Tim Blair

Republicans have proved themselves to be the greatest spendthrifts ib history. Reagan was incredibly lax and Bush is possibly worse particularly since his party controls Congress.

It is ironic that the US President that has the best conservative credentials is Bill Clinton. He does has Newt Gingrich to thank as well.

Not a big fan of a moon base then?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the deficits of that drunken sailor Reagan no longer an issue by the mid-90's? Credit due Mr. Clinton on being an economic centrist (myself as a Republican constantly harped on my party to credit that at least), but weren't the deficits erased in large part by the Laffer Curve, i.e., lower taxes = primed economy = more wealth = more revenues = lower deficits?

We were told by many a doomsayer that our grandchildren would be paying Mr. Reagan's credit cards, yet there they were, paid off by mid-90's. Oh yeah, he also managed to win a (cold) war, prime the economy, and kick off the tech boom with that cash at the time to boot. Minor details though.

I love Sullivan, AND I can't object to some well-deserved brow-beating over spending, but he's getting to be a bit of a harpy over it.

Mr. Bush might be "buying" Republican dominance, which might be followed (2005+) by a battle within the party over spending, as well as libertarianism, the role of religion, etc, issues like that. But what we won't be arguing is the 20th century statism of the Democratic party. Bush will have killed it.

That alone is worth a lot of borrowing. Prime the economy, fight the war, win that home-front battle, and THEN start beating the credit cards back down (again). Might not be a bad deal overall by 2010 or so. And maybe we'll look back on these "horrendous deficits" like we look back on Reagan's... a temporary issue at best.

Thought I'd never say this, but he crossed the line here. Also thought he would never need reminding that 9/11 was pretty friggin expensive, and it took fed spending to dig us out of a recession fuelled by 9/11..

His tiff with National Review over gay marriage is coloring the rest of his language, and this "I'll vote for the democrats" threat is pissin' me the fuck off..

I'm ashamed to have dropped a penny in his tip jar.. in fact, things have gotten worse since I donated: His site downloads slower now, He's perpetually sick, his pass off to Glen Reynolds was a refreshing break from his bitchy cat blog..

And his short-sited stance on the space initiative sounds like the democrats attack on tax cuts..

-tax cuts bring rising tides of revenue..
-agressive space goals bring rising tides of tech innovation(aka: economic stimulous)

This will be Andrew's dixi chick moment..

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the deficits of that drunken sailor Reagan no longer an issue by the mid-90's? Credit due Mr. Clinton on being an economic centrist (myself as a Republican constantly harped on my party to credit that at least), but weren't the deficits erased in large part by the Laffer Curve, i.e., lower taxes = primed economy = more wealth = more revenues = lower deficits?

Yes and no. The Laffer Curve is real but the biggest boost to deficit reduction was the economic bubble fueled by the dot.coms that was destined to burst. The deficits were bound to return no matter who was President.

I do have a problem with Bush's reckless spending habits. I tend to be in favor of divided government for just that reason. When one party controls Congress and the other the White House it tends to curb the worst instincts of each party. Unfortunately since the 2000 election and 9/11 the Democratic Party has been in major meltdown and can't be trusted with the reins of power in any branch. I'm hoping that a big loss in 2004 will help them get their act together and return as a legitimate opposition party.

I've been wondering for a while now when Mr. Sullivan was going to join the dark side and be done with it.

I'd be surprised if it wasn't before this election is said and done.

Myria

Well, no one can argue that Bush hasn't been irresponsible with spending. That's irrefutable. Just a complete abdication of any thought of fiscal restraint (although as we Yanks know, the real problem is the unfunded liabilities we have with Social Security and Medicare - $27 trillion over the next 40 years - that's two-seven trillion shortfall in those two programs alone).

But all of the Democratic presidential candidates complain that he hasn't spent ENOUGH money on education and healthcare and the environment and homeland security.

We've got a $370 billion deficit this past year and a projected shortage of about $450-480 billion this year. Of those two numbers, about $120-150 billion is directly attributable to Bush's tax cuts (all of 'em). So, roll back all of the cuts - as Dean wishes - and we're still in the red a good $300 billion. Roll back only the upper income cuts and keep the middle class cuts and we're still about $350 in the red (I think).

