October 28, 2004


James Lileks doesn't think much of Andrew Sullivan's Kerry endorsement, and after reading Lileks' polite destruction of Sullivan, you may not either. That's if you thought much of it beforehand, which you probably didn't.

Another point of universal agreement: the release of a new Lileks book is a cause for celebration. My home village is still echoing with gunfire! Buy a copy just so you can witness "Xatptipltical, Frog God of Crap".

UPDATE. Sullivan notes that Christopher Hitchens also supports Kerry ... but only a few days earlier Hitchens supported Bush. These crazy Brits are -- what's the term? -- flip-flopping.

Posted by Tim Blair at October 28, 2004 01:34 AM

Sullivan has one issue , gay marriage, that he seems to be basing his choice of president on. Fine. It's everyone's right to vote as they want.

Since Kerry is the senator from my state, I did not have a very hard choice this year. In all the years that Kerry has been my senator, I still don't have a clue what he really stands for. I don't know what Kerry's core values are.

If Kerry were to make a speech today and promise to do all the things I would like to have done, I would not vote for him. Why? Because I could not be sure he'd still be in favor of those things a month from now.

People who are voting for Kerry based upon what he has said, or promised, are in for a big disappointment should he become president.

Judge Kerry by what he has DONE. Don't judge him by what he says he will do.

Posted by: Chris Jopsephson at October 28, 2004 at 01:53 AM

Fantastic screed by Lileks, and yes, I've already got his new book on pre-order.

As for Sullivan, he's obviously thinking with his *other* brain - the one that's due south of his navel. No wonder his reasoning is so convoluted.

And BTW is Hitch even a US citizen? Because if he isn't, he'd better not be voting for anybody, no matter whom he supports.

Posted by: Annalucia at October 28, 2004 at 01:54 AM

Both Sullivan and Hitchens seem to take the position that assuming the administration of the Executive Branch would serve the useful purpose of forcing the Democratic Party to get serious and grow up, would make them become responsible as regards the current war in which we find ourselves.

I agree that such a thing is much to be desired, but whew! That's one hell of a big bet, considering that the stakes would be American security, and that of the West more generally.

Posted by: Neuroto at October 28, 2004 at 02:03 AM

Um, there's a contributor there named "Margo Howard". No "John Kingston" though...

Posted by: Anonymous at October 28, 2004 at 02:03 AM

Here's the good news; neither Hitch or Sullivan are American citizen and are unable to vote.

Sullivan has been doing a slow walk-way from Bush ever since he (Bush) endorsed the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. His criticism of Bush's handling of post-war Iraq is one long rationalization for the walk-way, which is really about said gay marriage ban. At least we know his priorities.

Read Hitch's comments at slate. They are unclear. He is as always unpredictable.

I for one and sick-of the "I know better" choir. All of the pundits are such self-satisfied a**hole know-it-alls. Criticism is legitimate, but the incensant "if only he had listened to me, he's to stupid to succeed.." is getting tiresome and TNR and Slate are the worst.

Posted by: stacy at October 28, 2004 at 02:06 AM

Seems to me that Harry Binswanger has the reason for voting for President Bush well covered over at www.capmag.com. But then I've never considered Kerry to be qualified for anything above County Marriage Registrar.

Posted by: Frank in Okla at October 28, 2004 at 02:09 AM

Anonymous, Margo Howard is an advice columnist and the daughter of that other advice columnist, the late Ann Landers. The mother was a great Planned Parenthood enthusiast so I'm not surprised that her daughter found a home with these folks.

Posted by: Annalucia at October 28, 2004 at 02:18 AM

When Mr Lileks is on target, he's devastating. It's been an unpleasant experience watching Sullivan unravel this past year; like watching someone you know descend into drug addiction. I used to read Sullivan every day, several times a day. He was a great comfort for me as a gay man trying to remove the tentacles of lazy college leftism from my brain.

But I disagree that supporting gay unions (or marriage or whatever) and supporting the war against the spread of radical Islamism are mutually exclusive. I happen to support both and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that only one of the candidates in the US election is trustworthy when it comes to the most pressing of those issues and that's Bush. While I disagree with his 'support' of the Federal Marriage Amendment (as I disagreed with Clinton's signing of the Defense of Marriage Act), I don't view the issue as important enough to make me vote against him. Whatever happens regarding the FMA under Bush if he is re-elected it's helpful to remember that laws (even phenomenally stupid constitutional amendments like prohibition) can be changed; the death and destruction of America by Islamists cannot.

