Semi-Daily Journal

Well, I'll grant the point about fiscal resonsibility, and that the Clinton Adminstration certainly talked about social inclusiveness, though it doesn't seem as though they did an awful lot, in terms of policy, to advance the idea. But No. 3? Tough on terrorism? I don't think so. What do you suppose Albright told GB? "Terrosism is the biggest problem confonting the country. It's so serious that we've done very, very little to counteract it for the past 8 years."

Poor, wittle Andy, he just looked in the mirror and realized all those butch, Republican boys he's been pining for, and hoping to gain their notice and affections by loyally and faithfully supporting them no matter how stupid and against his own beliefs, won't ever date him and won't ever give him any notice or affection. He's irrelevant.

Uh, social democracy, anybody? The Socialist Second International.

Lotssa problems, obviously: the Bush poodle thing.

Still, the Socialist International has laid out the arena in which the decent politics of our time can be done.

Some people, of course, spend there time on other things -- like paying $245 million for a shortstop.

-dlj.

I've gradually lost interest in what Sullivan has to say.. There are too many subjects where he simply needs to get a grip (e.g., Krugman, the New York Times, Hilary Clinton), and doesn't seem to be able to.

Maybe one couldn't take the Clinton admin terror warnings seriously, given their record. That way the statement can be true, perhaps even including Madam Sectretary's feelings of disappointment.

Cal,

They will date Andy, but they won't marry him. Maybe that is the problem.

When President Clinton and Vice President Gore sought to raise the level of airport security, the Congress at the behest of the airlines refused a small ticket tax to pay for the security increase. There were many times when the Clinton Administration was ridiculed for pushing more security needs. Also, the military that Clinton left us was a superb fighting force.

Cal wrote:

"Poor, wittle Andy, he just looked in the mirror and realized all those butch, Republican boys he's been pining for, and hoping to gain their notice and affections by loyally and faithfully supporting them no matter how stupid and against his own beliefs, won't ever date him and won't ever give him any notice or affection. He's irrelevant."

What an incredibly biggoted thing to write. I mean what, precisely, is your argument here? That gays never do anything except out of sexual longing? That lust is the sine qua non of every homosexual human being's public life? That gay men who disagree with you must be doing so out of some sort of twisted Freudian self hatred? That gay men aren't rational enough to know what their own beliefs are and to form their political preferences based on who they think, on balance, best advances those beliefs?

Oh, and Kate Gilbert, good to see you're joining in the fun. Maybe you two could get together and swap fag jokes.

sd:

Were they having their fun due to bigotry or at the expense of hypocrisy?

John,

And what "hypocrisy" would that be, exactly? That a gay man has the temerity to question his "proper place" and vote Republican?

sd,

I'm sorry if my little joke offended you. I don't like Sullivan's writing, and I find his politics schizophrenic, but I don't think that's because I am homophobic, and I didn't see my joke as a "fag joke" in the classic sense. I was simply pointing out something that Sullivan seems to run into on an almost daily basis: there are plenty of closeted gays on the republican side (ie they will date him) but very few who will stand up and fight for the right to be married (ie they won't marry him). Of course, breaking a joke down kind of kills it, but what about that joke seemed unfair, to you? I don't think Sullivan is a hypocrite for voting republican (when most republicans seem to sincerely want to see him dead for his sexual orientation) but I do think he's a fool. Its kind of the reverse of the old joke "any club that would have me, I wouldn't want to be in." Andrew tries very, very hard to join a club of people who would just as soon see him eradicated from the face of the earth, and his philosphical and political reasons for doing so don't hold much water with me on purely logical grounds.

sorry you thought cal and I were being unfair to sullivan. But we are paying attention to him, and that is what he wants.

SD: I simply do not know how any clear thinking, openly gay man can support George W. Bush. None of the gay men or women I know support him and I know gay doctors, lawyers, judges, accountants, Hollywood types, three gay couples live on my block and my real estate agent is gay. Don't give me this insensitivity stuff. Andy comes across the Atlantic and tries to impress everyone with his English accent and oh so serious demeanor, yet he has settled for being a political hack. And a hack for Bush, nonetheless. He wrote a well publicized piece in the New York Times years ago criticizing conservatives and religious types about their homophobia. But he desperately wants to be considered as someone on the inside, so he panders to them. Like Harry Truman said, the only friend of labor has been the Democratic Party. The same can be applied to gays. Sullivan could make better headway for what he believed if he worked within the Democratic Party. Now he is lamenting the profligate, pork barrel ways of the Bushie boys. But anyone who follows Texas style politics (and it doesn't really take more than reading a some Molly Ivins (and even Krugman has commented on this)), one would realize tht Bush is all about using public money to pay off his "friends." So the only rational reason that I can come up with for Andy's support of Bush is that he is in love with one or more of those in the current administration. I don't care that he is in love with them. I just think that such a self proclaimed deep thinker, policy pundit, wonk, sophisticate and all around great guy such as Andy would have been able to see through all of that.

Kate,

1) Andrew Sullivan is certainly a controversial figure. He writes strongly worded opinion pieces from a distinctive point of view. For that reason, its certainly understandable to disagree with him, perhaps even to outright dislike him. But I frequently see in left wing criticisms of Sullivan nasty references to his sexuality. Such was the case with Cal's comment, which used diminuitive language ("Poor, wittle Andy...,") suggestions that Sullivan's politicals spring from sexual lust ("Hoping to gain their notice and affections..."), and sneering references to gay sexuality ("those butch Republican boys..."). Ask yourself if this kind of language would be considered even remotely acceptable discourse if used by a right wing pundit to dismiss the argument of a gay pundit on the left. Assuming for a moment that Sullivan is being hypocritical, even incongruous, in supporting Republicans, is it right and proper to address this issue by gay-baiting Sullivan? I think not. Not by a mile. Unless of course you think that being on the "right" side of the gay marriage debate is an automatic "get out of jail free card" for any and all biggoted slurs against gays, in which case its clear that any objection you might have to gay baiting in other circumstances isn't a matter of principle, but merely us-vs-them power politics. Or to put it another way, would be be OK for Ted Kennedy to put on blackface and tell mammy jokes because he has a good civil rights record?

