Will they follow up these articles with “and that’s why I voted for Kerry instead of Bush in 2004”?

Because really, those first several bulletin points were about why Bush’s first term utterly sucked and he should never have had a second. So how does he justify staying with the GOP until now?

The Democratic leaders are obsessed with getting their bills passed and keeping their seats.  This always leads to compromises, especially when those “know-nothings, bigots and bible beaters” are still out there, still raising money, still winning elections in close districts, and otherwise still being a pain in the ass even though they’re in the minority.  Are all of the compromises needed?  Hell no.  Are some?  Hell yes.  I’d rather have a watered-down healthcare bill that doesn’t protect abortion than no healthcare bill at all.  Do I want a bill that doesn’t protect abortion?  No, but enough Congressmen do to make it hard to ignore them completely.  And a similar minority power that got that into the House bill makes it hard to insert such language into the Senate version, so it’s not as if that compromise was the last version of the fight for abortion rights.

Don’t demand purity in one paragraph when mocking it in the preceding paragraph.  Democrats aren’t of one flavor, shouldn’t be, can’t be if they’re to be a national party with a majority in Congress, and have diversity even in their assholes.  Look at Robert Byrd: a segregationist Klan leader with a son-in-law named Mohammed.  Look at Ben Nelson: a guy who kept a loonier loon from being a Senator.  Not every Democrat in Congress can be like Raul Grijalva, since not every Democrat in Congress comes from such a safe district.  And not all districts are the same.  And not all Democrats in Congress want to be like Raul Grijalva even if they will win in a landslide.

The Democrats are a center-right party with a liberal wing, not the other way around.  I wish it wasn’t so, but it is.

Also, “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.”

So,  shallow homophobia and disguised racism are just fine, but please don’t wave the bigot flag so high?

Sullivan supported, argued for and voted for Kerry in 2004.

Gosh, Sully’s swift, isn’t he?

Sullivan as “hard to peg”?  That’s not what I heard!

Aaron, Sullivan hasn’t left conservatism, conservatism left Sully.  His core beliefs are still there: a little libertarianism (and not just the pot thing,) a kneejerk anti-statist sentiment, some common sense, lots of gay rights, respect for religion when respect is maintained, and a steadfast support for institutions that pretty much hate him.  His list of reasons is a reaction to Charles Johnson’s list of reasons, but he’s still the same infuriating smart man who keeps me thinking because he shows his thoughts.  I don’t always agree or disagree with him, but I like that he’s out there getting hated for showing not just his finished thoughts but also showing his work.

I like Sullivan’s work fine, though his borderline misogyny and Sarah Palin obsession are troubling.

What’s irritating about him, though is his no-true-Scotsman version of conservatism.  It doesn’t exist.  It hasn’t existed in decades, and even when it did partly exist (during the Eisenhower years) it had no real fiscal restraint (especially regarding the military) or foreign policy morality (being addicted to overthrows and whoring for American corporations in Central America).

In essence, Sully worships a political chimera, a theory of wouldn’t-it-be-nice-if, and has done for a very long time.  The current announcement really doesn’t change the fact that since Reagan American conservatism has been going insane and he has been in denial that the tiny tiny, fragments of sanity are the REAL conservatism.

Don’t demand purity in one paragraph when mocking it in the preceding paragraph.

Who demanded purity in the Dem party? We all there’s no way any kind of purity declaration would go anywhere even before it left someone’s mouth, lol. No, the Dem spinelessness appears to manifest itself most in inertia and inaction because of all of the handwringing over figuring out which constituency group can handle being thrown under the bus without $topping the gravy train.

There’s a lot of anger brewing against those angry far-right conservatives:

http://bit.ly/5K4TIZ

(satire)

the biggest problem I see is that the dems are moving to take the place of the grand ‘ol GOP.  I’m guessing we’ll see a collapse of the GOP, the Dems become the right, and a new left party within my lifetime (I’m only 35, so I’m giving it some time—but not much).

though his borderline misogyny and Sarah Palin obsession are troubling.

