Saturday, September 11, 2004


You all know that I think Andrew Sullivan is a royal jackass, but this is the best. Look at his quote: "One wonders why this kind of piece isn't published by the Weekly Standard or National Review."

My question: What exactly is he implying? That the Bush campaign is buying off National Review and The Weekly Standard? That there is some sort of collusion between the WH and conservative media? I guess he also thinks that the National Review is a sellout mag now too, sort of the Smashmouth of conservative journalism, who is beholden to the corporate interests of its party-line subscribers instead of a principled ideology. But of course National Review is going to support Bush for re-election; what are the alternatives? John Kerry? Ralph Nader? As if those two would be more conservative in the traditional sense than Bush. And NRO has been critical of certain aspects of the Bush administration, like their outrage over Medicare.

I'm not claiming Bush is Ronald Reagan, but when you consider the tax cuts, his stand on abortion, the use of American force, No Child Left Behind, school vouchers, tort reform, then yes, Bush IS conservative.

My personal theory is that Sullivan is so angry about Bush's gay marriage stance (btw: anyone opposed to gay marriage is a bigot and homophobe) that he has revolted completely.


At 9:02 AM, Blogger Tortfeasor said...

I cannot tell you how many articles I have read on NRO and WS that have skewered Bush for his spending, Medicare, immigration, and campaign finance reform policies. This is just more pure BS from the now-irrelevant Sullivan. I can't believe his website is still up -- who is donating to this nut?


Post a Comment

<< Home