2) On the question of whether indeed it is hypocritical or even incongruous for a gay man to support Republicans: who are you to say what constitutes a legitimate set of political preferences for another person? I imagine that most of us end up alligning with one of the two major parties, in spite of the fact that we might find that party to be wrong on one or more issues. Recognizing that neither party is a perfect mirror of our beliefs, we choose the one that is, on balance, the best fit, and work from within it to change the aspect we don't like. So what is it about being gay (or black, to cite another example where this same issue comes up) that robs a person of the right to make these kinds of nuanced choices about political allignment? The most vicious homophobia often rests on the assumption that gays are nothing more than the sum of their sexual desires, that they can be denied the full measure of human dignity because all they are are sexual beings. But the argument that gays are silly for being Republicans uses the exact same logic. It supposes that a gay person's sexuality is such a driving force behind their total being that they are incapable of rationally deciding that they agree with the Republicans on nearly every other issue besides gay rights and thus will support Republicans because on balance they think they are better for the country, even for themsleves.

And where the hell do you get the idea that "most republicans seem to sincerely want to see him dead for his sexual orientation"? This is objectively false. In fact, its so far from the truth that raises questions about your ability to engage in serious discourse. If I wrote, in a post about abortion, that "most democrats seems to sincerely want as many poor black women to abort their babies as possible," then I would be rightly dismissed as a crank and an idiot. Or perhaps you don't think that there's any substantitive difference between opposing gay marriage and wanting gays executed in the public square. In which case I'll kindly point you to half the rank and file members of Democratic party, who share the opinions of the Republican party on the gay marriage issue.

SD: Kate said it better than me. But let me ask a question: would it be insensitive to call Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom? I happen to think that Clarence Thomas was a victim of a hightech lynching. I also think that Clarence Thomas perjured himself when he testified to the Senate at his confirmation hearing. I also think that Clarence Thomas is the greatest beneficiary of affirmative action in this country, yet he refuses to acknowledge any role it played in his meteoric rise rise through the judicial ranks. I think he is a political hack, too. The Democrats are cowards. They did not even have the guts to simply say: "we do not like your politics, you are out." Instead they had to come up with that Anita Hill farce (I believe her) but it was so undignified for both of them. Now, SD, do you think that any political commentator or a comic or a dramatist could make a reference to Clarence Thomas and protray him as, or like, or similar to, Uncle Tom? Would that be insensitive? Now lay it on thick, use the same voice as Uncle Tom or worse Step N Fetchit, put on black face on Thomas as depicted in the piece and would that be insensitive?

SD,

I think there is a huge difference between accusing the democrats of wanting to see anyone's baby aborted and accusing (some) right wing conservatives of wanting to see homosexuals drummed out of the political discourse and even killed. Why do I think that? Because there is no site, url, article, pundit or interview that you could point to in which any Democrat has advocated aborting fetuses for racist reasons, aborting fetuses for financial reasons, or aborting fetuses for any reasons other than the mother's own choice. There are many, many, many instances of the conservative and religious right going *on record* claiming that AIDS is God's punishment on Gays, declaring people to be better off dead than gay, and or celebrating the death of prominent gay people. That may, of course, not apply to you and your politics. I'm sure I hope it doesn't. However, taking the Christian right and the highly vocal conservative right (with its armies of talk radio hosts and bloggers) at their word certainly doesn't disqualify me from taking part in any discourse, public or private.

Oh, and by the way, I don't think referring to gay marriage, proposing that Andrew Sullivan can't get married to a conservative gay man but can get dates is "gay baiting" any more than I think that the totally unfunny series of cartoons running on boondocks right now about condoleeza rice and her dating life is "racist" or even "anti-woman". I do think its not funny, but race, sex, class, and sexual orientation are all part of the real world, and open for discussion and jokes at all times.

When I read this, I realized that I couldn't remember why Sullivan had been so anti-Clinton. It couldn't have been national defense -- I assume he was in favor of war with Kosovo, and I don't remember Sullivan being a big terrorism hawk before 2001. Fiscal responsibility -- had to like that. I guess Clinton did raise taxes, and Sullivan's a flat-taxer, but in a relatively unfanatical way. Social inclusiveness -- Clinton was very good. Welfare reform -- good. Free trade -- awesome. Sullivan couldn't have been too worked up over Monica -- he's always been a big fan of sexual privacy, I thought. So what was it he didn't like?

(This is actually a real question, not a rhetorical one, in case someone does know the answer.)

"But let me ask a question: would it be insensitive to call Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom?"

Yes. You might as well call him a house nigger, if you're going to do so - they amount to the same thing in the end. No one died and gave you the right to decide what gays and blacks ought to believe.

"I also think that Clarence Thomas is the greatest beneficiary of affirmative action in this country, yet he refuses to acknowledge any role it played in his meteoric rise rise through the judicial ranks."

[Remix Version] "I also think that Lyndon Bird Johnson is the greatest beneficiary of racism in this country, yet he refuses to celebrate the role it played in his meteoric rise through the political ranks."

Can you see the gigantic logical flaw in your thinking? One can be the benefeciary of a policy and *still* think it wrong. I don't share Clarence Thomas' views on AA, but anybody who expects him to be grateful to the white massa for its' existence is simply a condescending, racist idiot.

You obviously subscribe to some notion of noblesse oblige, in which the lower orders repay your kindness with their undivided loyalty. Sorry, but the world no longer works that way. If you have a problem with Andrew Sullivan, go ahead and say so, but it isn't your place to taunt his sexuality just because he doesn't hold the views you think proper for him to hold; the same holds for Clarence Thomas.

