Andy and Chuckie, Sittin' In A Tree...

The fact that Andrew Sullivan would publicly admit that in Charles Johnson he has found a kindred spirit probably tells you all you need to know about Andrew Sullivan. And like the middle-aged loser he's embraced, middle-aged loser Andrew can't let the opportunity to whore for hits pass him by: Now he's got to do his version of Why I Parted Ways With The Right.

Here's Sullivan's "Look at me! Look at me! I have a manifesto, too!" manifesto...

1. I cannot support a movement that claims to believe in limited government but backed an unlimited domestic and foreign policy presidency that assumed illegal, extra-constitutional dictatorial powers until forced by the system to return to the rule of law. Dictatorial powers? Really, Andrew? Huh... So what you're saying is George W. Bush has illegally continued his presidency by cleverly disguising himself as a mulatto constitutional lawyer and mid-western freshman senator and then getting himself elected president, rather than just continuing to govern via his illegal, extra-constitutional dictatorial powers like all the other dictators? Amazing.

2. I cannot support a movement that exploded spending and borrowing and blames its successor for the debt. Legitimate point. But just how does increasing said spending and said deficits by an even greater measure qualify Obama and the Democrats for your undying support?

3. I cannot support a movement that so abandoned government's minimal and vital role to police markets and address natural disasters that it gave us Katrina and the financial meltdown of 2008. Any moderately sophisticated (and honest) analysis of either the Katrina response or the 2008 "financial meltdown" would note the obvious: The failures related to either disaster were completely bipartisan and to a great extent due to institutional, rather than individual, shortcomings. Trying to suggest otherwise simply points out the extent of your intellectual deterioration to the adults in the room.

4. I cannot support a movement that holds torture as a core value. A "core value"? Whatever, Andrew. On a completely unrelated note, how's Eric Holder's prosecution of Dick Cheney going?

5.  I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power. Yeah, I don't like Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton either.

6. I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful. Right. The last time I checked, Barack Obama was still opposed to gay marriage, despite a whole lot of wishful thinking and hard work on the part of the LGBT community in 2008. Of course, you've spent a substantial portion of 2009 excusing Obama's refusal to lift a finger on LGBT issues, so this sort of righteous indignation comes across as both cynical and pathetic at the same time.

7. I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation. Yeah, I don't like ACORN either.

8. I cannot support a movement that sees permanent war as compatible with liberal democratic norms and limited government. Which permanent war are we talking about? The one in Iraq that Obama can't bring himself to end, or the one in Afghanistan where he's going to send in another 30,000+ troops ASAP? Sorry Andrew, but on permanent wars, Barack Obama has turned out to be Bush Lite. Deal with it.

9. I cannot support a movement that criminalizes private behavior in the war on drugs. Yeah, and Nancy Pelosi will be getting around to legalizing Arkansas Polio Weed right after she finishes working on passing gay marriage. I hate to harsh your mellow, Andrew, but Democrats aren't exactly breaking down the door to give you the right to smoke even more dope on federal land.

10. I cannot support a movement that would back a vice-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism. You never will rid yourself of that creepy obsession you have with Sarah Palin and her pregnancies, will you?

11. I cannot support a movement that regards gay people as threats to their own families. See #6 above. I'd suggest you have a talk with John Aravosis, but I doubt he'd take your call. On a completely unrelated note, how's the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act going?

12. I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact. Only a moron of a partisan would suggest that the entire V.R.W.C. is a creationist. Only a dishonest one would try to sell said suggestion.

13. I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy. Now why would anyone think climate change is a hoax...? Especially now?

14. I cannot support a movement that refuses ever to raise taxes, while proposing no meaningful reductions in government spending. So you support a movement that always raises taxes and never proposes reductions in government spending instead? Really?

15. I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck. Again, meaningless drivel rather than specifics. In your defense, though, when you can't read the date in a Charles Krauthammer column without fucking it up, specifics are best avoided, aren't they?

16. I cannot support a movement that believes that the United States should be the sole global power, should sustain a permanent war machine to police the entire planet, and sees violence as the core tool for international relations. See #8 above. More meaningless drivel, especially given the fact that Barack Obama is telling the people of the United States he will be sending more troops to Afghanistan as I write this post.

Does this make you a "radical leftist", Andrew? Perhaps. I'm sure there are radical leftists who are as muddled and shallow as you are these days. I'm sure there are radical leftists around who, like you, will excuse Barack Obama any transgression he happens to commit. But as much as you'd love to convince us that this is all about politics and values, that really isn't what this is all about, is it? Let's face it, you'd love for Michelle Malkin to label you a "radical leftist".

For you, that would be a step up.

The conservative movement never left you, Andrew. You flatter yourself by saying so. You were just another opportunist who jumped on board when things were going good. Now that things aren't going so well, you're off in search of other opportunities. It's what opportunists do. Of course, you can't just come out and say that sort of thing... opportunists never deal in truth, after all. So instead of truth you give us some half-assed manifesto in the hopes that at least a few of the more gullible are fooled.

Sorry, but I don't think it's worked.

And in that respect, you and Charles Johnson really are kindred souls, aren't you? Yes, by God, you are. Right down to hawking self-published books and calendars on your web sites...

Comments

[badanov]

Pretty funny, Dennis.

Thanks for the chuckles.

Not Chuckles Johnson...

Oh, you know what I mean...

I hope

[Simon]

Even better than Chuckie's (which Sully refers to as a) 'testament'.