That said, I appreciate Sullivan's previous advocacy for legal recognition of gay unions. He used to be able to make the case in a reasonable and passionate way, that was also respectful of those who had differing opinions. He didn't immediately start making posters of them with Hitler moustaches as many 'radical' activists are wont to do. Sadly, he seems to have drifted in the general direction of emotional scare-mongering, though certainly not to that extreme. But his mistakes don't cause occasion to mock the issue. I take slight offense to the notion that supporting gay unions is "thinking with one's genitals". Believe me, we homosexuals don't need state approval to have sex; we do quite well (quantitatively and qualitatively), as does everyone else, without the meddling of the government. But that's another issue for another day.

Anyway, as most married people should know, marriage has nothing to do with sex!

I'm a little depressed to see that Hitch has flip flopped. He and Sullivan are pals I think, maybe Sullivan's gloom and doom has gotten to him.

Posted by: goldsmith at October 28, 2004 at 02:31 AM

Kerry's Vietnam campaign theme has convinced me he's also qualified to be a Navy lieutenant.

Posted by: Mark at October 28, 2004 at 02:32 AM

I think Hitchens is being a bit facetious. He wrote "Kerry should get his worst private nightmare and have to report for duty". If that's an endorsement, it's a backhanded one.

Posted by: Ken J at October 28, 2004 at 02:58 AM

I am not a very sophisticated man. But let me try to get my mind around this very sophisticated position: Hitchens acknowledges that Kerry is unprincipled, yet feels he should be elected so that liberals "get real" about Iraq (a position Sullivan agrees with). Furthermore, since reporting for duty is Kerry's "worst nightmare", we should just hand it to him... Why? Out of some perverse sense of irony?

Is it my lack of sophistication or do their reasons for endorsing Kerry seem a little unprincipled?

Posted by: Billy Bob at October 28, 2004 at 03:03 AM

... (Despite) his inability to hold up on principle under any kind of pressure... Kerry should get his worst private nightmare and have to report for duty.

After all this time writing in support of Bush, Hitch has pulled a bigger Sully than Sully. He, apparently, can afford to endorse an "ironic vote" (and without saying anything remotely positive about Kerry), while the rest of us will be voting on principle and for security (love you, Lileks!). An internationalist Kerry "reporting for duty" would be our worst national nightmare. How many scratches until he leaves us and starts advocating for the all of the other sides?

Hitchens has applied for American citizenship, but I dearly hope it will not have been conferred in time for him to cast his contemptible get-back-in-the-good-graces-of-the-beautiful-Dems vote.

(Good for you, Goldsmith. Admirable thinking and conviction.)

Posted by: c at October 28, 2004 at 03:03 AM

Hitchens is just a contrarian. As well as he writes he puts his skills to no great use, and it's a pity. Friends, the idle brain is the Devil's playground.

Posted by: Kerry at October 28, 2004 at 03:10 AM

I think Hitchens is not seriously supporting Kerry. His little screed has plenty for both sides to chew on. Hitch definitely supports Bush's approach to the WOT, and that's the main point. In the end, I seriously doubt that anyone will be swayed by reading his latest.

Posted by: EddieP at October 28, 2004 at 04:13 AM

Crap! They moved my pub date up, ruining my big "surprise" next week. Well, just pretend to act surprised next Tuesday, please. Thank you.

Posted by: Lileks at October 28, 2004 at 04:48 AM

Hitchens was less ambiguous in The Nation.

Posted by: Matt in Denver at October 28, 2004 at 05:00 AM

Whoops, didn't see that update with link. Andrea, feel free to delete my stupid posts. Well, maybe not ALL my stupid posts.

Posted by: Matt in Denver at October 28, 2004 at 05:02 AM

goldsmith, I'm glad you spoke up. I don't see why critics can't just disagree with Andrew Sullivan based on the merits of his arguments for Kerry, instead of bringing up his sexuality. Cause on merits alone, it's pretty easy.

Isn't it incredibly naive to suppose that you can do something as difficult as conduct the war on terror when your heart's not in it? I mean, if Kerry thinks this is the 'wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time', how is he going to ask 'a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?'