Kate,

There is also a "huge difference" between demonstrating that some people on the political right (and mind you, you have no evidence whatsoever that that "some" is anything more than 1% or 2%, if even that) wish death on homosexuals and saying, as you did, that "most republicans seem to sincerely want to see him dead for his sexual orientation."

I myself think gay people should enjoy the full benefits of marriage, and I'm disappointed that that's not a majority belief in my party (though again, I suspect its not a majority belief in the Democratic party either at the rank and file level). But I'm able to see that most of the people who oppose gay rights have legitimate, if wrong, arguments for their case.

Further, we could point to fringe elements on the political left with similarly toxic beliefs. The "Reverend" Louis Farrakhan regulalrly spews forth nasty anti-Semitic bile, and I dare say most of his true believers don't pull the level labled "R" on election day. But to suggest then that "most" African Americans or "most" Democrats share Mr. Farrakhan's bigotry would be wrong and stupid. So why is it acceptable to infer from the beliefs of a tiny handful of fringe types on the far right what "most" religious conservatives let alone what "most" Republicans believe?

If I were to suggest that its schizophrenic for a Jew to be a Democrat because the Nation of Islam preaches anti-Semitism and most NOI members are Democrats, I would rightly show myself to be out of touch with political reality.

"Maybe one couldn't take the Clinton admin terror warnings seriously, given their record. That way the statement can be true, perhaps even including Madam Sectretary's feelings of disappointment."

Ahh, the logic of the Right is foolproof:

Clinton ignored all those obvious signs that terrorism was really the #1 problem.

Well gee, you can't blame Bush for not heading the Clinton admin's warning on terrorism. Why did Clinton deserve the trust of mighty Bush who was returning Truth and Honor(*) to the White House?

* Registered Trademark of the Republican party, not to be used without the express written consent of Dick Cheney.

James, my general impression about sullivan is that he has adjusted his thinking to the marketplace. When he first came to our (meaning america's) attention, he was a rather iconoclastic thinker who reveled in his independence of thought. However, there isn't really that much of a market for iconoclastic, independent pundits.

On the other hand, there was a terrific market for clinton hate.

so my impression (subject to revision if someone knows something better) is that sullivan, uh, evolved his thinking in accordance with the large potential audience he spotted.

Abiola, while i generally agree with your underlying premise, your "remix" version on LBJ makes no sense at all.

Cal, "lynchings" involved stringing someone up, generally in front of an audience, and, in many cases, following that on by castrating the victim. It is, in short, much too horific a reality to be suitable as a metaphor, and it was utterly offensive for Clarence Thomas, who was in the midst of being promoted to a job that he was in no way qualified for, to use the term "high tech lynching" to describe "difficult confirmation hearing."

SD,

I will agree with you that I think, I hope, that the vast majority of people on both sides of the aisle would prefer to "live and let live" on the matter of gay marriage. I hope so. I happen to live in a battleground state and we are seeing a lot of rhetoric around this issue, most of it pathetic and funny, some of it downright scary. I will also agree with you, qua jew, that the existence of Farrakhan (not, to my mind, an actual Democrat and certainly not someone who has ever held any kind of power as a democrat) does not make me feel odd or wrong for supporting the Democrats. I think you are naieve if you think that Tom Delay, Dick Armey, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and any number of other extremely powerful Republicans are not dangerously homophobic. If anyone of that power were speaking on my behalf at the top of the Democratic party, I'd consider leaving it immiediatly, so I don't think its wrong to hold Republicans to the same standard if they think that homophobia/gay rights are important. But you might not. It might not be a defining issue for you, and nor should it be. I'm a Jew but I a) don't support Israel and b) don't make that a defining issue for me politically. It does seem to be a defining issue for Andrew Sullivan, however, so I don't think its beyond the pale to call into question--or even to make fun of him--for failing to see the handwriting on the wall with the party of pseudo compassionate conservatism aligned so tightly with the christian right. If the republican party didn't cater to the far right as much as it does,and as obviously as it does, this wouldn't be an issue. For example, if Bush and his party had come out as libertarian on this issue, and upfront said "you know, we don't oppose gay marriage because we are for smaller, less intrusive government' I'd still make fun of Andy for believing anything the republicans say, because I think the republican leadership (not the party as a whole) is entirely composed of liars, but I definitely wouldn't would bother to make jokes about Andrew sullivan's inability to get married (very different from making fun of his sexual orientation, by the way). The joke wouldn't even make sense.

This is going along a very different and
quite boring line. But I don't think I would
characterize the Clinton Administration
as fiscally conservative in its later years.

If you define fiscally conservative to mean
low deficit, then they were fiscally conserative.

But if you define fiscally conservative to mean
both low levels of spending (small gov) as well
as small deficits, then the Clinton Administration
fails the test.

At the end of his term, Clinton and Gore seemed to be promising everybody goodies out of the windfall coming from the surplus.

Also it's hard to say how much of the moderation in spending under Clinton was due to divided
government. Perhaps Clinton knew he couldn't get any of the goodies he wanted through Congress
and the Republicans knew that they weren't
going to get Clinton to sign onto their wishlist.

I think the Republicans are much better at
blocking spending when they are out of
the White House. A Republican President needs
to show that he is concerned about social
issues and so may propose spending that
he would oppose otherwise.

Once the Republican President proposes it, the Republicans in Congress may find it hard to say no and the Democrats in Congress may naturally
say yes to the increased spending.

A Democratic President and a Republican Congress
may be the best recipe for fiscal conservatism.

Speaking on behalf of myself and other faggots in Texas, I declare that Aunt Tom Sullivan is irrelevant. In fact, I enjoy watching him or the Log Cabin Republicans get sucker-punched by the Republican party and community-at-large. Maybe Andy's a little masochist or something. Who knows....