He’s gotten better re: feminism, albeit only because he finally linked misogyny & homophobia in his mind.  Still pretty lame wrt reproductive choice, but the Tiller murder brought in a lot of stories that moved him somewhat.  Really, Sullivan’s just a sentimental idealist, the kind who actually believes in the “perfectability of man” notion that liberals are so often accused of propagating even though I’ve yet to meet one who believes any such thing.  People are of course neither perfectable nor universally responsive to whatever carrot/stick combination the Sullys of this world think would create an ideal society, but for some highly emotional types it’s a cherished notion.

Thank you, seeker.  I’ve been trying to articulate to myself just what bothered me about Sully for a long time, and you put it perfectly.

This all assumes that Sully’s honest, even with himself.  Of course, he’s not.

Remember, Sully discovered that torture was bad after Bush signed some anti-gay legislation.  This is part and parcel of Sully’s misogyny and adherence to a religion that explicitly thinks he’s going to hell.  What Sully wants, will want, and always has wanted, is to be in the club.  He is the victim of straight privilege, and rather than thinking that maybe unearned privilege isn’t the best thing ever, he’s obsessed with the fact that he was just this close, as a white man, to being able to be unthinkingly privileged his whole life.

So no, nothing has changed in terms of what the Right is.  What’s changed is that Sully has finally accepted that he won’t get to lord his unearned superiority over the rest of us proles, so he’s going to settle for being kind of equal but not really.

Anyway, that’s Sully’s conservatism, too.  It never really existed, but no conservatism that isn’t founded on and fully described by racism and brutality toward women and the poor has ever existed.  He didn’t want to address the lie.  He just wanted in on it.

Somewhere else I recently read a cute theory that what the fringenuts really want is to destabilize the political process so that this country basically becomes one big ungovernable mess (see:  California), where the majority cannot rule because the wacky minority is so disruptive.  The GOP doesn’t step up and rein them in because such a chaotic political environment would benefit a lot of the Cheney types etc., who could keep control without a majority, and rake in a lot of profits to boot.  But far be it from me to spread a conspiracy theory!

“Not that I have any advice that the GOP would care to take, but where are all the country club Republicans and moderates?”

They’re calling themselves “libertarians” to distance themselves from the loonies, or just keeping their Republican leanings on the down low, while praying that the lunacy will end and the Republican Party will find some actual intelligent and reasonable candidates who aren’t barking mad or merely cynically amoral operators who use the Religious Right and the other low-information Republican sheep for their own purposes.  Too bad there haven’t been any Republicans who could fill those requirements in decades.

“Why aren’t noted conservatives in a race to publicly call out the jackbooted thugs and bible beaters who are holding them hostage?”

And who would those noted conservative be?  One of the last remaining parental figures in the modern Republican Party was William F. Buckley, who, when he had the temerity to finally say that the war in Iraq was wrong (years too late), was quietly put into a corner while rumors that he had gone senile circulated.  And now he’s gone, Goldwater is gone, all of the moderate Republican politicians have been purged, and anyone with any sense no longer has any allegiance to the Party or to the current insane and unrecognizable definition of “Conservative”. 

Any deviation from the Party Line merits instant branding as a “Liberal” and a traitor to the cause.  Even a guy like Bush Jr. is no longer considered a “True Conservative”, and Cheney only holds onto the title (despite being the true architect of “Bush Presidency” policies) because he’s devoted his time and his daughters’ time to ripping Obama several times a month/week in attempts to rehabilitate his sorry image.

At this point, in the Republican Party and the “Conservative” movement, it’s turtles all the way down.  The definition of Republican/Conservative changes by the moment, depending on what Limbaugh/Beck/Palin or any of the mental/political dwarves vying for the 2012 Republican nomination says.  But until the unwashed “Conservative” masses decide the craziness must stop and adults are placed back into control (and this looks very unlikely for the foreseeable future), there doesn’t seem any way for them to bounce back.

