Perhaps we are seeing the final, lazy loops of Mr. Sullivan's intellectual-death spiral?
Sounds like an interesting site. Do you have an URL?
I got your URL right here!
Tossed that condescending sod's bookmark months ago after one too many cheap shots about churchgoers. Pay the baby no attention, he'll stop whining.
I stopped reading him way over a year ago. I got tired of him doing all his thinking from below the belt.
Plus, idiotic shots at John Derbyshire did not endear him to me. I love the Derb.
i lost interest in sullivan ages ago, and had become disheartened watching the decline of one my (one-time) favorite blogs.
He used to be a really good read, until he went into a "i-cant-marry-my-boyfriend-and-i-hate-you" temper tantrum.
He has of recent however, returned to good graces when i realized we are wrong, and he is actually an undercover agent of rove, helping the left and tnr believe that we are all a bunch of racist, homophobe, jesusland, dixicrats.
The more the left believes this, the more we win, and they gobble his goop as if its gospel.
I can't find the link, but somebody about a two weeks ago noticed that Andrew was having property tax problems and expected a "band-width fund drive" any day.
My, there's nothing like a traitor to get the blood boiling, is there?
Tell me, does it hurt more when someone who used to support you admits he, after much agonising soul searching, can no longer abide the intellectual vaccuum that the GOP has become than it does when us liberals say it?
I think you're being a bit unfair. Heck, even a lot unfair. Sullivan is no more "gimicky" than any number of other blogs that solicit funds from their readers. Sure, the whole award-disguised-as-ad-hominum-attack thing is getting a bit tedious, and I wish he wouldn't spend so much time on gay rights which are of only passing interest to me, but that just makes him less interesting than he was. I don't think it is a reason to impugn his motives. I see him as no more or no less creative in his efforts to build audience and revenue than any number of other for-profit bloggers. Indeed, you could plausibly make the argument that his focus on gay rights and his endorsement of John Kerry cost him a lot of contributions from his original readership. I don't think you've really made a case against Sullivan. You've just heaped scorn. You did it well -- very well -- but I'm not sure you carried the day on your underlying argument.
I used to think he'd jumped the shark. Now I realize he never had any shark.
Sullivan who? I forget he even exists except when periodically reminded by posts such as this. Discovered him while discovering the blog world in general after 9/11. Read him with interest until like Mark, attacks on honest, authentic conservatives like Derbyshire started turning me off. Finally the transparency of his position (no pun intended) became exceedingly clear after defenders of social traditions dared to push back on the social radicals over marriage. Yes Andrew is a well educated, clever talking drag queen. And how in the world does anyone ever consider him a conservative of any flavor? Haven't wasted the key stroke to view his nonsence in many months, and have no intention of visiting it again.
McDuff, the only one calling Sullivan a traitor is you. There's no blood boiling here, just a chorus of yawns. Sullivan has become boring, and we no longer find his blog worthwhile to read. If you're still mesmerized by it, more power to you! Go ahead and send him your money.
As for "the intellectual vaccuum that the GOP has become": whatever. I'm not a Republican, and the GOP has nothing to do with why I gave up on reading Sullivan. Are you sure you aren't just trying to change the subject?
His cheap trick of using Malkin to generate traffic is nothing next to the quote he used in that same post. His dishonest snipping out of only part of the statement makes it look like Bill Donohue (the quotee) was saying one thing, when if you went and read the whole quote on the linked site, you would find that Donohue was talking about a totally different thing, namely explaining why he didn't care what Hollywood types thought of Mel Gibson's move 'The Passion.'
Sulliven has become bankrupt of ideas and continues to look down on anyone who disagrees with him as having some vile and evil mission while he holds one flickering candle that shines the light of truth.
Being boring is bad enough, but being an arrogant bore is intolerable. I just wonder what has happened to him.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with the writers original statment. I used to read Andrew regularly, when he was wrting. Now it is basically a cut and paste blog with no real analysis behind it. I got the impression awhile ago that he was too busy doing something else than to keep the blog up to speed. Also, the over the top ,gay marriage as an election issue, was disheartening. I feel it really hurt his credibility. I was disapointed when he failed to explore this issue post election. He very briefly touched on it ( I beleive it was a c/p of another article) but nothing further.
Oh, boring, I see. Well, as long as you're not upset enough about it to sit around talking about him, hell, I don't see what the problem is. My mistake, I apologise.
I do have one tiny niggle though, with Kent. I'm sorry, but you thought Andrew Sullivan was over the top for making Gay Marriage an election issue, and not, say, President Bush? I'm inclined to think this is a little like blaming the soldiers in Iraq for making the war an election issue.
Gay marriage was suddenly and very prominently made an issue when it was thrust upon the people of Massachusetts by a narrow majority of un-democratically appointed judges. Bush thereafter reacted to that issue, as did Kerry, by basically rejecting gay marriage, and both tried to ignore it as thoroughly as possible.
Sully, on the other hand, let that one issue shape his entire approach to every bit of political news, to the point where it became his defining issue.
Compare and contrast.
I guess McDuff missed this paragraph from the Fox story:
"Although Bush said he wanted the Constitution amended to preserve the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, he said that states should be allowed to craft laws that recognize other types of relationships."
So he has no problem with civil partnerships, only with taking the concept of marriage (which is rooted in religion) and using it to apply to homosexual relationships, which most religions find objectionable.
I don't have a problem with that. In fact, states should redefine what all couples -- straight and gay -- do at the courthouse as "civil unions." Let the churches handle the marrying.
That Bush agrees with this never penetrated the liberal BusHitler mindset.
He's asking for money again??
Please be kind to Andrew, he suffers from Tourettes, & can't help blurting out Goodridge or gay marriage in every other post.
I noticed he had the gall to call Michelle 'hysterical'. From one screaming diva to another, I guess
he got my attention for a while, and i still go back because he's a better writer than most folks. don't always agree with him. i deal.
sort of like dealing with the ever so tiresome 'unelected judge forcing marriage' canard every time someone says 'gay marriage'. zzzzzzzzz
and i don't know you from squat, but this post sounds incredibly bitter to me (wahhh i want money toooooo). every blogger gets boring now and then. and i found you from another blog, and guess what. i hit 'post' and you're forgotten, because guess what: i'm bored!
Andrew Sullivan is one of my favorite bloggers and I am hoping he becomes a role-model for gays in the future. He has refused to conform and jump on the bandwagon with the vast majority of GLBT people and I applaud him for that.
As a conservative lesbian living in NYC (yes, we do exist!) Andrew's writings are a breath of fresh air!