Redstate

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

He never has any useful thoughts on anything anyway. He's full of a lot of anger and...well...that's about it.

I stopped reading him a long time ago. Sully's a blogging pioneer, to be sure. But I'd forget he's still out there if people didn't link to him like this.

And of course he doesn't allow comments. He never will. Do you ever wonder why?

If so, go find the interview Hugh Hewitt did of him back when his book came out. He just doesn't stand up very well to being challenged. He gets unglued and angry very quickly.

It's kinda sad really.

MoRons are as welcome as anyone else to send fawning letters of praise to Andrew, complimenting him on his integrity as the I Am Legend of True Conservatism.

He'll print them.

LibertarianHawk states above that Andrew Sullivan is a "blogging pioneer" as a throwaway preface to noting his complete and total irrelevance in most blog debates of consequence. However, he didn't get his start in blogging, but rather with such one-way print publications as The New Republic. Someone with that background is not really a blog "pioneer;" someone who gained their voice -- and democratized the voices of others -- is someone who really deserves that label. Sullivan is/was a freelancing convert and a useful (sort of) big (somewhat) established name to paint on the blog bandwagon in its very early days to promote the idea's credibility. But he was brought up and trained in a very different world.

All of which I bring up -- as both a Daily Kos user (well, not so much for the last two years, I'm in Peace Corps at the moment and will be for another month) and RedState user (perhaps enough people remember me to avoid getting banned after outing myself as a DKos user) -- to note that the repetitious labelling of Sullivan as a "fake conservative" and a "far left" blogger in the "category" listing is unnecessary and off base, since the issue of hypocrisy and denial of commenting rights isn't political. Many blogs on both sides allow comments, and many blogs on both sides -- usually by "established" print publication names -- don't. Sullivan, whatever his feelings on his adopted form, is not utilizing the single most innovative aspect of the blog form besides ease-of-distribution by denying comment rights and the consequent interactivity. Clearly he is still a print commentator at heart.

So the issue isn't that he's a fake conservative or a liberal, it's that he's a fake blogger.

the general tenor of The Atlantic and the cultic muse of the average Ron Paul poster, let us wish them all well, now united in wedded bliss.

For those who have heard the Phil Hendrie Radio show, he has a recurring character (for those unfamiliar Mr. Hendrie plays the role of the host and in a variety of voices, plays the guests, with the outraged callers providing the true comedy). Anyway one of Mr. Hendrie's characters is a "Doug Danger" who constantly reminds the callers that he is a "gay man and a gay journalist". Therefore, everything is from the perspective of being a gay man/gay journalist. Doug goes to the movie? His review is from a gay man/gay journalist. Doug goes to the grocery store? He shops as a gay man and a gay journalist.
Such is the "real life" Andrew Sullivan. In true David Brock-fashion (although I don't know if Mr. Sullivan has "converted" or "seen the light" yet?), Mr. Sullivan poses as a "conservative", but of course a "Gay conservative". Presumably he must be against the alternative minimum tax and has of yet not called for the abolition of the military? therefore, in mainstream media eyes and by his own description, Mr. Sullivan MUST be a conservative "gay" man. What a farce! Mr. Sullivan is the living epitome of Doug Danger and should be seen for what he truly is. Namely a posuer who is obsessed with his love of sodomizing or being sodomized by another man and is no more a "conservative" than any of the red state Democratic Senators who pose as such in (at most) the last year of their current term in preparation for re-election.

Give Sullivan the benifit of the doubt. It may very well be the only thing he knew about this recent contraversy is what he read about in the media.

I am a US Marine Corps Veteran of eight years. I've served in many of the worst places imaginable during my enlistment. I now work for the largest defense contractor in the world. This is my second post on any site, but I felt compelled to say something. I'll probably be labeled as something negative, becasue it seems easier to discount anything disagreeable then to honestly evalute its merit. I believe wholeheartedly that my country has lost its way. With our constant fear of what might happen, we so easily give up the very freedoms that our ancestors fought and died to ensure. This fear has paralyzed many people, who I know have good intentions, into inaction. They sit like lumps of clay waiting to be molded by those in power and told everything will be ok if you just let "us" take care of everything. In this state of apathy, they have found themselves comfortable with doing nothing, making no decisions, and having to face no consequences. Many are not afraid to speak their minds in world-wide anonymity, as this site has proven, but when it comes to take action and face those who would seek to control without limits, only a few remain to fight for us all.

Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in his ruling of Olmstead V. United States (1928):

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

I am a registered Republican and have no affiliation other than as an American. I'm new at this online thing, so please be gentle.