I have also been very disappointed at the supporters of the Iraq war who have now decided it's a mistake because it turned out to be harder than they thought. So instead of saying, honestly, look: I thought it would be easier and I f*cked up, they say, well the planning is awful. If the planning had been well planned by having a plan, then the war is ok. There is something very unseemly about being an advocate for the Iraq war and then running away when it seems like things are not all roses.

Posted by: MD at October 28, 2004 at 05:26 AM

This shared notion is so profoundly stupid it is surreal:

"Objectively, his election would compel mainstream and liberal Democrats to get real about Iraq."

"Besides, the Democratic Party needs to be forced to take responsibility for the security of the country that is as much theirs as anyone's."

This is like saying Michael Foot's Labour Party in 1980s Britain should have been forced to take responsibility for the UK's nuclear deterrent, and the way to have forced them would have been to vote them into power! Somehow the deep instinct for unilateral disarmament would have been overruled by... - ... - 'something wonderful'?

Neither Sullivan nor Hitchens seem to comprehend that the democratic way to make political parties take their responsibilities seriously is to soundly punish them at the polls when they clearly fail to even recognise their responsibilities. That's what happened to Michael Foot and the Labour Party under him - political oblivion. Only when the 'loony-left' had been forced into the sidelines and muzzled, could the Labour Party of Tony Blair get elected.

The Moorites haven't been sidelined and muzzled in the Democratic Party - Michael Moore shared the platform with the party leaders! Moore isn't party fringe; he's party mainstream.

Making Kerry President won't convince him that he needs to fight the war; it'll convince him that the American people don't want to fight the war either.

Posted by: PJF at October 28, 2004 at 05:47 AM

MD, I have the same feeling about the people who so vocally supported the war who have gone wobbly (like Mr Sullivan). In a way those people are the most morally reprehensible. As a supporter of the Iraq war, I have always understood that it would be a very difficult endeavor, and I have always understood the great moral responsibility on my shoulders to accept that consequence of my advocacy. I do believe there have been mistakes and mismanagement (such as Abu Ghraib which should NOT have happened in a disciplined military), but those do not invalidate the casus belli nor do they mitigate the many successes. While there is always room for improvement (which there certainly is with the Bush administration) I have seen no compelling evidence that a Kerry administration would provide that improvement. Quite the opposite, actually.

Posted by: goldsmith at October 28, 2004 at 06:41 AM

James: glad I didn't put a drooling "I wants it now yessss Precioussss" announcement about your book! I still plan to buy it. I need decorating ideas. (This message will self-destuct in five sec^%#^%VUYG

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 28, 2004 at 06:45 AM

Oops. Set the timer too soon.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 28, 2004 at 06:47 AM

I seem to be giving offense left and right these days...

My apologies, Goldsmith; I was not implying that all homosexuals think with ``the other brain'' (though I think Sullivan does) or that heterosexuals never do so (Henry VIII, anyone?) But I do think that Sullivan, like Henry Tudor, has such a severe case of it that it's seriously warped his thinking on other issues. In other words his recommendation of John Kerry seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the man himself or anything he's said or done - but Sullivan perceives him as more ``gay friendly'' than Bush, therefore he will persuade himself that Kerry will also do a better job regarding the war and international relations in general. This is delusional thinking, to say the least.

As for ``his election would compel...Democrats to get real about Iraq'' - well, my not-at-all-stupid mother-in-law used to say the same thing about sending children to public schools - if everyone were obliged to do so, then the parents would demand better teaching and the schools would be forced to become better - that public outrage would override entrenched unions and paper-pushing bureaucracies. But it never works out like that, does it? -- and she must have known it herself, since all her kids went to Catholic schools. I wonder sometimes if she was serious. Unfortunately, we *know* that Andrew is serious.

I agree that Abu Ghraib should never have happened - but please remember that it was exposed (by a fellow soldier, BTW) long before it hit the headlines, and the disciplinary actions were already under way. My oldest son (Army) was disgusted and expressed a fervent desire to beat the you-know-what out of the perpetrators, and that seems to have been the general sentiment among the regular soldiers. So don't judge the entire military by this bunch of losers.

Posted by: Annalucia at October 28, 2004 at 07:39 AM

From the Slate endorse-o-rama:

Dahlia Lithwick, Senior Editor: Neither

I won't be voting. I am a Canadian citizen. Which may explain, to some extent, why I am a Kerry supporter.