I just don't see where Sullivan can argue that the Democrats will reduce this red ink. Perhaps at the marginals. But nothing of significance. Their numbers - Dean, Kerry et al. - don't add up at all.

Where's that walking hand grenade with the bad haircut when you need him? (that's Ross Perot for our Aussie friends).

SMG

>Well, no one can argue that Bush hasn't been irresponsible with spending

I can. Bush is the President. He doesn't spend a dime. Congress does.

Presidents can recommend a budget, but Congress does the allocation.
You can argue that presidents cause surpluses/deficits all you want, but that's bullshit. Congressmen are not imbeciles and cannot abdicate their responsibilites to manage the purse strings by placing blame on the executive branch.

Oh, and deficits are fine as long as they are not too large with respect to the GDP and the money is allocated to things that grow the economy.

Goddammit, they're going to piss it away no matter what, and if it's going to be pissed away, I want it to be spent on large dangerous cool things that go into space.

Next Year on Olympus

>>Presidents can recommend a budget, but Congress does the allocation.
You can argue that presidents cause surpluses/deficits all you want, but that's bullshit. Congressmen are not imbeciles and cannot abdicate their responsibilites to manage the purse strings by placing blame on the executive branch.

Fine, so the Republican-controlled House, Senate, and Presidency are *all* respondible for the irresponsibility. Hell, that sounds even better.

Daniel:
>Well, no one can argue that Bush hasn't been irresponsible with spending

>I can. Bush is the President. He doesn't spend a dime. Congress does.>

Congress can't spend a dime unless the President signs the appropriations bills. Bush has a veto pen. He hasn't used it once. And before vetoing legislation, he can express his opposition to the spending in a bill. Send his Budget Director to the Hill to complain; give speeches to the people about an exorbitant piece of legislation.

Plus, where did Bush's proposals on spending differ from Congress? The President is required to submit a budget by law.

By your standard, Bush can't take credit for the tax cuts either. Or the success against al-Qaeda and Saddam. In both cases, he needs congressional funding authorization in order to purchase a single bullet.

This is, sorry, silly. I'm a Bush supporter but I won't drink the Clinton kool-aid for anyone.

SMG

It aint a surprise to me to see Sullivan goin all yella. After all aint he a Cathlic, a Brit and a Fag?

Please don't blame GW for recklessness without saving some scorn for Congress. All spending bills have to originate there.

I'm not excusing GW - he has yet to learn how to spell veto.

Neither party is exactly stingy. It would be an interesting exercise for some enterprising journalist or academic to tote up each party's version of proposed spending bills and see which one is higher.

>I won't drink the Clinton kool-aid for anyone

SteveMG, you think I'm a Clintonite? You're wildly off-track buddy. George Bush is my hero. If he declared a third party, the Bush Party, I'd happily follow. I don't give a damn about Republicans or Democrats.

It is true that Bush has not made any effort curtail spending. Why should he? At the time he entered office, we were running a surplus. A surplus is INSANE when the economy is down. Deficit spending has picked up the economy and funded our War on Terror. That stuff is about 1000X more important than a stupid number on a ledger account specifying the budget is "balanced".

Sure, my explanation about budgets above was a bit simplistic and over the top. I meant for it to be, for shock value. I get tired of the notion that some seem to feel as if we run a monarchy and elect a king every four years. A king whom everybody just watches or gripes at. Congress has full responsibility for the nation's budget no matter how much power and influence the president has over the process (which obviously he does).

If the deficits become too burdonsome, we will pay them down. It's not that hard (look at the late '90s). We are a TREMENDOUSLY WEALTHY nation. What is important is to grow the economy and provide for the citizens well being. That is what Bush has concentrated on, and I wholeheartedly support his efforts.

Criticism of deficits becomes invalid when people only won't to spend it some where else.

Some Aussie cartoonist did a cartoon about the war on Iraq in which a journo was interviewing an Aussie citizen after the war, and the citizen said "No, I'm not angry, I knew they were lying all along".

That is how I feel about the true costs of the space proposal. Sure, it will blow out like nothing else, but this is one area where I'm happy for the money to be spent.

As for the deficits, there's more than enough pork to cut. Eliminating the bloody criminal Farm Bill would get the Yanks to Mars with change to spare.

