Replies

There are certainly worse ideas. At this point there is nothing the more libertarian wing of the GOP can do to influence the nomination or the party platform. Some of the smart money is leaving the game early and thinking big thoughts about a Republican Party Reptile coup for 2008. Sullivan's "eagles" -- permissive on social policy, fiscally conservative, happy neocon warriors -- are looking at the nomination fight four years hence.

Dare we dream of a Stossel/Rice ticket in '08?

I've always suspected that Sullivan and Hitchens supported the war more because of their hatred of religious conservatism, and Islam is just the most extreme and threatening to their sexual libertinistic values. They certainly seem to share almost as big a hatred of Christian conservatives as if Islamists (even though there is absolutely no comparison because the latter support violence whereas the former do not). I've appreciated their support for the right cause, but I really wonder about their motives.

Sullivan's blog has become all but unreadable this last month or so, as more and more space is increasingly taken up with his peculiar idee fixe -- i.e., that the "right" of two grown men to register their silverware pattern at J.C. Penneys is the pre-eminent legal/moral issue of the day -- and less and less space to the urgent particulars of the abortion holocaust, the War on Terror, etcetera, etcetera.

He has squandered the right to be taken seriously by thinking men and women.

It's just as starkly simple as that. Damned shame, really.

All I can say to my dear Andrew Sullivan is that Life is NOT Perfect. On the Right you get the Social Conservatives.... but on the Left you get the ANTI Americans, wimpy when it comes to defending our country, hate the military, hate the war, anti capitalist Leftists. Geez, you mean Andrew would not be happy with a "civil union" for gays? The parts don't fit to call it a Marriage. Think about it!

Come back where you belong Andrew, and put up with the Social Conservatives. They're not half as bad as your leftist scumbag unAmericans.

I've been reading Sullivan for some time now, and yes, he has grown tedious. That said, I think what got his goat is the method Bush wants to use to "save marriage", i.e., a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and I'm with Sullivan, Neal Boortz, and others on this one. Anyone cognizant of the value of states rights to our union would oppose such an anti-if not un-constitutional event. No marriage license comes from the federal govt., they come from the state.

If two homosexuals wish their union to be recognized by the state, I think it's foolish, unnecessary, makes them look petty, envious, and small, will have consequences that will make them rue the day they made it legal, but for the life of me I cannot think of ONE right that it takes away from me, or ONE harm that it does to me, except the attemp to stop it with a Federal intrusion which always harms our very fragile governing framework by usurping powers which to me clearly belong to the states.

I will vote for Bush no matter how he plays this issue, as it is simply not pivotal for me, but, with as much "triangulation" as he has been doing lately, I think not co-opting this issue by giving in to at least civil unions is a political blunder which may help to install the Commiecrats in 2004.

I skip over most of his tedious gay marriage stuff.

As for his criticism of Bush, it's not any worse than most of what I read from freepers who still support W. I think he needs the criticism.

Like Sullivan, I have some huge problems with some of Bush's actions, but I am still going to vote for him. Bottom line: He's the one who will not surrender western civilization to the islamofascists in the name of the U.N.