He says "To have supported Reagan and Bush and Clinton and Dole and Bush and Kerry and Obama suggests I never had a party to quit." More than suggests it, Andy.

This guy is 'famous' for being a gay, Catholic, conservative.

How is this guy a conservative, or a Catholic for that matter ?

If it wasn't for his proven love of milky loads I might even have doubts on the gay part.

[Dennis The Peasant]

Given to what extent he's excused Obama for ignoring the LGBT community's issues, you could be excused for suspecting he's a closet homophobe.

Then again, Andrew's gay in the same way he's Catholic and conservative... Weak.

[Guesst]

What does any of Sullivan's manifesto have to do with Sarah Palin's womb?

He is getting off-track.

[Mike C.]

"Schmucks of a feather", etc., etc., etc.

[grendelkhan]

You know, the article is titled "Why I Parted Ways With The Right", not "Why I Joined Ways With The Left". As a reason to stick with the conservative movement, "the Democrats are roughly as bad" is pretty weak sauce.

[Dennis The Peasant]

I would be the last person on Earth to suggest that either Andrew Sullivan or Charles Johnson "remain" conservatives... Largely because neither has ever been one.

My point is simple: Sullivan and Johnson are attempting to convince others that this is about the nature of conservatism changing, whereas in truth it is about Sullivan and Johnson changing. The reason for their deception is obvious: Their "change of heart" is based more on opportunism and personal (non-political) agendas than on issues, policy and values.

[HayZeus]

Hammer, nail, head. Dressing up one's shilling for the Democrats as being a contrarian "conservative" pays the bills much better than those gold-plated bandwidth drives or PJM ever could, at least for now.

[Guesst]

The nature of conservatism has been changing since the day Rush Limbaugh claimed to be a conservative, not a republican.

He and his cronies have shown beyond any doubt that there is a shitload of money to be made by pandering to the extreme right.

If Charles is going after different business, I don't think it's going to work.

[Charlotte Knight]

Nicely enumerated! I do quibble a little with No. 3: The failures related to either disaster were completely bipartisan and to a great extent due to institutional, rather than individual, shortcomings.

The financial meltdown was absolutely bipartisan, as is well documented. However, as is also well documented, the Bush administration filled FEMA with a good number of toadies cronies appointees who were openly eager to privatize/"WalMart" government disaster response. It didn't work.

Also, blaming an institution, as in "institutional shortcomings" is meaningless. Institutions don't design themselves. At least, not yet.

[Dennis The Peasant]

Charlotte-

True on FEMA, but let's remember that at both the state and local levels, the institutions involved in disaster relief and whatnot were run and staffed primarily by Democrats. There's enough blame to go around.

The point is that blaming one party or the other doesn't come close to explaining why the institutions involved performed so poorly.

[Allen]

I like #10 myself. Sarah palin may have been a horrible pick, but that implies he thinks that Joe Biden was a good one.

Every time I hear someone complaining about Palin I have an image of Joe Biden on his one man gaffe-o-matic tour.

[AK]

You can't take Sullivan at his word. His writing is so hyperbolic that it's meaningless. So this is why he "parted ways with the right," huh? You don't have to get past very deep into his list before you should realize that his premise is completely fucked.

Are these reasons cumulative? Well, no, because each reason begins "I cannot support a movement that..." Each individual item, then, is a deal-breaker. If the conservative movement (definition?) reversed course on everything on the list except for Andrew's right to bong out with Arkansas Polio Weed, he still couldn't be part of that movement, because he "cannot support a movement that" restricts his right to get higher than Jesus.

Did Sully intend to make each item on the list independent, or did he repeat the same phrase at the outset of each item simply because cloying repetition is one of his tropes? Who the fuck knows? I'm inclined to think he's just a terrible writer, but he's also a terrible thinker. It's impossible to know whether he's accurately dictating sloppy thoughts or sloppily dictating cogent thoughts.

Of course, we have to know what the hell the limey poof's point is if we are to take Sully seriously. Is this thesis that all conservatives subscribe to everything on his list? Perhaps most subscribe to most? Most to many? Many to most? Maybe that's not his thesis at all. Maybe he believes that he can't get behind (heh heh) anyone who adheres to even a single item on his list. Again, who the fuck knows?

You can't debate this idiot. I could point out to him that every political coalition contains a diversity of viewpoints, and thus it's foolish to demand strict ideological purity and bolt at the first sign of disagreement. Maybe he just thinks that, on average, conservatism in 2009 is too comfortable with too many of these listed views. Fine, but if it's just an average, that at least suggest that there might be room under conservatism's tent for someone who dissents from many of these views.

But if he believes that every - or even most - conservatives agree with his listed positions, as he has phrased them, then he's just batshit insane. The more I think about it, the more probable it seems.

[AK]

You know, the article is titled "Why I Parted Ways With The Right", not "Why I Joined Ways With The Left". As a reason to stick with the conservative movement, "the Democrats are roughly as bad" is pretty weak sauce.

The goal here is not to convince Mr. Loads that he should identify with mainstream American conservatism. The goal is to expose his justifications for "part[ing] ways with the right" as phony.

You can't simultaneously write #9 and support Obama. It's impossible. If the War on Drugs is a deal-breaker, then Obama is as bad as Chimpy McBushitler. Yet Loads DOES support Obama, who's the top cop in the War on Drugs. So Sullivan's just dishonest.