And Clinton was as tough on terrorism s the public would allow him. Do you really think that the 1998 Dole/Gingrich Republican Party would have supported nation-building in Afghanistan or Iraq? When bin Laden first attempted to bomb the WTC, Orrin Hatch was only interested in calling it a case of "blowback", he wasn't advocating an all-out war on terror. In fact, very few Republicans OR Democrats were advocating full-out war in 1998, 1999, or 2000.

J, without wanting to get into the appropriate definition of fiscal conservatism, it's my long-standing theory that for the bulk of the Cold War, we had Republican presidents and Democratic congresses because the American public, in aggregate, wanted a Republican to stand up against the commies and a democratic congress to take care of us at home.

With the end of the Cold War, we had a democratic president and a republican congress, which i interpret as the public wanting the congress to reign in perceived "excesses" of the welfare state while a democrat would temper the reigning.

With a republican president and a republican congress, we have a mess, pure and simple, and it will be interesting to see how the public responds in 2004.

Speaking on behalf of myself and other faggots in Texas, I declare that Aunt Tom Sullivan is irrelevant. In fact, I enjoy watching him or the Log Cabin Republicans get sucker-punched by the Republican party and community-at-large. Maybe Andy's a little masochist or something. Who knows....

And Clinton was as tough on terrorism s the public would allow him. Do you really think that the 1998 Dole/Gingrich Republican Party would have supported nation-building in Afghanistan or Iraq? When bin Laden first attempted to bomb the WTC, Orrin Hatch was only interested in calling it a case of "blowback", he wasn't advocating an all-out war on terror. In fact, very few Republicans OR Democrats were advocating full-out war in 1998, 1999, or 2000.

The Clinton administration's seriousness about terrorism is well documented --

the successful prosecutions of the WTC and OK City bombers,

the bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998 in the face of ridiculous, over-the-top, "wag the dog" criticism from a certain Andrew Sullivan,

and the successful thwarting of the Millenium bombings,

just to name a few.

But what's really interesting is nobody on the right every talks about the Cole -- the attack that took place three weeks before election day 2000.

If Gore's election had not been thwarted by voting problems, I think there is no doubt that a serious counteroffensive against al qeada would have been launched in early 2001 in response to the Cole bombing. An investigation into that attack concluded just as Bush took office, and resulted in absolute, conclusive proof that bin ladin was behind it (they had him on video bragging about it), but the Bushies did NOTHING.

They even stopped the predator flights over Afghanistan because they didn't want another spy plane incident after the China crash. Remember how in the spring of 2001 they were dressing China up as our new enemy. They always need an enemy, and communism was a familiar one. So we couldn't have the monitoring of a rag tag bunch of arabs messing with our efforts to face down the red China menace. Those flights were not just information gathering exercises. Team Bush didn't greenlight a project to send armed predators to kill bin ladin because the pentagon didn't want to give the CIA combat authority.

I often say that if Gore was president, 9/11 might not have happened. It's just speculation, but there is certainly grounds for it. Gore would have more aggresively pursued the terrorists and the evidence of terrorist plots. You can never know for sure what might have been, but you know for sure it happened under Bush.

"Abiola, while i generally agree with your underlying premise, your "remix" version on LBJ makes no sense at all."

On the contrary. It makes plenty of sense - LBJ got to where he was largely because he was able and willing to play on southern racism early in his career. Nobody with any knowledge of Johnson's career would have predicted that he would do more for black civil rights than any American president since Lincoln, and those southern voters who voted for the Kennedy-Johnson ticket because "one of their own" was on it would have felt severely disappointed.

In any case, if you don't like my version, try Eugene Volokh's words below (written in response to Mo Dowd's rage about Clarance's "ingratitude" for AA):

["Maureen Dowd in The New York Times has a particularly intemperate expression of this view: “It’s impossible not to be disgusted at someone who could benefit so much from affirmative action and then pull up the ladder after himself. So maybe he is disgusted with his own great historic ingratitude.”

The most basic objection to this view, I think, is that if a judge thinks that a policy is unconstitutional, he has an obligation to so vote, whatever his personal history might be. “Gratitude” isn’t a proper basis for constitutional decisionmaking.

But beyond this, I wonder how far these critics would take their criticism. In the 1970s, the Supreme Court held that sex discrimination was unconstitutional. The justices who voted for this position had spent their lives in a nation in which women were largely excluded from the legal profession. Those men may well have benefited from this exclusion — when half the population is out of the competition, the competition is easier. Maybe if men hadn’t gotten preferences, some of those justices wouldn’t have made it onto the high court.

Should Justices Brennan, Marshall, and the others have said “Oh, we benefited from sex discrimination, so it would be ungrateful for us to now hold that sex discrimination is unconstitutional”?

So Thomas’ critics aren’t really faulting him for opposing policies from which he himself benefited. They’re really faulting him for opposing policies that they like. But instead of acknowledging that they simply disagree with Justice Thomas on the substance, they engage in personal attacks — saying that his actions aren’t simply mistaken as a matter of constitutional law (a matter on which reasonable minds may differ), but “disgust[ing]” because of his personal history."]

sd wrote, "If I were to suggest that its schizophrenic for a Jew to be a Democrat because the Nation of Islam preaches anti-Semitism and most NOI members are Democrats, I would rightly show myself to be out of touch with political reality."

No, you'd have shown yourself given to inappopriate generalizations.

On the other hand, there are what appear to me to be homophobic statements in past Republican Party platforms. For example, google on:
Republican party platform national homosexuality

While not a *national* platform, here's a particularly sickening snippet from the 2000 Texas Republican party platform:
"Homosexuality- The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."

Again, that's not a statement a particular nasty, vile, bigoted Texas Republican; it's the 2000 party platform.

Social inclusivity? Says Andrew Sullivan?

