.

    That bandwidth estimation is WAY off, BTW. I did 120GB in one day earlier this month. I’m set to do about 500GB this month. HOWEVER…

    My allotment is 1.2 terabytes per month, so I could not care less. And that’s for the same $3200.

    If Sully really was using the money for a server…he’d have to be running a server cluster, at Rackspace (the most expensive host I know) and doing 3 to 6 terabytes a month at their extortionist rates.

    I’m not going to call the man a liar. I’m just stating that I *know* traffic, I pay through the nose and I track every bit and byte.

50. #50
    On July 27th, 2004 at 3:29 am, Brian said:

    Sullivan is a flaming homosexual first and foremost. Everything in his life and opinions are based on his homosexuality. He doesn’t give a damn about terrorism or anything else but gay rights. He is HIV-positive, and yet has given nothing more than tepid approval to Bush’s $15 billion initative. I guarantee you it isn’t liberals giving him that kind of cash. They can only spend other people’s money. Sullivan is a con man.

51. #51
    On July 27th, 2004 at 6:30 am, Urako said:

    Help poor Andrew conserve bandwidth.
    Don’t visit his site.

52. #52
    On July 27th, 2004 at 9:36 am, James said:

    I sent Sullivan a check donation some time ago. I’m still waiting for an email “thank you” which could have taken all of 30 seconds to write and send.

    And he’s still waiting for my second check.

53. #53
    On July 27th, 2004 at 10:00 am, The Liberal Avenger said:

    Onecent:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/910614.stm

54. #54
    On July 27th, 2004 at 10:05 am, The Liberal Avenger said:

    Jim:

    “Right Thoughts” moved 120GB earlier this month? It’s set to move 500GB this month? You mean “this century,” don’t you?

    It’s fun to play make-believe.

55. #55
    On July 27th, 2004 at 11:23 am, Baklava said:

    If you are under 18…..

56. #56
    On July 27th, 2004 at 12:19 pm, Carstairs said:

    I’ve never been a regular AS reader, so I can’t really comment.

    However, I will confess to being a one issue voter this election. I’m voting for the man who I feel will actually work to keep me safe in this country. No, I don’t agree with this man on every issue. But the fact that I do agree with Bush on several other key issues makes me even happier that I can vote for him.

57. #57
    On July 27th, 2004 at 1:31 pm, Martin Lindeskog said:

    I don’t understand why he hasn’t started with ads like Blogads or AdSense.

    Here is a quote from Mark Glaser’s article, ‘This Isn’t the Year’: Politicos Cynical on Net’s Role in Campaign Ads.

    “InstaPundit blogger Reynolds says that he’s made somewhere in the “low thousands per month” in BlogAds, with an art gallery being his single biggest advertiser, and The New Republic magazine coming in at No. 2. Political ads are still significant, he says, with Democratic ads outnumbering Republican ones.” (Online Journalism Review, 07/21/04.)

    Maybe Andrew Sullivan should swing by my EGO blog and read my post, BLOG @DVERTISEMENT (04/18/04)?!

    All the Best,

    Martin Lindeskog – American in spirit.
    Gothenburg, Sweden. (a.k.a the socialist “paradise”).

58. #58
    On July 27th, 2004 at 2:59 pm, TO'D said:

    Sullivan remains a relevant conservative ally. His intellectual firepower adds alot to our blogoverse, and frankly I think we all need to cut him a little slack. I’m not hitting his pledge drive this time either, but he feels personally burned by Bush’s constitutional amendment gambit. His writing on terror in the early days after 9/11 earns him a historical place in the blogosphere and while I agree he’s burning some of that capital these days, I’m not ready to go negative on him.

59. #59
    On July 27th, 2004 at 4:36 pm, SullyWatch said:

    Conservatives and liberals alike who want to make their displeasure with Sullivan known should contribute to our pledge drive instead and let Sullivan know you did.

60. #60
    On July 27th, 2004 at 4:42 pm, SullyWatch said:

    Excuse us, the HTML doesn’t work here. That link is

    http://sullywatch.blogspot.com/2004_07_25_sullywatch_archive.html#109096032661957864

61. #61
    On July 27th, 2004 at 5:04 pm, Marc said:

    I never enjoyed Andrew Sullivan’s work. He reeks of narcissism and is disconnected from the American people, as his support for Bush’s suicidal amnesty initiative shows. Also, his eruption over the whole gay marriage thing reminds me of Ellen De Generess’ (sp?) whole “coming out” thing, in which she forced her personal issues on the American people in an unfunny and obnoxious manner.