Andrew Sullivan draws a laughably misguided conclusion. As reprehensible as the Medicare bill was, the reality is that Democrats are out there calling for universal health care, a measure that makes the Medicare bill look positively humble by comparison.

Sullivan talks about Dean's balanced budget all the time, thus conveniently ignoring Dean's financial plans right now. Dean is calling for universal health care, a bill that will add hundreds of billions, if not a trillion, to government spending. Does anyone seriously believe Dean will then engage in a serious round of cutting back the government. How many federal agencies did Dean recommend to cut?

No, Dean threatens to turn the US into a copy of France. He'll be raising taxes and destroy US productivity. Anyone who thinks the US's 5.7% unemployment is bad should look at France, a country that has enjoyed double-digit unemployment for years.

Choosing the lesser of 2 evils is not exactly a motivating slogan to go to the polls. But it is patently false to suggest that the Democrats are a better alternative.

Some posters here wrongly chastise Reagan. Cutting taxes (Remember, the top rate Reagan inherited was 70%. By the time he left office, it was 28%), the defense build-up, and winning the Cold War aside (That's a large aside, isn't it?) Reagan vetoed 22 spending bills. The reality is, Reagan tried to cut spending. But all spending bills, according to the Constitution, must come from the House of Representatives, which for his 8 years was controlled by the Democrats.

Andrew X gave Clinton credit he does not deserve. What did Clinton do for the economy? Nothing but a large tax increase. The GOP Congress foisted an aggressive budget on him. He vetoed the budget 5 times before he signed onto it. It triggered a government shutdown. The reality is, Clinton fought the GOP Congress's fiscal conservatism with tooth and nail. After all, we're talking about the man who tried to impose HillaryCare, a plan that will effectively nationalize 1/7 of the US economy.

If this is fiscal responsibility, I don't want to imagine fiscal irresponsibility.

The economic statistics all say the same thing. The US emerged from the recession months before Clinton took office.

My understanding of the Laffer Curve is it is an 'n' shaped curve, the peak of which represents the tax rate at which governments will collect maximum revenue. Republicans have often argued that US tax rates are on the right hand side of the peak, meaning that lowering tax rates would result in more government tax revenue. It's not a good argument though. The revenue peak of the curve kicks in at high tax levels (80 or 90%), not at the more typical 30-50% tax rates seen in countries like the US and Australia etc.

Reagans experience backs this up. Revenue from income tax (were Reagan made some cuts) actually fell while he was president. Although total tax take rose, that is explained by the raising of other taxes such as sales tax.

What brought the 1980's deficits under control was raising taxes. Reagan did it in the latter part of his presidency, Bush I also raised taxes and so too did Clinton. The Laffer effect had nothing to do with it.

>Please correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the
>deficits of that drunken sailor Reagan no longer
>an issue by the mid-90's? ... weren't the
>deficits erased in large part by the Laffer
Curve ... We were told by many a doomsayer that our
>grandchildren would be paying Mr. Reagan's credit
>cards, yet there they were, paid off by mid-90's.

Uh-uh. You're confusing "deficits" and "debt." Deficits add to the debt; a balanced budget simply does not add debt (well, I suppose the portion of the balanced budget that goes towards interest pays it _down_ a bit...)

The debt is in the trillions. TRILLIONS. An analogy would be a household with several tens of thousands of dollars of credit-card debt. The Clinton administration got a "raise" (increased revenues from a booming economy), put away the plastic and made the minimum payments; the Bush administration got hit with a pay cut and major household repair bills, and put it on the Mastercard - along with new furniture, a new home-theater system, landscaping and a hot tub.

I'm not ragging on Andrew, and he's right about fiscal irresponsibility, but I suspect his "support [of] the Democrats" has less to do with that than with Dean's proven support for gay marriage (not that there's anything wrong with that...) Andrew's sexual identity is increasingly trumping his politics. Is he going to pull a Brock?

He's pretty short-sighted if he thinks the Democrats are going to do one positive thing for gay people once they're in power. The last time a Democrat tried to do something for gays, we ended up with "Don't ask, don't tell."

Kelly - taxes rose enough to balance the budget because the economy grew, not because tax rates were increased. The Dems all want to increase tax rates. No one ever taxes an economy into growing, so the consequences are predictable.