Well, he can dream; but in this waking world, it will never be seen again. This is exclusively the Republicans' fault, and an honest Republican will admit it, because it was their primary goal and they are proud of it; but the price (yet to be paid) will be higher than any of us can imagine.

Abiola, you spent a lengthy amount of column inches non-responding to what i said, and a small amount reiterating your inaccurate "remix."

LBJ was a typical white southerner of his generation; in no sense was he the "greatest" beneficiary of racism in this country, and in no sense did he have a "meteoric" rise.

Ergo, your "remix" continues to make no sense.

If you would read what I wrote, you'll see that i AGREED with your underlying premise, so you didn't really have to spend all that space expanding on it as though it were under challenge by me.

(I'd like to see Thomas acknowledge the role of affirmative action in his career instead of acting like affirmative action is a total failure, but that's a different matter, and if you are insistent upon the lbj version, we might note that johnson felt a specific weight of history in order to make right some of the ills of american apartheid.)

If it isn't schizophrenic for Andrew Sullivan to be a Republican gay, is it schizophrenic for him to exult American nationalism and scorn Americans who call for multilateral cooperation, while attacking any independence in his own country's foreign policy and calling for Britain to multilaterally cooperate with the U.S. and scorning those who call for a unilateralist, nationalist British foreign policy? (I don't really think so: he can think that nationalism isn't right or wrong irrespective of what policy it represents, and think that the right policy is is... whatever Bush's foreign policy is now, so he can still think American nationalism's right and British nationalism is wrong without being inconsistent. I just felt like finding a new ad hominem attack on him, as the whole "gayness" line is getting a bit old, so I thought we might as well harp on his foreign-ness a bit.)

Erh... well, anyway, what boggles my mind is the idea that

1) Sullivan's values are social inclusiveness, toughness on terror, and FISCAL CONSERVATISM.

2) Sullivan's favorite politician is ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGAR.

Figure that one out!

As for the Clinton anti-terror record, I think we can all agree that as far as anti-terror vigour goes:
Bush pre-9/11 < Clinton (pre-9/11) < Bush post-9/11

The question is, where does, in a hypothetical Clinton 3rd term (or a Gore term, or whatever), fit in that relation? The fact that without 9/11, Clinton was more anti-terrorist than Bush, and the fact that the Clinton administration was more inclined to change its policy with political convenience and circumstance than the dogmatic Bush administration, intuitively makes me think that Bush (post-9/11) < Clinton (post-9/11). After all, regardless of the president, 9/11 would have lead to a dramatic increase in anti-terrorism.

>>When I read this, I realized that I couldn't remember why Sullivan had been so anti-Clinton. It couldn't have been national defense -- I assume he was in favor of war with Kosovo, and I don't remember Sullivan being a big terrorism hawk before 2001. Fiscal responsibility -- had to like that. I guess Clinton did raise taxes, and Sullivan's a flat-taxer, but in a relatively unfanatical way. Social inclusiveness -- Clinton was very good. Welfare reform -- good. Free trade -- awesome. Sullivan couldn't have been too worked up over Monica -- he's always been a big fan of sexual privacy, I thought. So what was it he didn't like? (This is actually a real question, not a rhetorical one, in case someone does know the answer.)<<

One possibility is that he takes Charles Murray *extremely* seriously and believes in a genetic elite. A second possibility is that he just wants attention.

Either would account for TNR's treatment of _The Bell Curve_...

Julian,

I don't know. Clinton seems to have been just as worried about foreign perceptions as about domestic polls. Of course it's all speculation, but I for one have a hard time imagining that Clinton/Gore would have been quick and decisive in removing the Taliban.

Julian,

I don't know. Clinton seems to have been just as worried about foreign perceptions as about domestic polls. Of course it's all speculation, but I for one have a hard time imagining that Clinton/Gore would have been quick and decisive in removing the Taliban.

First, Sullivan is a boob. The remark about him writing for the market is right on. He is an opportunist who revels in the limelight as a political commentator. I once read him when he wasn't a hack but sadly, as many of his ilk, he has become just another pseudo-intellectual spending too many hours on his computer feeding the machine. I don't, however, think he takes any "marching orders" from anybody but his spending habits.

Now, as for Clinton's anti-terror credentials -- the record is clear about what he did and what he TRIED to do. Yes, i'm going to go ahead and point fingers at the repub congress on this one. They were so worked up about his dick and anti-clinton hatred they cried foul everytime he tried to do something overseas. pink pundit is absolutely correct... Remember all the wag-the-dog talk during the "scandals"? I cringe everytime the right makes some claim about being tough on terror. They sold our safety during Clinton for some bogus political points and absolutely refuse to answer for it. They were too busy acting like nosey buttinskis while moralizing just to hear their own voices. Now they talk as if they practically invented national security. Trying to blame Clinton for the republican reluctance to face facts during his administration is silly.

Abiola writes,

"One can be the benefeciary of a policy and *still* think it wrong. "

True. But one ought to be honest enough to admit that one has been the beneficiary of such a policy.

Abiola writes,

"One can be the benefeciary of a policy and *still* think it wrong. "

True. But one ought to be honest enough to admit that one has been the beneficiary of such a policy.

The Clinton administration's seriousness about terrorism is well documented...

This neglects to mention:

1. No response to Khobar Towers bombing.
2. No apparent interest in possible state sponsorship of first WTC bombing; no sense of urgency, not even a visit by Clinton to WTC site.
3. No discernible effect from bombings of Afghanistan and Sudan, except destruction of apparently uninvolved pharmaceutical factory.
4. No evidence that Gore was going to make retaliation for the Cole a priority.

Someone who would give a job to Political Correctness maven Donna Shalala doesn't exactly come across as the Inclusiveness President.

"Abiola, you spent a lengthy amount of column inches non-responding to what i said, and a small amount reiterating your inaccurate "remix."