(grrrooooaaan.) Hey - any of you nice Yanks want to sponsor me for a green card? I hate to say it, but this woman pretty much speaks for the majority of my countrymen. It's like living in one big Upper West Side up here in the Big Frosty, folks.

Posted by: rick mcginnis at October 28, 2004 at 07:45 AM

You're in Toronto, aren't you, Rick? I lived there during the Seventies, so I don't blame you for feeling crazy. Have you thought of relocating to Alberta or Manitoba?

Posted by: Annalucia at October 28, 2004 at 07:47 AM

Yeah, Toronto. Third generation west ender. I've thought about westward migration, but it would be a bad idea for two reasons: 1)The winters. And when you hear a Canadian complain about winter, you know they're harsh. 2) Don't drive. Outside downtown Calgary, you're SOL if you don't have wheels.

That and Westerners regard anyone from Ontario as a potential plague-carrier, with good reason.

I'm the only conservative in my newsroom; the only Bush supporter for blocks in my neighbourhood. Being a conservative here is like wearing a 3/4 length puppy-fur coat (with matching kitty-cat hat!) to a PeTA meeting. The Tory candidate in my riding in the last election knew his chances were so bad that he sent out campaign workers to canvas who didn't speak English.

Posted by: rick mcginnis at October 28, 2004 at 08:23 AM

Goldsmith - nice post but you are wrong on Sullivan. His support did begin to wane on the basis of gay marriage politics. He became what he previously ranted against, someone for whom all politics was based upon their sexuality. He wanted the recognition of marriage to come by legislative means until he realized that the courts could just force it on everyone regardless of their feelings on the matter. When Mass. court decided to re-write the law it became apparent to opponents of gay marriage that a state by state defense might not be feasible without assurances that what Mass would do would not force another state to recognize it. There has been much debate over exactly what all this might look like - no need to cover all of that - but Sullivan fell hard, very hard. He decried the conservative's lack of embrace of federalism, even as it was demonstrated that the federal courts would force Mass' decision on other states, hence the need for a national decision on a topic heretofore handled exclusively by the states. This infuriated him and his postings became more and more bitter and began to influence his opinions on all topics.

Yes, he became what he earlier did not want to become and I stopped reading him because it was painful to see a man's logic and reason all go up in smoke over gay marriage.

You might see it another way, perception being what it is, no doubt you can. But I would gather most agree with my perception. Reading his endorsement of Kerry is painful because he does so many gyrations to try and develop a logical explanation for his decision but none exists. What would he do different? Have other countries like us more!?! For goodness sakes those countries were profitting on the Saddam regime - as was the UN - they had no desire to do anything beyond a symbolic hand slap. France in particular was deplorable - cutthroat businessmen with no care for the pain they caused - all about signing a deal and making billions. If Sullivan endorses Kerry in the manner he has written (he could have come out and said why he likes Kerry on domestic issues and say that is more important to him), he endorses what the French were doing too. And the blood of innocent Iraqis is on his hands as well. I am ashamed even more that I once cared about what he wrote.

Posted by: JEM at October 28, 2004 at 08:44 AM

Well Alan Dershowitz has come out for Kerry (from Jerusalem Post, Q&A with Alan Dershowitz);

David Kopel, New York:
How do square your support for John Kerry with his repeated public commitments to submit American foreign policy to consensus arrangements with the UN, when you yourself have assailed the UN's record of outright anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic bias?

Alan Dershowitz:
I strongly support John Kerry for President because he would be better for America, better for the world and better for Israel. Yes, better for Israel. He understands better than President Bush does that the major threat to Israel's existence comes from Iran, not Iraq. Kerry has not said that he would ever submit American foreign policy, or the welfare of America's allies, to a U.N. or foreign veto. He will, however, try to broaden international support for Israel. I strongly believe that no presidential election should ever be turned into a referendum on Israel and that it is important that both parties must continue to support Israel as vigorously as they do.

Posted by: rog at October 28, 2004 at 09:33 AM


I never said that Sullivan's change of heart had nothing to do with Bush's nebulous support for the FMA. Obviously this had a large influence on Sullivan's opinion of Bush, as well it should. I would be lying if I said that Bush's position on the issue didn't upset me. The idea of codifying inequality (and, believe me, the FMA has been designed to do more than prevent the federalizing of gay unions- what do you think "legal incidents thereof" means?) is abhorrent to me. But Bush and Kerry's position are almost identical, and the FMA would not fare well in the Senate, and as I said before, even if it passed, laws can be changed. But there are more important things on the plate right now, and that is what Sullivan has ultimately failed to comprehend. But even though the cause of Sullivan's animus toward Bush may be apparent, it's ultimately more productive to criticize Sullivan's written justification for his position rather than to blame it on his justifiable sense of anger over Bush's (sort of) support of the FMA. To his enormous credit, that is what Mr Lileks did in his 'screed'; rather than go for the cheap shot, he took Sullivan's equivocal endorsement and trounced him with it.