I, for one, am pissed off by this, because the spineless Democrats need to have a fire lit under them by a competent opposition party.  But it doesn’t look like there will be one before my days are over…

I cannot support a movement that exploded spending and borrowing and blames its successor for the debt.

This is such a good point.  Obama is certainly not perfect, but I hate it when people blame him for things that happened before he even became president.

I cannot support a movement that refuses ever to raise taxes, while proposing no meaningful reductions in government spending.

This too.

Media MAtters documents Sullivan’s amazing historical revisionism; in short, conservatism left him sometime in the late 70s, and it took him nearly 30 years to recognize it.

Or he’s just a bandwagon-hopper.

I don’t know how much more weakened the GOP could be before some spines were grown by these Dems.

The problem is that the Democratic party is not nearly as heterogeneous as the Republican party, especially now that so many Republicans are switching over.  The progressive Democrats are still fighting against the very same conservative ideas, except those ideas are coming from the conservative side of the Democratic party rather than just from the Republican party.  Even though Democrats have a majority of Senate seats, the particular ideas we want don’t have a majority because a lot of Democrats don’t agree with them.  The Democratic party isn’t united on anything, and that’s as much of a problem as the cranky toddler Republicans.

The prob with the sane GOPers is that they’re still GOPers: they still believe that spending money you don’t have on the military is fiscally responsible; they still believe that siphoning corporate profit out of reinvestment and into short-term returns is sensible; they still believe that gutting the financial laws which ensure stability will not produce instability; they still believe in excessive power for the state; they still believe in doing whatever the military wants; they still believe in lots of foreign wars while speaking of looking after America first; they still believe in state interference in purely personal decisions is good but only if it’s things they believe in; they still believe that they’re the party against tax-and-spend even though they run up huge deficits and debt and hate the last President to balance the budget .... and so on.

What has changed, though, is the face of the GOP, which is now openly mean as a snake and of dubious sanity and hostile to thinking. 

They still want the same things, and to screw over the middle and lower classes in the same way.  They just don’t want to be seen with the nutters.  So they drift right and become so-called “conservative democrats” without in any way changing their views, their policies or demands.  This allows them to pose as folks of sanity and integrity when, in fact, they are just as into cognitive dissonance and reality denial as the birthers and such; the only difference is that they don’t look crazy and that’s good enough for them.

It’s a fairly good reason why the Dems should turn down every turncoat unless he signs off on support for a given set of purely Dem policy proposals: make them earn their safe harbours, make them burn their bridges.  Don’t allow them to continue opposing you, but this time inside your house and on your dime.

And as I’ve said before, with an opposition party in such distress, why are our Dem leaders so obsessed with not offending the know-nothings, bigots and bible beaters?

Are you sure that’s not just the excuse they use to avoid doing things that they actually don’t want to do anyway, regardless of what the people who voted for them think?

I’ll accept the new nonconservative Sullivan like a lost sheep—just as soon as he renounces The Bell Curve.

I’d rather have a watered-down healthcare bill that doesn’t protect abortion than no healthcare bill at all.

Sorry, but fuck you.

Women will die if Stupak passes.  Women with failed, but wanted pregnancies will not be able to be covered for any termination expenses even if the fetus is dead until they are septic or hemorhagging.

This is not exaggeration.  Federal employees under Hyde restrictions are NOT COVERED for anacephalic fetuses or low amniotic fluid or other terminal conditions b/c the mother’s life is not endangered.  It doesn’t matter that a dead fetus can go septic and kill or maim the mother—if it hasn’t gone septic YET, then the mother’s life is NOT threatened according to the fuckers who run insurance companies.

So fuck you, 3letterjon, for being willing to let women suffer and die in order to get a shit bill passed.  The bill as is is so fucking compromised I’m ready to scrap it.  Apparently things have to get much much worse before our ruling class pays attention to the people and not their corporate overlords.

There are two big differences between the Democratic party and the Republican party.
1) The Republican party has been taken over by its long-exploited base of ideologues, while the Democratic ideological base remains quiescent.
2) The Republican base is a bunch of raving loons who want gays back in the closet and women back on their knees, while the Democratic base want access to health care and fewer wars.
Why did it have to be the Republican base who woke up?