LBJ was a typical white southerner of his generation; in no sense was he the "greatest" beneficiary of racism in this country, and in no sense did he have a "meteoric" rise."

What greater benefit can a politician enjoy than to rise to the vice-presidency and eventually the American presidency itself? And what is an ascent to such a lofty height if not "meteoric"? Or do you imagine that the only sense in which the term "meteoric" can be used is as a synonym for "speedy?"

I maintain that what I said makes obvious sense, and you're simply being obtuse. If it makes no sense to you, perhaps you ought to think more clearly on the issue. Whether you agree with my underlying premise isn't the point. You have accused me of making a nonsensical comparison, when the reality is that you're the one who just doesn't seem to get what is obvious to anyone else.

So, Abiola, when you pen your own "Meteor Symphony" it'll be adagio, right? If that hypothetical doesn't persuade, the American Heritage (4th ed) gives one defn of meteoric: Similar to a meteor in speed, brilliance, or brevity: a meteoric rise to fame. I assume that connotes fast, bright, and fleeting, not slow, dull and sessile, like so many of us land grant college boys.

The Clinton record is very in combatting the terrorism that emerged on his watch The Clinton administration made much progress in the face of a hostile GOP Congress more interested in scoring political points that protecting our country against terrorists. The ability to trace funding for terrorists? Blocked by GOP Senator Phil Gramm. Taggants in explosives? Fought by the GOP Congress. Retaliation against bin Laden? Derided by Newt and DeLay.

Until 9/11, the US had no internationaly support for moving militarily against the Taliban. The US military was absolutely against any kind of military operation in Afghanistan. Clinton asked about sending special forces in to take out bin Laden and the military told him it could not be done. Even Bush when he attacked the Taliban paid Afghani mercenaries to do his fighting for him. Very few US troops were involved. Would the US have supported a military operationin Afghanistan prior to 9/11? Given the reaction of the GOP to Kosovo, it is doubtful that they would have supported Afghanistan.

The Clinton approach to taking on terrorists was the correct one. The culprits were arrested and tried. The US worked with other countries to track down terrorists. Bombings of planes were thwarted. The Millenium bombing was thwarted. The Clinton record was one of adapting to an emerging threat and developing effective techniques for fighting it.

Clinton is criticized by the GOP because the Bush record on anti-terrorism is suspect. Mr. Bush dropped the ball. His declaration of "War" on terrorism is wrongheaded. Terrorists are fought and stopped by cloak and dagger, not tanks and bombers and invasions of sovereign countries like Iraq. We need new leadership that does not make blunders like Iraq. We need leadership with a vision of how to combat terrorism, not start new wars.

Sullivan does not have a clue about American politics. What kind of a response does he think a minority party can have to steamrolling by the majority. The last time I checked, the GOP controlled the presidency, the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court. When the majority party trots a bill with no debate, no input from the minority, no input from the moderates in its own party and cranks up the steamroller, the third way Sullivans wants gets pancaked.

Only a change in party ideology in the GOP or electoral win by the Dems will change poliicy. It is difficult when only 16% of the population elects 50% of the Senators.

Ken

None of your points hold water.

The reason why they didn't focus on state involvement in the first WTC bombing is that there wasn't any -- just as there weren't any WMD in Iraq. There was an exhaustive investigation in which Dick Cheneyesque conspiracy theories were dispassionately analyzed and rejected on the facts. Why is it so hard to believe that a group of religious extremists can meet in a mosque in Brooklyn, conspire to put a bomb in a truck, and try to blow up a building? Did McVey have a state sponsor?

Wishing that there was a state to punish easily with military force in retaliation for terrorism does not make it so.

Khobar -- Setting aside Republican icon Louis Freeh's treasonous interference with the President's authority over international relations, what do you propose should have been done other than to investigate and prosecute through the Saudi authorities? Should we have invaded Saudi Arabia to exact revenge? A US invasion and occupation of Islam's most holy sites -- is that what you think should have been done? That would have been kicking a hornests nest ten thousand times bigger than the one Bush has tripped over in Iraq.

The missile attacks in 98 -- yes, the Sudan bombing was a mistake, but was an act designed to stop a seemingly credible threat that bin ladin was producing nerve gas. Funny you should criticize an aggressive action to respond to credible WMD threats when the response costs the US almost nothing.

From what I've read, additional missile strikes would have been ordered if they lined up a good shot at bin ladin. The armed predator program was developed just for this reason -- and delayed by Bush in the 9 months before 9/11.

There is evidence that Gore would have acted, where Bush did not. Clinton's anti-terror team handed Bush a plan to respond to the Cole attack. Nothing was done by Bush to act on it. In frustration, the architect of that plan went to work for the WTC as a private counterterrorism consultant, and was killed by al qeada.

Does anyone remember that a big terrorist problem in the 1990's was domestic US terrorism. Oklahoma City, The Olympics, etc. Remember all that talk about federal agencies being the Gestapo, etc? Could that have diverted the atteniton of our government and law enforcement?

Well, here I go again.

Sullivan calls for a third force, and our kind host claims that the third force used to be the Democratic Clinton era.

So, what were the other two forces? Bush One's Republicans and Ross Perot's Reformers, I suppose?

Even the most ardent Perotista would hardly claim that Perot's mass appeal was based on social inclusiveness.

More than a decade later, which of the two surviving political parties is more fiscally conservative: Democrats or Republicans? Given that Democrats slam Republicans not spending tax collections FAST ENOUGH -- not enough spending on the Dept of Education, not enough spending on prescription drug benefits in Medicare, not enough spending on nation building in Afghanistan, not enough support to the unemployed, not bailing out Russian banks, not sending more troops to Iraq, not subsidizing windmill generators off the coast of Nantucket ... oh, wait, maybe I'm getting confused.

ANYhow.

Given only two such choices, why wouldn't a frugal person be calling for a third?

