Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Wow Ann, I thought that you seldom read the partisan blogs?I think it's pretty amusing how many partisan bloggers never noticed how excitable and intemparate Sully can be until he started to disagree with them, and then rapidly stopped reading him.
Well, if you read the linked post, you'll see he linked to me. I notice when a blog is sending me traffic and click over.
That's one of the best links I ever got! :-)
Ann--OK, I'll settle for that excuse!GPW-- Just how far do you think we should go in 'respecting the private lives — and personal choices' of public figures who engage in semi-private conduct that's at odds with their stated beliefs and calls their judgement into doubt? That is what the latest accusations (which I'll reiterate that I'm assuming are false in the absence of any evidence, considering the source) involve. Do you think that Bill Clinton's personal life should have been off-limits as well?
The term nonsensical comes to mind when I think of Mr. Sullivan’s writings. In his May 2006 Time magazine essay on the execrable term 'Christianists' he says:“I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.”In the course of the essay he criticizes Republicans Tom Delay, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh whose views he abhors. Nowhere in his essay does he chastise Democrats (or others on the left) whose “religion dictates [their] politics.”For example, James Winkler, the head of the United Methodist Church’s Board of Church and Society, has called for the impeachment of President Bush. (Winkler’s is the denomination’s national spokesman.) Mr. Winkler’s religious beliefs clearly dictate his political views on this and many other issues. Would Mr. Sullivan also decry this? It would seem not. Yet in concluding, Mr. Sullivan contends correctly that “The word Christian belongs to no political party.” Clearly, Mr. Sullivan is a partisan who wants to be seen as non-partisan.(And, of course, it’s amusing to note that both the President and Vice President are Methodists.)http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191826,00.htmllhttp://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9879
I think it's pretty amusing how many partisan bloggers never noticed how excitable and intemparate Sully can be until he started to disagree with them, and then rapidly stopped reading himI think it was widely understood that Sullivan was excitable and intemperate, especially among people who've followed political commentary for a long time. He's a good writer, though, so sometimes he produces good material for whatever side he's on this week.I think of it the way I think of libertarian party gatherings. When the speaker's ranting about how much the war on drugs sucks, I listen amusedly and make note of the clever barbs, if any. When the speaker starts ranting about how the Union was wrong in the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln was the most wicked and horrible President we've ever had, I tune out.
I think of it the way I think of libertarian party gatherings. When the speaker's ranting about how much the war on drugs sucks, I listen amusedly and make note of the clever barbs, if any. When the speaker starts ranting about how the Union was wrong in the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln was the most wicked and horrible President we've ever had, I tune out.Good point, but woah would Sully have to get a whole lot twitchier to compete with a roomful of Libertarians!
Townleybomb:One has nothing to do with the other. The sad truth is how sexuality has been politicized. I am a woman, but that doesn't mean that I like Hillary Clinton or will vote for a woman vs a man, that I am pro-choice, etc. etc. There are many reasons why people are republicans, democrats, feminists, environmentalists. Checking one box doesn't automatically check other boxes.Your other example also doesn't make sense. AS for Bill Clinton, it ceased to be "private" when he chose to use his public office as a bedroom. Any corporation would have fired him immediately for having sex in their office or on company property and others would do it for merely "fraternizing" with a subordinate. Hypocrisy was the feminists creating an issue out of "sexual harrassment" during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings on the testimony of one woman, and when their guy is caught doing the same with dozens of women they call all the women whores. The lit a fuse and it blew up in their face.You reap what you sow and all of these people outing candidates are lighting a fuse to an unknown bomb.
AS for Bill Clinton, it ceased to be "private" when he chose to use his public office as a bedroom.The outing incident that we've been talking about involves allegations of a politician using a public restroom as a bedroom. That's entirely public and illegal to boot. I assume that you'll agree with me that (assuming that the allegations are substantiated) outing would be justified in this case?
Townleybomb, if indeed the public figures have lives that are at odds with their public lives, it's their choice. They may not see such a discrepancy. Like you, considering the source, I assume the latest accusations are false.As to Bill Clinton, all I can say is that he should have known better than to carry on a relationship with an employee while he had been sued for sexual harassment.
Good point, but woah would Sully have to get a whole lot twitchier to compete with a roomful of Libertarians!Just get him started on male cicumcision and watch the fireworks.
Forgive me Townleybomb, was this person arrested ala George Michael? Did he pay a fine or some kind of price? Or is this just a rumor? I would say that's a big difference in my book.Clinton was being sued for sexual harrassment by a state employee which is how the Lewinsky thing came to light. He wasn't being outted as an adulterer or as a sleeze bag. Being a sleeze bag is not illegal or grounds for a suit anymore than being a gay Republican. So, again, your analogy doesn't wash.I remember in the early 90's when Queer Nation posted pictures of famous people all over Manhattan with the word "Queer" posted across it. One of those people I remember was Jody Foster. I don't think she every said one way or another, but it's assumed. Because she doesn't want to pound the pavement as a gay person does not make her "in the closet." Forcing people "out" for their personal political gain is WRONG. It was wrong then, it's wrong now.
Forcing people "out" for their personal political gain is WRONG. It was wrong then, it's wrong now.Any worse than using gay people as scapegoats for all of society's ills as Bush has done?Any worse than firing 10,000 proud gay Americans who were protecting our country, simply because they are gay - as has been done in the last ten years?Any worse than advocating for the raiding of people's homes and arresting them for gay sex - as Governor George W. Bush did in 1994, and has yet to renounce?Any worse than starting a whisper campaign that Governor Ann Richards was a lesbian, as George Bush and Karl Rove did?Any worse than spreading a whsiper campaign that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian?Are you really telling me that if we find evidence that one of Bush of Bush's daughters is a lesbian, that we have zero right to discuss that? Bullshit. We have zero qualms discussing the boys they are dating. To say that we couldn't discuss the women they are dating is homophobia at its worst.
"Any worse than advocating for the raiding of people's homes and arresting them for gay sex - as Governor George W. Bush did in 1994"DTL, where are you getting this stuff? I don't recall any knocks on my Houston door when GWB was governor. Perhaps you are linked to some alternate-reality universe, and using daily kos as a "fact" source?
DTL, where are you getting this stuff?You're asking a "libertarian" who favors drafting people and forcing them to fight wars over hiring a volunteer army. Asking him to offer a rational explanation for his beliefs is asking too much.In any case, DTL's just being inventive with the truth. Bush opposed repealing the Texas anti-sodomy laws when he was governor. He never advocated "raiding people's homes" and "arresting them for gay sex" -- that part's a lie. Or as DTL would put it, it is true in some context of DTL's own imagining.
Somehow, I managed to miss the part of Bush's presidency where he "us[ed] gay people as scapegoats for all of society's ills", also.(Where's the HTML encoding for an eye-roll when you need one?)
Post a Comment