“The decadent left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead—and may well mount a fifth column.”  Prescient guy, that Sully.

Oops…rereading my comment, it could be interpreted as having been said with a straight face.  I should have added that anybody who said such a thing at the time that Sully did should never be given the courtesy of having any of his subsequent statements taken seriously.

“... but I didn’t notice at the time”
“... but I didn’t notice at the time”
“... but I didn’t notice at the time”
“... but I didn’t notice at the time”
.... .... ....

Michele Catelano did this all the way back in 2005, for those remember the wayback ...

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=a+small+victory+michele+catalano

I don’t know how much more weakened the GOP could be before some spines were grown by these Dems.

I really think you have it backwards.  The crazier and more marginalized the GOP gets, the less incentives Dems have to do anything meaningful.  If there were a choice between a somewhat sensible Eisenhower Republican Party and a left-of-center Democratic Party, there would be real competition.  As it stands, the only Republicans left are foaming at the mouth or are too cowardly to speak up or leave the party.  Why should Democrats do the right thing?

Ah, so telling, Sully.  Not a single word about women’s reproductive rights and other equality aspects hammered at by the GOP extreme (words even Johnson managed to cough up). “Borderline misogyny,” my titty.  But no, I’m not surprised.  Disappointed, but not surprised.

Caren, I support abortion rights to the tune of something from every paycheck automatically going to Planned Parenthood, so don’t tell me what I am willing to let happen.  (And thank you, State of Arizona, for matching my contribution.)  As for the healthcare bill, it will let millions of women, children and men get care that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford, so let us not do the “people will die” thing without doing all the math.  People already die for lots of preventable things, and that’s the focus of a healthcare bill.  That some moron put a rider on it that may or may not get into the Senate bill and may or may not get into the final bill isn’t enough for me to want the entire bill to get squashed.  I have plenty of other things to list as to why it sucks even before abortion comes up, but I’d still rather have a severely-flawed something than a nearly-perfect nothing.

I won’t convince you that this is okay, nor do I expect you to see the silver lining, but I’d rather look back in ten years and have our politicians discussing adding abortion to an existing federal program than trying to start a federal program in the first place.  Still, be angry, tell the Senate not to fall for that stupidity, hope that 40 Democrats there won’t allow any abortion restrictions into the bill, and demand that you get heard.  My Senators are dipshits who won’t vote for anything related to healthcare except abortion restrictions, but many other Senators can be told in no uncertain terms what should and shouldn’t be done.  And they might even listen.

Andrew Sullivan is all about Andrew Sullivan, and what will get him some attention. Look for him to cozy back up to the right after next year’s elections.

3letterjon—that’s a self-defeating way to look at it.  I think a stronger way to look at it is that we’re giving the private insurance companies one last chance to avoid single-payer, which is what will be implemented if nothing happens this time.

Welcome to the 5th column, Sully—like it or not.

Sure, throw women under the bus for an already shitty healthcare bill. Don’t fight for us, and we in turn will not turn out at the polls when you need us for issues important to your lives.

Half of all private insurance plans now include abortion coverage, if Stupak goes into effect it will kill abortion coverage entirely for any and all private insurance plans.

I’m old enough to remember what life was like for women before Roe V. Wade, and I personally knew one woman made infertile by being forced to carry a dead child, and a half-dozen girl whose lives were stopped dead by being forced to carry through pregnancies at 14, 15 and 16 years of age.

Why Democrat men are always so eager to throw women under the bus, when we’re the mainstay of Democratic voters, is beyond me.

But if you want to increase the lack of enthusiasm of what would otherwise be faithful Democratic voters in 2010 and 2012 you’re on the right path.

And let’s be clear: Stupak doesn’t just kill payment for abortion, it kills choice, and endangers the health of women:

Stupak takes choice away from women who are economically vulnerable. And contrary to popular belief, it takes it away from poor women whose health may be in danger if they’re forced to carry out a full term pregnancy.