PJ,

It takes about half a minute, using Google, to find reputable reports that cast strong doubt on your claims that there was no state involvement in the first WTC bombing and that the matter was exhaustively investigated. Please see:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/60minutes/main510795.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/04/se.19.html

Khobar: Surely, there was some middle ground between an ineffective investigation without significant diplomatic pressure, and an invasion of Saudi Arabia. Also, I remind you, evidence in that case pointed toward Iran as the culprit -- and it is not only the Saudis but the Clinton administration that was reluctant to delve into that possibility. Worth a look:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1401462.stm

Sudan: The evidence implicating that pharmaceutical factory was shoddy at best.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/bombings/retaliation.html

And the attack on Afghanistan was ineffective. It was 'aggressive' only in the sense that punching a wall is aggressive. More ambitious plans had been called off:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/World/GMA030521Bin_laden_plan.html

Just how vigiliant was the Clinton-Gore administration prior to the Cole attack?

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/25/cole.hearing/

I'd be interested in hearing exactly what Gore's plan was for responding to the Cole bombing. Here's some of Clinton's non-reaction:

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/19/clinton.golf.ap/

"Poor, wittle Andy, he just looked in the mirror and realized all those butch, Republican boys he's been pining for"

If this remark doesn't amount to gay-baiting, I don't know what does. I find it offensive.

Abiola, consigliere has already addressed the issue of the meaning of "meteoric" in general.

More important, the original posting that you were analogizing regarding Thomas's "meteoric" rise quite clearly means "speedy," given that Thomas had the most minute judicial experience prior to his elevation to the Supreme Court.

Now, as for Johnson, perhaps you should study up on his history. As an apprenctice of Sam Rayburn, and as the hardest working man in the senate majority leader business, Johnson's "rise" was a result of his actual efforts, not his white skin privilege.

He was hardly the only candidate JFK considered for vice president and by the time he was nominated for Vice President, "racism" had very little to do with his selection.

On the other hand, "affirmative action" had literally everything to do with Thomas's career, which until his elevation to the Supreme Court, was notable for its neglible accomplishments.

So your analogy fails, even though (good grief - i'm forced to say this again!) your underlying point, that Thomas has no obligation to recognize the role of affirmative action in his own career, remains valid.

P.S. Here's a suggestion for you: when someone suggests that your argument-by-analogy makes no sense, at least consider the possibility that your argument, like, makes no sense, rather than assuming its the obtuseness of the person pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

"So, Abiola, when you pen your own "Meteor Symphony" it'll be adagio, right?"

I knew it was a matter of time before someone would sink to this level of stupidity. I didn't realize the American Heritage Dictionary had a patent on the English language; but then again, I'm not a prescriptivist (why not try looking that one up)?

"Abiola, consigliere has already addressed the issue of the meaning of "meteoric" in general."

Why yes sir, he's the authority on these matters, and has laid down the law for us on the meaning of the word. Further argument is obviously pointless.

"Now, as for Johnson, perhaps you should study up on his history. As an apprenctice of Sam Rayburn, and as the hardest working man in the senate majority leader business, Johnson's "rise" was a result of his actual efforts, not his white skin privilege."

So that means he didn't benefit from race baiting how? That he didn't play to the good old boy vote? You seem to think one can't be a hard-working politician AND a panderer to racial prejudice. HINT: the two conditions aren't mutually exclusive.

"He was hardly the only candidate JFK considered for vice president and by the time he was nominated for Vice President, "racism" had very little to do with his selection."

I think this gets at what the real problem is - you're holding a torch for LBJ, and don't want to see your hero besmirched in any way. Well here's news for you buddy - the LBJ I know of from the history books was a darn good race baiter when it suited his political purposes, and anybody who says racism played no role in his career is a full-blown apologist for the man.

"P.S. Here's a suggestion for you: when someone suggests that your argument-by-analogy makes no sense, at least consider the possibility that your argument, like, makes no sense, rather than assuming its the obtuseness of the person pointing out that the emperor has no clothes."

Save the condescending BS for someone who'll be taken in by it. The only one without clothes between the two of us is you. Quibble all you want about the meaning of the word "meteoric" - LBJ got to where he did largely on the back of Southern racism and the need to pander to it.

Ken

I'm pretty sure the US intelligence services (pre GWB at least) used a lot better techniques than google.

plus, none of your articles discuss a state involvement in the 93 bombing. Yes, years later, one of the bombers ended up in Iraq. And the Iraqis offered him to us last year, but we refused the offer.

In 1993, there was no terrorist base in a foreign country that was being used to plot against us, a la Afghanistan. Bin Ladin hadn't even started his organization in Sudan yet. People connect dots in reverse and conclude that some organization formed years later existed in 1993. If there was a terrorist base that supported the 1993 bombing, it would have been a no-brainer response to blow it up. But it didn't fricking exist! Dropping bombs on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn was the bombing response available. Excellent police work, which caught the bombers, was the only option.

Very selective choice by Ken Silber for the Clinton reaction to the Cole bombing. Funny that he missed this one (the top link I got from searching 'clinton cole' at cnn.com), "Clinton to USS Cole attackers: 'We will find you'" (describing Clinton attendance at a memorial service and US-Yemen cooperation on the investigation):

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/10/18/uss.cole.02/index.html

I agree with PJ on the 'state sponsorship' links. Otherwise, lots of pot-calling-kettle-black (at best), seems to me.

Some time ago, on this site, it was pointed out that Andrew Sullivan excused one of Bush's really egregious lies about fiscal policy by saying words to the effect of "It's all right to lie if that's the only way to shrink the Federal Government."
Why should any attention be paid to someone who has publically abandoned commitment to the truth? I gave him up then.

Nice try, Abiola, but your arguments aren't improving, and your guess that i hold a torch for LBJ is pathetically wrong.

You tried a little thought experiment that failed because the analogy was flawed.