Sullivan claims “Fiscal conservatives really have no place to go any more. But if you had to pick, you'd have to support the Democrats.”

Except that the Democrats not only want to spend more (which is the opposite of fiscal conservatism), they also want to raise taxes (which is also the opposite of fiscal conservatism).

I agree that Sullivan's blog has gone downhill in recent months. It used to be daily reading; it is now perilously close to being deleted from my bookmarks.

?Fiscal conservatives really have no place to go any more. But if you had to pick, you'd have to support the Democrats.?

This makes absolutely no sense.

Uh... you do have to raise taxes if you spend more, unless you really want the economy to collapse.

Either spending more and raising taxes, or spending less and lowering taxes, will help. Spending less and raising taxes would put us back at Clinton-era economic strength. Spending more and lowering taxes is about the only way to seriously ruin a capitalist economy, and that seems to be the option Dubya has chosen. No surprise he was such a washout when he worked in the corporate sector.

I think Andrew's gone off the deep end on this one. He's been upset with Bush's fiscal policies for a while now, and he has a point, but electing a Democrat is unlikely to fix that problem. And given the way the leading candidates address the issues it's unlikely to result in anything resembling a successful foreign policy, either.

The Democrats will never approach being a rational party again until they can field one candidate who can run to the right on the sort of spending that's going on right now. However, it seems that it's impossible for any Democrat to say "We need to spend less money," instead of railing against tax cuts, even with the sort of outlays we're currenting seeing.

I still support Bush because the war is the overriding issue of the times. However, anyone who thinks a Democrat will spend less is, sadly, living in a dream world. It's true: Fiscal conservatives of all stripes are pretty much screwed.

Daniel:
>SteveMG, you think I'm a Clintonite? You're wildly off-track buddy. George Bush is my hero. If he declared a third party, the Bush Party, I'd happily follow. I don't give a damn about Republicans or Democrats.

Tatter,

While I tend to urge fiscal sanity, I disgree with your analysis. This assumes that the rates and revenues occur in a vacuum, which they don't. For example, I'd rather have 30% of a Trillion dollar economy rather than 50% of a 500 billion dollar one -- any many would argue that you get to the larger economy through the lower rates.

Also, as stated previously, deficits aren't always bad -- for example, when staving off a recession. However, as to your larger point, there does need to be a limit, and Bush doesn't seem to be willing to stay within it. I'm always amused by Dems who predict hunanitarian disaster whenever a Republican is in office. Since FDR, no one has come close to derailing the gravy train. Personally, I believe it's a matter of priorities, rather than amount -- what are you spending the money on. I'm ok with the space program and defense, but the medicare bill is a joke. I'm 34, one child and another one the way, mortgage, and both my wife's and my student loans, and I've gotta pay for the pills of someone who's had their entire life to save up and prepare for retirement. It's a crock.

Yeah, hard to understand Sullivan's logic here. The Dems beat the deficit drum as a basis for raising taxes, not cutting spending. Also, most of the dismal long-term fiscal outlook stems from Medicare and Social Security obligations, which the Dems would make even more extravagant if they could.

Sullivan must be on strongs meds for his condition, so I figure he had a bit too much to drink and had a psychotic reaction. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt because he's pretty good about everything except poo-nudging. (Stick it where you like, Andrew, but stop talking about it. Please)

What's interesting is the way the "sky is falling" deficit hawks have played this over the past 12 months. Started off as an article of faith amongst the Krugmans etc., that the shortfall would be $500 billion. As late as August the OMB was saying it would be $400-plus billion, but by year's end it was actually $380 billion-something due to increased tax receipts as a result of renewed corporate profits and surging GDP.

The important stat, I reckon, is the shortfall as a percentage of GDP, and that's not too alarming. There's an analysis by Standard and Poors from August that's still interesting.

"As a percentage of GDP, this deficit should be well short of the record 5.7% in 1983. And looking ahead, a stronger economy, along with a reduced deficit, should sharply reduce the deficit's share of future GDP. A deficit in line with our forecast in 2004 would pull the ratio to 3.5% of anticipated GDP. Even the OMB's increasingly unrealistic deficit estimate for 2004, when compared to our growth estimate, translates to 4.2% of GDP."

and this bit as well:

"Moreover, the prospects for an even larger deficit during 2004 are looking increasingly remote, notwithstanding the OMB forecast that the shortfall will balloon to $475 billion. We have left our forecast of a $400 billion deficit in place for 2004, but the risk is clearly skewed toward an even smaller amount of red ink, given the upside prospects for the economy."

