I generally enjoy Andrew’s blog, simply because of his passionate patriotism, and his spirited defense of the current administration.

But I dont agree with his lifestyle, and like a number of liberal Republicans, he confuses conservative principles with libertarian ones.

What is the America to which he is attached?

Sullivan of course has a vision of a transformed American society which would be entirely unacceptable to us. But in fairness one must say that, unlike the antiwar right, Sullivan has been sufficiently attached to America, as it exists in the here and now, strongly to support the president in defense against its mortal enemies.

Mr. Auster misses the point. Sullivan has a vision of a transformed monolithic world society in which, among other things, homosexual behavior is given state protection and sanction. Sullivan’s attachment is better explained by the fact that America is the best vehicle to achieve his demented worldview rather than any particular attachment to its people that he allegedly holds. He, like all other neocons, harbors a vitrolic hatred for rural America and indeed any part of America outside the twin East-West megapoloi.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Creative Destruction, Inc.

Mr. Eubanks has a point, and it raises an interesting possibility about Sullivan. Sullivan is now so upset with the Republican party over its failure to condemn Senator Santorum that he is talking about ending his support for the Republican party. So the question arises, would Sullivan, for the same reason, also cease his support for the war itself, since it was primarily supported by those insufficiently pro-gay Republicans?

If he did follow this path, his thinking would be analogous to that of the antiwar right. The people on the antiwar right refused to support a war led by a Republican administration which they saw as being in thrall to neoconservative, globalist, and open-borders ideologies that they virulently oppose. In doing so, they made it clear that they cared less about the substantive pros and cons of the war and the actual dangers facing America than about their hatred of the neoconservatives. Will Sullivan’s patriotism be similarly trumped by his anger against any manifestation of traditional morality on the part of Republicans?

I wouldn’t mind Sullivan so much if he weren’t such a blasted hypocrite. He demanded, publicly, that Cheney speak openly about his lesbian daughter in light of his views on homosexuality. He said he owed it to the American people to do so. Sullivan was suggesting, then, that Cheney, as a public figure, was obligated to explain his personal life — i.e. his family — to the public.

Of course, then it was revealed that Sullivan was posting personal ads on the internet looking for gay sex. When he was asked about this, especially in the context of his pro-gay advocacy, he said the issue was ‘none of our business.’ I’ll translate that to: ‘I can dish it out, but I sure as heck can’t take it.’

There are other reasons to dislike Sullivan — his stance on the estate tax is repulsive, for example — but when it comes to social issues, his intellectual dishonesty is simply amazing. You might as well just tune him out when abortion, homosexuality, etc, are being discussed, because he seems incapable of any kind of rational argumentation.

I agree with Mr. Courrèges about Sullivan’s intellectual dishonesty. It cetainly fits into a larger pattern of the lastest “minds” promoted by the neocons. Stephen Schwarz and Jamie Glazov come to mind.

“He, like all other neocons, harbors a vitrolic hatred for rural America and indeed any part of America outside the twin East-West megapoloi.”

I disagree with this kind of blanket statement. Firstly because it is simply false, secondly because it ignores genuine pro-American patriotism anomg many neocons, and thirdly because it ignores the diversity of opinion in neocon circles.

As to attachement to rural America, many paleocons can hardly make such a claim anymore. How many heartland Americans would agree with much of what is written in the pages of Chronicles now? How many of them support President Bush? How many of them would have found Thomas Fleming’s take on 911 (his coffe was interrupted!) posted here by Lawrence? How many rural heartland Americans side with Serbia, France or Iraq against their own country, as many palecons now do?

I ndo agree however with Lawrence’s and Owen’s critiques of Sullivan.

But Sullivan is not representative of neocon opinion, and in fact I would not label him as one to begin with. Sullivan is a liberal Republican, not a neoconservative.

Having just visted Sullivan’s site it seem’s he’s now saying he’s not any kind of Republican at all. Moreover he’s now warning people about the supposed “big government intolerance” that forms the base of the party. Rubbish.

He’s lost me on this one, I dont see the point of reading him anymore, especially now the war’s over.

This man is no neocon, or any other kind of conservative.

The depth of one decadent hole in America is lighted when much if not most of the political and intellectual elite pays attention to anything said by one man that publicly celebrates and takes part in the despicable behavior that this one prominent homosexual man talks about.

- I have read that Sullivan himself is infected with the AIDS virus. One would expect such a development to have given a thoughtful person second thoughts about the homosexual lifestyle. No such luck; we’ll keep ramming on.

- I guess it’s nice there are homosexuals, like Sullivan and the Logrolling Republicans, who appreciate conservative ideas, but I wonder if it isn’t all part of that huge effort of recent decades to pass for “normal”. More than any other group, sexual deviants have worked furiously to create the idea of an unchangeable sexual condition. Having gained near-universal acceptance of the myth called “sexual identity”, the next step was to be represented in all parts of society, including churches, the boy scouts, and political conservatism. But all this rests on quicksand because there is no scientific basis for the notion of an inborn sexual identity; there are just people who do strange things, the vast majority of whom have functioned heterosexually or will do so in the future. The desperate quest to have aberrant behavior accepted as inevitable may go as far as wearing 3-piece suits, but in the end its internal inconsistencies become fatal.

Liberal Republican? I think I read on there he was leaving the Republican party behind. Hes a liberal with a conservative veneer ;) Course sometimes those terms are meaningless. Im no liberal but Im certainly no Republican though I did come to conclusion Bush was right about Iraq.

What I dont get is someone actively gay remaining in a church that teaches homosexuality is wrong? It seems either hypocritical to not find a church that matches your beliefs or follow what is taught in regards to that issue. I left the Catholic church over doctrinal and other matters. But I dont understand those who stay in and flaunt all the rules.

Santorum deserves his freedom of speech same as Sullivan does. Problem is pseudo-and real liberals more and more want to take freedom of speech away from everyone else.

there are Countries now where one can be fined for saying that you disagree with Homosexuality.

Yes Victoria. Some admit their adultery (or other sin) is wrong and proceed with it anyway but ask their priests for forgiveness and pray for strength to resist. Disordered persons can’t do this; they can’t think like the rest of us, though they might have the brilliance of a savant. These people need our understanding and help even if they can’t admit it. What WE don’t need is to encourage their disorder by accepting their awful behavior, not that we ever have a chance of changing the behavior.

I am utterly unqualified in psychology. This observation is based on experience in dealing with merely one disordered person (not me thankfully).