Clarence Thomas became the youngest Supreme Court justice in history as a GOP affirmative action play, pure and simple; his career until that moment had been completely anonymous. It is, in fact, fair to say that he was the greatest beneficiary of affirmative action at that time. While this doesn't require him to like affirmative action or in any way to support its continuation, it is reality.

Lyndon Johnson may well have played race cards in various ways at early points in his career, but he became the vice presidential nominee not only because he was from the south (there were plenty of far more racist democratic southerners whom jfk could have picked had he been interested in pairing with an overtly racist southerner) but also - indeed, primarily - because he knew how to get legislation passed in a closely divided congress.

And because he knew, in his bones, what the real cost of racism was, he made it his priority to push through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, even more important, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In short, your analogy is wrong on two levels: how clarence thomas got ahead in life vs. how lyndon johnson got ahead in life; and how rapidly they did so.

And now, i think i've used up enough of brad's comment space on this silly matter; you're welcome to continue to insult me and pummel straw men of your own devising, though.

maciej wrote, "Of course it's all speculation, but I for one have a hard time imagining that Clinton/Gore would have been quick and decisive in removing the Taliban."

First, while the Taliban have been removed, they're hardly off the scene in Afghanistan.

Second, Bush used proxy Pashtun troops at Tora Bora, which is most likely one of the reasons bin Laden got away there. And we may presume Bush used proxy troops because that decreased the risk of American casualties and the concommitant political risk.

Stephen,

Well, I suppose if you're after getting the Taliban off the scene completely, nuclear weapons should have been your choice of method (and who knows, perhaps we should have used them at Tora Bora). Do you think Clinton/Gore would have used them?

I think the objectives of the mission were more limited: deny them, and their jihadi associates, the sanctuary of an independent state whose resources, primitive though it was, surpass those of any private organization. I would venture that had been by and large--even if not completely--accomplished.

Stephen,

Well, I suppose if you're after getting the Taliban off the scene completely, nuclear weapons should have been your choice of method (and who knows, perhaps we should have used them at Tora Bora). Do you think Clinton/Gore would have used them?

I think the objectives of the mission were more limited: deny them, and their jihadi associates, the sanctuary of an independent state whose resources, primitive though it was, surpass those of any private organization. I would venture that had been by and large--even if not completely--accomplished.

PJ:
If we're leaving the Khobar and Sudan examples behind, I suspect it's because there's not much to be said there from a pro-Clinton perspective. As for the WTC 93 investigation, indications of possible state links have emerged gradually over the years; perhaps they'd have arisen faster if finding them had been a top priority. I don't suggest a coverup -- just a reluctance to open a can of worms when prosecuting a handful of individuals was much easier and less risky.

Tom Bozzo:
Clinton, Albright et al made similar 'we will find you' statements after Khobar Towers.

Albiola says, "I'm not a prescriptivist (why not try looking that one up)?"

Was that a countercheck quarrelsome or a reply churlish? No, you're no prescriptivist. You're a crank with a private argot who reacts petulantly when asked about your infelicities. And Howard still won the volley.

Did you get beat up a lot as a kid?

Ken Silber, the basic issue is that a fair assessment does not support the contention that the glass was all-empty during the Clinton years. Here's a sample tough but balanced viewpoint:

"...although American [counter-terrorism] strategies and policies are basically on the right track, significant aspects of implementation are seriously deficient... [H]owever... in the course of our assessment we gained renewed confidence in the abilities and dedication of the Americans who stand on the front lines in the fight against terrorism."

(from Foreword to "Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism," Report of the National Commission on Terrorism, signed by Chairman L. Paul Bremer III and Vice Chairman Maurice Sonnenberg, June 2000)

It also seems fair to say that no more positive assessment than this could have been made 13 months later.

Tom B: Fair enough. I'll stipulate the 'glass was not all empty.' What I wouldn't say, and what inspired me to respond, was PJ's earlier post 'The Clinton administration's seriousness about terrorism is well documented -- the successful prosecutions etc...', which amounted to saying the glass was pretty full.

Ken S., I think that the Clinton-era glass was fuller than you'll stipulate to, but reasonable people can disagree on the degree within some range...

The more pertinent question is how full the glass is now. More in some ways (and every time I arrive at DCA and see the empty general aviation ramp, for what it's worth, it is evidence that the corporate elite doesn't run everything yet), but not all.

Brad wonders why Andrew Sullivan was so anti-Clinton. Sid Blumenthal (The Clinton Wars) describes Sullivan as "a young British Tory- rightest, Catholic and gay." and "To Americans Sullivan's conservatism may have seemed quirky and original, but to anyone familiar with British politics, it was predictably hard line Conservative."

Blumenthal places Sullivan as a "Thatcherite". Clinton's embrace of Tony Blair (the Tory's worst nightmare) must have pushed Sully over the edge. The answer is that Sullivan is a Brit and retains a conservative Brit outlook on politics. To elitist British snobs, Clinton is among the great American unwashed.

TNR has historically had a tension between neoconservative and liberal. The Bell Curve is square out of the Neo-Con camp at AEI. I assume it is the AEI/NeoCon association that led to TNR treatment of "The Bell Curve".

I guess that I don't believe the U.S. government should condone gay marriage because I'm a bigoted, hateful homophobe?

It can't have anything to do with rational thoughts that biology determines sex not preference, and that sexual preference for ones own sex appears to be the definition of psychological maladjustment. Combined with a belief that marriage is a union between opposite sexes these facts might well lead somebody to rationally oppose same sex unions without having any ill will whatsoever toward gay citizens. Naw, gloss over inconvenient facts.

Instead my actions and thoughts have to be directed toward harming somebody that is gay. That way debate on the subject is taboo, and we can then have the same misinformation campaign floating around on this subject as the "death tax". Who'd a thunk it. Being open minded seems have its limits on all sides.