Here's a REALLY excellent point by Andrew Sullivan...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, Sullivan wrote this:

The middle part of the country - the great red zone that voted for Bush - is clearly ready for war. The decadent left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead--and may well
mount a fifth column.

How Awesome!

______________________

Who Cares What Andrew Sullivan Thinks?

One annoying habit of my liberal brethren in the blogosphere is to seize on any harsh denunciation of the Bush administration by Andrew Sullivan as a breath of fresh air, or something. Look, there are moderates and open minded Republicans whose opinions we can respect and whose opposition to the Bush administration is more than welcome, but Andrew Sullivan is not one of those people. Andrew Sullivan is one of those people who, as Charles Pierce has suggested, should simply be shunned by all decent people.

In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, Sullivan wrote this:


The middle part of the country - the great red zone that voted for Bush - is clearly ready for war. The decadent left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead--and may well
mount a fifth column.


This is something he's so proud of that he's included it in the "greatest hits" section of his blog.

Sullivan was literally concerned that the "decadent Left" was plotting treason against the country, desiring to aid and abet terrorists. And, with this began the mission by armchair warriors everywhere to do what they imagined was their duty - to hunt down and destroy anyone who was insufficiently enthusiastic about whatever the latest Bush administration policy was. This warblogger mission was, in their eyes, a noble mission. At least as noble as, say, enlisting. Thus began the process of the marginalization of anyone who would seriously question the course of this "war on terror." Disagreement with the Bush administration became disagreement with "America." People who were "anti Bush" became "anti America" and "pro terrorist." . . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_09_05_atrios_archive.html

[meegbear]

1. I despise Sullivan ...

I won't even refer to him as "SullyBear" (only on this occasion), because I refuse to have him be associated with Bears.

Him and Dan Savage can both fuck off (and yes, that's how I really feel, so there).

[vi5]

2. Here's my take on Sullivan, but why I read him...

Don't like him. Don't like his views on about 80% of the things he writes about. I think he's culturally and politically the epitome of "the villager" that liberal bloggers like atrios post about.

That being said I think the majority of his opinions taken together are the epitome of the ill informed American moderate voter. And I find that more often than not he reflects in advance what most of my non political "independent moderate" friends and family think and how they see things.

This isn't to say that Sully influences them as they aren't aware enough of insider political media to know who he is even. Just that who he is, what he believes, and how he shapes is views is the same as a lot of so called moderate independents.

So if nothing else I read him to get a bead on where things are going with people like that in my life and to be prepared.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. I read him for the same reason

He is perfectly representative of the mind-set of "conservatives" who are conservative only because the communist kids picked on them in college.

His whole paranoid view of the left is based on equating people who want a higher minimum wage with French post-modernist literary theoreticians and -- most comically -- equating the modern Democratic party with the looniest fringes of the UK left circa 1984.

The Democratic Party is to the right of British conservatives on most things.

[cali]

4. I never seize on Sullivan, Buchanan, Scarboro, Matthews

or any of the other bloviators or talking heads. I prefer thoughtful. I'm much more interested in what folks writng in The New Yorker and Harper's have to say.