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/aug2003/pi20030822_6863_pi031.htm

Sullivan is right that Bush is burning money. But he's still too shrill about it. If Democrats got the Hill back, they'd have bonfire.

Andrew Sullivan has, for quitw some time, been quietly setting himself up to justify an endorsement of Dean as a nomineee. Read over his site and it becomes obvious.

He knows how Dean 'balanced' Vermonts' budget, and all the damage Dean's policies will do--but, Andrew does tend to fixate on that one issue. And he can't seem to understand that, Democrat or Republican, that issue will come to pass. It's simply a matter of time.

I think a lot of you are nasty assholes.

Yes, Sullivan can start to lose detachment when he wades into the gay marriage debate ... but his criticisms of fiscal irresponsibility with regards to the Bush administration go back a long way. Some of the reactions on this comments section (not the intelligent ones) really smack of ideology - "how dare sullivan stray from the reservation?"

Give me a break. Sullivan is making an issue of something he thinks is important. It is perfectly clear from his earlier and very consistent writing that he believes that we are in a war for the survival of Western civilization. highly doubt anyone who believes tha could vote for DEAN.

And also, as for the homophobic remarks, especially the disgusting ones above: fuck off. (And I'm straight) It always annoys me when conservative forums casually ignore the bigots and dickheads in their midst, just because they agree on larger issues.

"the biggest boost to deficit reduction was the economic bubble fueled by the dot.coms that was destined to burst."

This reminds me of the argument that no country can sustain a export surplus because it would cause inflation. Sure it might be true over the long term but if you can run a surplus for 50 years or have a dot com bubble for 10 years then give me the bubble any day.
Take the asian crisis for example the countries blew a buble it burst they suffered a hard year and they promptly started blowing another bubble.
Boom and bust is a perfectly workable strategy.

Daniel:
"SteveMG, you think I'm a Clintonite? You're wildly off-track buddy. George Bush is my hero. If he declared a third party, the Bush Party, I'd happily follow. I don't give a damn about Republicans or Democrats"

Sorry for my poor choice of words. When I used the Clinton kool-aid metaphor, I wasn't referring to you. I was simply saying (or trying to say) that I wouldn't blindly defend Bush's policies the way many Clintonistas defended Clinton's policies. If a policy is wrong, it needs to be condemned no matter who advocates it. Similarly, if a policy is right, it needs to be supported no matter who advocates it.

Carville had an interesting (and revealingly funny line): "Defending the Clintons was like being in the Mafia. Once you're in it, you're in it for life."

Don't cross Mamma Hillary (or eat her lasagna either). Bada bing.

SMG

Before I reply to Bill, I need to correct my crappy initial posting.. (Pass off to Glen Reynolds) should read Pass of to "Dan Drezner".. I get those names mixed up often, and this after giving up canabis for two months now..

Bill.. Thanks for letting us all know you aren't gay.. Neither am I. But my observation that Sullivan has been oscillating between down right snooty and pathetically depressed in his latest updates..And it coincides with his war on National review.. (small aside) I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH ANDREW ON GAY MARRIAGE!..

in fact he changed my mind about it. which is why I am so dissapointed to see that he has become a one issue pony who is so bruised by those meanies at NR that he no longer gives Bush the benefit of cynical free analysis.

Not one friggin dime has been spent on the space initiative, and he's screaming bloody murder.. Most calculated analysts marvel at the moderation of the space proposals.. Andrew dismisses it right out the gates.. that kind of cynicism is more appropriate at move-on.org, not at what was once my favorite blog..

Bill, I may be one of the nasty assholes you're talking about. Sullivan's gayness doesn't concern me, nor probably any other poster who rankled you. Talk about your sex habits all you like -- but don't expect to be respected for it. Polite heterosexuals keep their preferences to themselves, and so should gays.

There are no longer any legal sanctions against homosexuality, hence Sullivan's problems in regard to the Church are of his own making. If he doesn't like Catholic dogma he should find another church (like the gay-friendly Anglicans) where he could be quite happy. If he thinks he can't leave the Church for doctrinal reasons, it speaks of inconsistency: He has to remain a Catholic, presumably, because he believes in transsubstantiation and the Anglicans only offer consubstantiation, the one major point of difference.