From the Washington Post:

Feldman, a 41-year-old federal lawyer, and her husband had been trying for two years to have a baby. Sadly, her doctor “made it very clear I wasn’t to continue this pregnancy,” she said.

An abortion was medically necessary. She had little choice.

But after the jolt of the diagnosis and the emotional pain of the procedure, Feldman was in for another shock — sticker shock. She thought her health insurance policy through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) would cover the $9,000 cost of the abortion. It didn’t.

For Feldman, unlike many women who have abortion insurance coverage through private-sector employers, abortion coverage provided through her employer — the U.S. government — is illegal. The law says that “no funds . . . shall be available to pay for an abortion” under FEHBP. Exceptions are made for pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest, or that endanger the mother’s……

Feldman’s case is instructive. Congress is considering a ban, like the one in federal employee health plans, against federal funding of abortions as part of the effort to reform the nation’s porous health insurance system. After hot debate last month, the House approved the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which would prohibit abortion coverage in government-subsidized health insurance, with exceptions for rape, incest and the mother’s health.

“But wait,” you say,” Stupak makes an exception for the health of the mother.” Sure it does, if you’re health insurer agrees that your health really is in danger. Read on.

The doctor warned that the complications for a woman of Feldman’s maternal age from giving birth to a child with anencephaly “are especially serious . . . and could be life threatening.”

Despite the doctor’s plea, the Office of Personnel Management refused to make Blue Cross/Blue Shield pay.

“The fetal anomaly presented no medical danger to you, the mother,” OPM wrote to Feldman. “Consequently, we cannot direct the [insurance] Plan to provide benefits for the services in dispute.”

Shocking, I know. An insurance company denying coverage. Who would have thought?

This woman was lucky. She had the leverage to negotiate her bill and the financial stability to pay off the balance.  Poor women have neither.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/17542

This is why we ‘re phone banking against Stupak this weekend. Not just to fight the Stupak amendment, but the mountain of mis-information hiding the cold, hard truth – that the real intent is to eliminate safe and legal abortion in this country, regardless of the ability to pay, or the risk to the mother’s health.

If you’re not just a reflexive misognist, but someone who actually cares about healthcare, 3letterjohn, you can join one of those phonebanks, or start one of your own: http://action.firedoglake.com/page/event/search_simple

Well said Amanda.

And make no mistake, neither sullivan or johnson are anything but more craven than the ideologically pure they “rebelling” against.  Either one of them will say anything for a nickel.

Regarding congress and really, the most of the rest of the dems now holding the levers of power, they couldn’t be a more disappointing lot.  Spineless doesn’t begin to describe nelson or lieberman (or dozens of other so-called democrats).

In the end, I don’t get any of this.  This, like equality in marriage, are no brainers to me.  Strong public healthcare makes sense for a number of reasons *and* all the right moral ones.  Fighting against something like that, to me, is barbaric.

I’d rather have a watered-down healthcare bill that doesn’t protect abortion than no healthcare bill at all.

“Doesn’t protect abortion” =/= “actively shrinks availability of abortion”

The answer for both of these “conversions” is easy.

The political tide has turned.  I remember back in the early 2000’s when the national zeitgeist was rapidly becoming more and more conservative, talking to previously liberal friends who were journalists with pundit-esque ambitions - they all magically found a way to support the war in Iraq and various other completely corrupt policies of the Bush administration.  They all suddenly came up with all these issues about liberalism that meant that they had to divorce themselves from it.

It’s no different with Sully and the Little Green Footballs dude.  Their paychecks are more important than their political convictions.  They will swear allegiance to whatever political movement they think will get people to buy their stories.

Or he’s just a bandwagon-hopper.

Yup. This. And what TO said above. Sully and especially Charles Johnson love power, and will side with whoever is in ower—that’s why, for example, Chucky was a Democrat until 2001. He goes whichever way the wind blows. He loves power, not a particular political ideology.