If you’ve ever listened to the Jim Rome show you should be familiar with the term in the title. News this evening of noted “conservative” columnist Andrew Sullivan calling John Kerry the “conservative choice” in a UK paper spread fast.
In a comment to Charles Johnson’s story about Andrew Sullivan apparent endorsement of John Kerry, Matt Kurlander wonders exactly what kind of conservative Sullivan is:
Guys, Andrew Sullivan is NOT a conservative. Compared to Eric Alterman and Larry Kramer, maybe, but only in the sense that Hillary is thin compared to Rosie O’Donnell and Michael Moore is fair and accurate compared with Baghdad Bob… (or, is that Baghdad Bob is fair and accurate compared to Michael Moore?).
Is he a conservative on taxes? No, he thinks gas taxes should be hiked a dollar a gallon. He likes this because he doesn’t drive and wants to screw people who do… that is not a conservative position.
Is he a conservative on values? No, he wants to radicalize the traditional institution of marriage, and he wants the courts to do against the will of the citizenry. That is not a conservative position.
Is he a fiscal conservative? He just endorsed the guy who wants to outspend Bush by a trillion dollars and socialize health care. You tell me?
Is he a conservative on foreign policy? He just endorsed the guy who thinks it’s more important to get a permission slip from the French than it is to defend America’s interests.
So, exactly what kind of conservative does Sullivan claim to be? Matt saves me the time of pointing out that Sullivan sure espouses some pretty non-conservative positions for a supposed bastion of online conservatism.
I know it’s considered bad form to be picky about spelling on blogs but are you sure bastion is the word you’re looking for? The first four letters seem correct…
Sully has become a one trick pony … and that is not meant as a joke.
Sullivan is the type of pundit that attacks many Conservative beliefs…in other words, he is the type of Conservative that the media loves to have on t.v., so they can claim ‘balance’. Sort of why John McCain is the media’s favourite ‘Republican’.
Intelligence ops at work there…
Yes, now you know how I feel when I keep getting told that the NYT is in the pocket of the Dems, yet somehow always seems to bash them. (“Even the liberal New York Times”, etc.)
Oliver, I would assume the Times wants the Democrats to win, and bashes the party when it demonstrates traits — corruption, extremism, a lack of ideas — that make winning less likely.
Kind of like how us conservatives have been known on occasion to refer to the GOP as “The Stupid Party.”
But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that a LibDem believes supporting a party means drinking the Kool-Aid every day regardless…