But Sullivan wants a mix and match religion -- a bit of this (he believes is 100% correct) but none of that (because it doesn't happen to suit him.)

The Church is a private club with private rules, and he's demanding that others who signed on believing in those rules now abandon them. It's selfishness, which the church tells followers to shun.

As for "poo nudging", you've every right to disapprove of it. It's vulgar, rude and nasty. But I wouldn't ask you to accept without comment or protest something you find reprehensible just to please me. That would make me too much like Sullivan.

As an atheist, you have no trouble convincing me that specific religions are private institutions which should be able to have clannish beliefs (boy scouts, catholic church, etc)- most of which i could give a fuck about. And it speaks to the power of early brainwashing, in my opinion, that so many disenfranchised memebers of these groups still cling to the shreds of religions that don't accept or really want them (gay catholics - really, what is the freaking point besides comfort with what you have always known?)

So yes, you have a point about how specifically Sullivan's debate gets a little shrill when he gets into an issue in which he has so many personal and requisitely confused ties. BUT - in many other ways I don't thing how he treats his sexuality is too egregiously "in your face" (he mentions "the boyfriend", so what)

I HAVE seen him slip, the subculture about "bears" may be a narrow-interest cultural phenomenon best saved for a more appreciative audience, for example.

But don't get started with terms like "poo-nudging" when you have an almost entirely reasoned debate about fiscal policy raging around you in an almost otherwise great comments section.

At the very least Sullivan doesn't deserve the vulgar slander - the guy has a mighty impressive body of work on so many issues.

And for the record, Sullivan did have a forum with gays and straights expressing a variety of opinions about gay-sex, and much of that opinion was well-said complete aversion and/or disgust by straight readers, who were honestly charting their reactions.

The dude just wants to get married and feel like a fulfilled and complete part of society. Shrug.

Write the "poo nudging" off to colourful Aussie vernacular. Vulgarity is part of our culture. Just ask the Opposition leader.

I've never liked Republican economics for a long time. That's why I haven't voted for one since 1984.

The only reason Bush will likely get my vote in 2004 is that there is now a bigger issue on the table than the economy, and the Democrats seem intent on being on the wrong side of that issue.

And for the record, I can see where his writing alternatelly suffers or shines when he talks about such a personal issue. I just don't think that his attacks on Bush's fiscal irresponsibility follow the conspiracy chain of logic being promulgated here that it is spurred by some growing warm spot in his heart for Dean. he was hitting Bush up on this topic many moons before Dean was in the picture.

As for the debates with NRO, both sides come off scathed in my opinion. Its interesting to see the religious creepies slither out of the wall in the corner when you've convinced yourself that strict constructionists and social libertarians were carrying a lot of the weight.

Oh, and you're welcome in letting you know that I'm not gay, by the way. I just didn't want anyone to waste their breath calling me a "poofter,' or taking my opinions down a peg because they declared me a "pillow biter," or some such pleasantry.

Sullivan goes off on a tangent now and again, usually whenver he gets heated about gay issues, but pound for pound, he is still the most brilliant and thoughtful political writer out there, when he is in top form, in my opinion. the man knows how to verbally defend western civilization.

And he avoids rabid dogma more than most opinion columnists out there.

Cut him some slack.

Bill..

I've done more than "cut him some slack".
I cut him a check! And what does he do?

see for yourself:

http://andrewsullivan.com/

The guy goes off line.. After two months of PBS style donor pledge-athon bullshit, the guy goes off line!

And he brow-beats the administration for fiscal mismanagement?

sorry but the "I'd vote for the democrats" line just goes too far..He has needlessly jeapodized the legacy of that great body of work you speak of..

Arvin, Bill: the kindest interpretation you can put on his 'democrats are the party of budgetary restraint' remark is that it was a momentary lapse of judgment, written in haste, rash, ill considered, more passion than thought etc. Because he has been so sound on so many other things, I'm inclined to pass over it. But he better not do it again.

The Left responsible with other people's money? Ridiculous.

superboot..

You have a point.. And I would be lying if I told you I had removed him from my "favorites"..

