One thing Sullivan should never comment on is the use of any medications, for cosmetic or other reasons by any other living human being (or even dead ones for that matter). The Duchess goes after Kerry today for Botox (I guess he finally got around to reading MoDo). So what if Kerry wants to spend his money on Botox after all it's his money. Not Sullivan's. And why is this even worthy of being an issue? Is the Sully hoping that somehow the whole issue will time-warp back to the 60's and cause Kerry not to go to Vietnam, be awarded a Silver Star, Bronze Star and Three Purple Hearts while Commander Codpiece was in a drunken stupor somewhere near Valdosta, Ga.?
Then of course in keeping with more SullySilliness he takes on Atrios over the issue of being an anonyblogger. Of course Sullivan has never, ever been anonymous on the internet. Nope. Not him.
posted by Jo Fish on 02.04.04 at 05:15 PM
Comments:
Ah, DemVet, once again you miss the point: Andrew Sullivan has always been in favor of anonymity on the Web, so long as it doesn't drag his days as an online prostitute into question. Further, his demonizing of Atrios only sets the stage for his continued inroads into lefty blogspace. Didn't you read the news? Andrew is a "classic" liberal and "classic" conservative who features these labels prominently in his online pundit boutique. He recently relabeled himself a "polyglot" political animal, in direct response to my revelation that he is in fact a "political polymorph" (an animal who changes his sexuality depending on prevailing cultural 'memes')
Oh, DemVet, keep heart: even if you can't keep up with the constant lies and shape-shifting of a polymorphously perverse cretin like Andrew Sullivan, we will continue to bring his lies and bullying into the limelight. Take heart. We will prevail.
posted by: OTB on 02.04.04 at 08:30 PM [permalink]
hey andy....preznit nit wit used COCAINE. i wonder what he thinks about that?
Criticizing Sullivan for his Kerry Botox comments is fair game and I agree with you. But it is just as much a cheap shot for you to make an issue over his sex life. After all, it's his body. Not yours. And there is a difference between one's private sex life and one's public blog postings. I think you have a great blog and you are truly a liberal lighthouse in the blogosphere; but I don't understand the depths of your personal animosity towards Sullivan.
Jimmy, I thank you for the time you take to read my blog and comment. Sullivan is to me a man who seeks to suck the energy (and oxygen) out of any situation by his own self importance. He wants everyone to believe as he does, or your beliefs are worth nothing.
As far as his sex life goes, he was one of the loudest voices calling for Bill Clinton's excoriation. Yet his activities have hardly marked him as a Paragon of Virtue. He has admittedly engaged in behaviour that is both self-destructive and hurtful/potentially harmful to others. Yet in his mind it seems that there is no correlation between the public face (Highly Virtuous/Morally Superior) he shows and the private one he maintained and still seems to maintain.
I fear that many are judged by the words and deeds of Sullivan and those like him, and that upsets me greatly, because that causes innocent people to be judged against a skewed standard and that's fair to no one.
Jo - Very eloquent reply. I agree that Sullivan can come off high-and-mighty; and I also agree that his proclivity to judge innocents is unfair at times. But I also believe that critically-thinking people can see through this and can call him on it. And regardless of the apparent hypocrisy in his excoriating Bill Clinton's private sex life while rationalizing his own behavior, I still believe that this doesn't make it right for any of us to play tit-for-tat (and in a gratuitous way) with regard to anyone's private sexual choices. Thanks, again, for your fine response; and keep up the excellent blogging.
djhlights - I have long been aware of Sullivan's anonymous "bareback" episode and the furor it caused. If I weren't, I wouldn't have made my original post to Jo's blog entry in the first place.