Posted by: goldsmith at October 28, 2004 at 09:37 AM

I admit. I have a fantasy. Kerry wins. He’s having a summit with Tony Blair. In the middle of the conversation, Chirac calls up; Kerry excuses himself and has a brief chat about a new resolution to let French oil companies bid on reconstruction projects, and they have an amiable conversation in French. Kerry hangs up.

“Your predecessor,” Blair says, “spoke to him in English.”

“I know,” says President Kerry. “He couldn’t speak French.”

“He didn’t have to,” Blair notes. He gives a tight smile. And sighs. And gets down to explaining what now must be done.

holy shit that's awesome

Posted by: Oktober at October 28, 2004 at 09:40 AM

So what's the point? Speaking French is bad? Force the frogs to speak English even if you can speak French? What?

Posted by: darth fuck at October 28, 2004 at 09:47 AM

I happened to be reading "Republican Party Reptile" (P.J. O'Rourke) last night and came across this gem which was critical of one US Congressional observer in particular during the elections in the Philippines between Ferdinand Marcos and Corazon Aquino in 1986.

"Most of the Potomac Parakeets were a big disappointment. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry was a founding member of Vietnam Veterans against the War, but he was a bath toy in this fray.

On Sunday night, two days after the election, thirty of the computer operators from COMELEC walked off the job, protesting that vote figures were being juggled. Aquino supporters and NAMFREL volunteers took the operators, most of them young women, to a church, and hundreds of people formed a protective barrier around them.

Village Voice reporter Joe Conason and I had been tipped off about the walkout, and when we got to the church, we found Bea Zobel, one of Cory Aquino's top aides, in a tizzy. "The women are terrified," she said. "They're scared to go home. They don't know what to do. We don't know what to do." Joe and I suggested that Mrs. Zobel go to the Manila Hotel and bring back some members of the Congressional observer team. She came back with Kerry, who did nothing.

Kerry later said that he didn't talk to the COMELEC employees then because he wasn't allowed to. This is ridiculous. He was ushered into an area that had been cordoned off from the press and the crowd and where the computer operators were sitting. To talk to the women, all he would have had to do was raise his voice. Why he was reluctant, I can't tell you. I can tell you what any red-blooded representative of the U.S. government should have done. He should have shouted, "If you're frightened for your safety, I'll take you to the American embassy, and damn the man who tries to stop me." But all Kerry did was walk around like a male model in a concerned and thoughtful pose."

Maybe he was waiting for the go-ahead from France?

Posted by: Art Vandelay at October 28, 2004 at 11:44 AM

Hey James, why don't you come out to Australia for a book signing tour? You could bring Gnat. We've got koalas and kangaroos for her and Guinness for you!

Posted by: Stan at October 28, 2004 at 12:00 PM


You need to move to NYC. It's not nearly as liberal as it's reputation (republican mayor for the last almost 12 years and a republican gov.) and good public transportation. Also, a whole lot of fun can be found.

Posted by: stacy at October 28, 2004 at 12:24 PM

Rick, What am I saying? You can't drive? I think that is illegal in the USA. If not criminal under the Patriot act, it is at least Un-american.

Posted by: stacy at October 28, 2004 at 12:28 PM

Rick, move to Florida. I have managed to exist in the Land of the Giant Mouse (Orlando area) without a car for nearly a year. It's not as much fun but I hate fun anyway. But -- I moved two blocks away from my job (I couldn't do that in Miami, most of the businesses are surrounded by crack neighborhoods) and where I live now is Bush-Cheney land. I think I have seen one Kedward sign. No -- actually, this morning I saw another. It was in about four or five pieces scattered alongside the road. I know I am supposed to abhor such things and I do! You should not litter: throw all the Kedward signs in the trashcan! That's what they're there for.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 28, 2004 at 12:41 PM

Stacy you have to know that New York City is the one place in America where it is more convenient to not drive a car than to have to worry about 1) finding a place to park it and 2) being able to afford said place.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 28, 2004 at 12:44 PM

"Kerry's Vietnam campaign theme has convinced me he's also qualified to be a Navy lieutenant."