Guess I'm just hoping that when he comes on line tomorrow, he will have a "Clarification" of his blunder, as lord knows if I had a blog, there would be many..And there would be many a day when I would be spending time reeling in some hot-toothed sentence I wish I never had said.

just look at my posts on this thread.. many blunders, concessions, and odd logic. All within the past 10 hours!

but its not just the "i'd vote democrat" line that bugs me.. Its the shrill language on GW's space proposal.. Its cynical, and way way premature... He's just losing me..

Arvin

Uhm, by way of Instapundit, it was reported that Sullivan's website server melted down.

Not his fault, IOW.

I find it funny that we are burning him at the stake and threatening to take money and "favorites" links away with reactionary language ... while criticizing him for threatening to take his vote away from the Repubs and making premature, shrill judgements on the space program ...

I totally catch your points - all I'm saying is lets not turn lynch mob on the guy yet. Write him a letter telling him why he's wrong. Or better yet, write a post on your on blog and link to him.

Just don't call him a "fag" or something to that effect.

And that's all i gots to say about that.

Bill,

Have you read anything so far?

No one has threatened to take him off favorites..

No one has called him a "fag"

No one is burning anyone at the stake..

Your reaction to some really thoughtful postings, causes me to mabey think you are the real "fag" here...

you conclusion jumpin' pussy.

oh.. and by the way.. his site is back up.. and his "space bashing" is in full form.. There are just too many great blogs out there, like this one to read.. life is short.

Hey Arvin stuff this up your ass:

"It aint a surprise to me to see Sullivan goin all yella. After all aint he a Cathlic, a Brit and a Fag?" -- Jim Bob

"it is now perilously close to being deleted from my bookmarks." -- rc dean

"he's pretty good about everything except poo-nudging." -- superboat

"I've been wondering for a while now when Mr. Sullivan was going to join the dark side and be done with it. " -- myria

I'm not counting all of the thoughtful posts that agree and disagree with Sullivan - I disagree with Sullivan about the space issue ... but some of these posts were truly histrionic, catty, harpy-like, reactionary, blah-blah-blah.

Sullivan is actually reasoning out who he would vote for - he writes his thought process on the issue.

I've seen this phenomenon before - everybody is harmonious when they are united lampooning moonbat lefties, but the minute someone goes off-memo and has an opinion that contradicts the villagers, they get flamed. Which is no big deal, i was just surprised at:

1. The ferocity of some of it
2. The casual use of a gay slur or three
3. What a joke you are - here is my favorite post from you:

"His site downloads slower now, He's perpetually sick, his pass off to Glen Reynolds was a refreshing break from his bitchy cat blog.." -- Arvin"

Yeah, you are right. Damn him for being sick and having intermittent tech problems that make you wait one second before the page loads rather than instanteously. As for "bitchy cat blog," well ...

Backtrack all you want. just read your claims before I have to waste my time going back and disproving them. Chump.

Bill

Bill? are you still not gay?

Chump? I don't hate Andrew enough to bash you right now..

In fact I'm going to validate what you said earlier about "favorites":

after reading his blog one last time, I have deleted Andrew Sullivan from my 'favorites'...

ohhhhh nooooooooooooo mr. bill!

I liked Andrew when blogs where young and few... Now there are many, and many very good.. Andrew has become the cynic he used to rail against.

Andrew isn't just going "off memo" He now represents the "on memo" that I can find everyday on CNN,ABC,NBC, and CBS..

RC Dean, if you believe that Reagans tax cutting stimulated revenue, then you need to explain why revenue from income tax actually fell.

"Polite heterosexuals keep their preferences to themselves, and so should gays." - Superboot

Why shouldn't homosexuals be open about their sexuality? What is impolite about it?

"There are no longer any legal sanctions against homosexuality..." - Superboot

I'd say not being able to gain legal recognition of your relationship with the person you love, and the protections that offers, counts as a legal sanction.

Could someone please remind me... WHO was it that signed the "Defense of Marriage Act"? And was that person a Democrat or a Republican?

See, I'm not too bright and I can't remember these things. I'm glad I have wise people who can tell me when my failing brain lets me down.

Bush in 2004. It's IMPORTANT.

--a gay, gun-totin', militaristic man-your-mother-warned-you-about