    But speaking of Bush and amnesty, how many people here are going to be voting for Bush despite the fact that his pandering to Hispanics is seriously undermining domestic security in an age of international terror? I will never vote for Kerry, but I hope he wins. Maybe then Republicans will wake up and put a real conservative up for election. In the long run, Bush’s defeat may prove good for the nation. His victory will not.

62. #62
    On July 27th, 2004 at 5:12 pm, Geeno said:

    Andrew who? I used to read him occasionally, but the guy was too schizophrenic. He seemed to be saying “I’m conservative, but I feel badly about it”. I myself am a died-in-the-wool liberal, but I do like to hear the other side make its case – you have to respect someone if you hope win them over, something some conservative commentators seem to have forgotten. Yes, yes I’m sure some liberals have too. Anyway, I digress. Aren’t BlogAds supposed to be the vehicle for picking the spare cash in these cases?
    Or better still ….
    Give ME $100,000 – I’ll blog anything you want! Even if I have to hold my nose while I’m typing!

63. #63
    On July 27th, 2004 at 7:27 pm, nikita demosthenes said:

    Andrew Sullivan gets fisked here.

    The URL is:

    http://nikita_demosthenes.blogspot.com/2004_07_25_nikita_demosthenes_archive.html#109090965047339569

64. #64
    On July 27th, 2004 at 8:11 pm, evariste said:

    Will someone explain “pulling a slow-motion David Brock move” to me? I’m not familiar with the reference. Thanks.

65. #65
    On July 27th, 2004 at 9:48 pm, Mikey in Texas said:

    I don’t buy the Sullivan bail-out (yet). I predict he comes back around at election time.

66. #66
    On July 27th, 2004 at 10:45 pm, nikita demosthenes said:

    “Pulling a slow-motion David Brock” is explained here:

    http://nikita_demosthenes.blogspot.com/2004_07_25_nikita_demosthenes_archive.html#109090965047339569

    Scroll down, especially, to the links on David Brock near the bottom of the post.

    In essence, it just means going from a lefty pundit to a righty pundit. Brock did it kind of overnight (and it involved a trip to a hospital psychiatric ward). Sullivan is doing it slowly, agonizingly, over at his blog. It’s not pretty. Perhaps more important, it’s internally inconsistent and illogical. He has, in essence, let one issue – “gay rights” – warp his logic on all other issues.

67. #67
    On July 27th, 2004 at 10:51 pm, nikita demosthenes said:

    evariste:

    … I guess I should say “pulling a David Brock” means going from a righty pundit to a lefty pundit…

    I’m getting confused. Ter-AY-sa Heinz is droning on in the background. Could we really have a first lady with a thick European accent? I suppose Jacques Chirac would say, “mon oui.”

    I should stay with what I know. I’m going to stick with posting pictures of Britney on my blog. It’s so much simpler…

68. #68
    On July 27th, 2004 at 11:30 pm, Posse Incitatus said:

    I’ve been reading Andrew for years, since back when blogging was this new thing. I stumbled on him early on and most of the time he seemed pretty sharp.

    Indeed, the funny thing was that even when he talked about homosexuality, he railed against the leftists who tried to force every gay person into the same ideology. It was refreshing.

    After 9/11 he was brilliant. But then he changed. Maybe it was FMA, or something in his personal life.

    Anyhow, I gave up on him about six months ago. More often than not I just got pissed.

    Since then I started my own blog and never linked to him – in fact I haven’t read him more than a couple of times since I started blogging.

    Here is my take on him:
    http://posseincitatus.typepad.com/posse_incitatus/2004/07/andrew_sullivan.html

69. #69
    On July 27th, 2004 at 11:36 pm, Captain Amerikkka said:

    Sullivan reminds me of someone whose mind is rotting away from Alzheimers. After 9/11, he was one of the best writers on what was facing America and what was at stake. He really fired my interest in blogs and I visited his site a couple of times a day. Like others commenting here, I rarely visit his site anymore.

    I understand that the FMA issue is very important to him and don’t care if he wants to hammer away at that, over and over again, as he has. I have no problem with his “pledge drives”, although, I’ve never believed his slightly histrionic claims that his site is a colossal financial burden. I just wish he would have said, “Hey, I want to be paid for my time,kick in a few bucks.”

    The total, 180 degree turn on Bush and the war effort, however, is disgraceful. I enjoy intelligent criticism but Sully’s been very short in that area for at least six months.

    I agree with someone else’s comment about Bill Maher. Sully’s praise of that revolting, arrogant imbecile is more offensive to me than anything he could ever say about gay marriage. Next thing we know, Sully will be singing the praises of Ted Rall.