I know this was written in jest, but, as a Navy LT, I take exception. John Paul Jones, the father of our sea service, said "It is by no means enough that an officer of the Navy be a capable mariner." The core values of all U.S. Navy Sailors, regardless of rank or grade, are Honor, Courage and Commitment. Mr. Kerry is no more qualified now than he was 30 years ago.

Posted by: SPY at October 28, 2004 at 01:24 PM

Actually, Sullivan is an American citizen. Fortunately, he lives in DC, so it's not like his vote is going to make a big difference.

Hitchens has applied for citizenship, but can not yet vote. I know this because I saw him 2 weeks ago on Tim Russert's show. Also on the show was that pompous ass Graydon Carter sprouting the usual leftist anti-war crap and Hitchens made mincemeat of him. That's why I'm shocked he endorsed Kerry. Has he taken a sharp blow to the head recently or what?

Posted by: Donna V. at October 28, 2004 at 02:31 PM

"Making Kerry President won't convince him that he needs to fight the war; it'll convince him that the American people don't want to fight the war either."

PJF, bravo. This succinctly states the greatest strategic setback inherent in a Bush defeat -- whatever the causes, it will be widely and not unreasonably seen as a "no" in the referendum on an aggressive GWoT. This certainly will be the message to America's political class, and Kerry and most of his party and especially top advisers hardly need it to be fundamentally unserious in national security, as they have been for a long time.

The hypothetical discussions of a Kerry win tend to focus on how unsuitable his record and character seem to make him -- but the political earthquake against an aggressive, offensive war that his victory would signify is the key. That Sullivan ignores this political common sense and assumes the opposite makes his rationale preposterous.

Goldsmith, good comments. Used to enjoy your comments over at LGF, too.

Posted by: IceCold at October 28, 2004 at 02:45 PM

Stacy - NYC is the first place on my list when the Neue Demokratische Partei wins a minority gov't in my country, makes a deal with the Quebec separatists, and starts rounding up anyone who knows who Milton Friedman is. (Chicago is #2, natch.)

And I'd be all over Florida, Andrea, if I hadn't read all those Carl Hiaasen novels at an impressionable age. Besides - too many Canadians down there.

Posted by: rick mcginnis at October 28, 2004 at 03:30 PM

You can't drive? I think that is illegal in the USA. If not criminal under the Patriot act, it is at least Un-american.

Hmm...*peeks out of window as inconspicuously as possible*...immigration officials aren't gonna raid my apartment and revoke my visa, are they?

You should not litter: throw all the Kedward signs in the trashcan! That's what they're there for.

Kedwards signs and garbage cans...talk about a match made in heaven.

Posted by: PW at October 28, 2004 at 03:37 PM

Maybe it's late and I'm a little foggy (Red Sox won the World Series!!!!), but I read Hitchens little blurb several times over, and I can't see it as anything but an arch, tongue-in-cheek joke. Also, he clearly stated in the Nation a couple of days ago that's he's (slightly) for Bush.

Posted by: blogaddict at October 28, 2004 at 04:04 PM

When I gave up on Sullivan...

...the endless maundering about Gay Marriage caused MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over), but still I stuck with ol' Sully...

...until he started uncritically posting links to Harper's Index and Daily Kos as support for his ever-increasingly limp anti-Bush exertions.

Like Fredo to Michael, he's dead to me. Thanks, Lileks, for taking him out on the lake "to fish".


Posted by: furious_a at October 28, 2004 at 04:58 PM

I used to enjoy Andrew Sullivan's site, and even donated to it. Then he started the long, endless rants about the Catholic Church, gay marriage, and how the War on Terror is being "grossly mismamaged."

I hate to say it, but andrewsullivan.com has become downright boring.

Posted by: Butch at October 28, 2004 at 05:50 PM

yep, it has butch.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at October 28, 2004 at 10:34 PM

And you still have to wonder why another group of typically bright and attractive people want to ruin pefectly good sexual relationships with marriage.

Posted by: Janis Gore at October 29, 2004 at 02:10 AM

That would be "perfectly".

Posted by: Janis Gore at October 29, 2004 at 02:12 AM