Sick of him
In case anyone cares, Andrew Sullivan is sick of George W. Bush.
I'm not saying we don't need to spend money on the reconstruction of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. I'm saying I don't want to hear it from this guy. As a friend of mine commented last night over a drink, I don't hate this president and never have. I'm just sick of him. Sick of the naked politicization of everything (Karl Rove over-seeing reconstruction?); sick of the utter refusal to acknowledge that there is a limit to what the federal government can borrow from this and the next generation; sick of the hijacking of the conservative tradition for a vast increase in the power and size of government, with only a feigned attempt at making it more effective; sick of the glib arrogance and excuses for failure that dot the landscape from Biloxi to Basra.
I know how he feels. I'm also sick of this guy whom I used to support, respect and admire, and even gave money to. I can no longer pretend that he represents my best interests or those of America. I am sick of the small, petty, diminished thing he has become, especially since I believe he had potential for true greatness. I'm just sick of him, and I'm eager for the day when he finally, once and for all, exits from the public stage and I never have to hear from him again.
But enough about Sullivan! I also know how he feels about the president. Eight years is a long, long time for a president to be in power. It seemed interminable under Clinton, and (although this borders on heresy) even Reagan had begun to wear thin at the last. With a president whom I was never overly enthusiastic about in the first place, it's definitely going to be a long eight years. God, you've got to wonder how the French do it, with their seven-year presidential terms! To think of it is to weep.
Comments
Yes, you loved Sullivan when he was making similar cutting statements regarding Wesley Clark ("Yes, I was scared. Not that he was a formidable figure bestriding the political scene like a colossus. But that he was a nut-case who had a shot at becoming the nominee of a serious political party.") or John Kerry ("He droned monotonously on, that stooped back and drooping face looming toward whichever poor schmuck he was condescending to at the moment. I know this much: he's a shameless panderer to the paleos on the stump. I also know his voting record is all over the map, and that his policy zig-zaggery is a legend. He has, in other words, all the liberal baggage with none of the liberal fire.")
It becomes quite a different matter, however, when he takes aim towards your guy. Sullivan, after all, is a homosexual who dared not to follow the RNC script and share your OUTRAGE regarding the mentioning of Mary Cheney in last year's debate.
I mean how dare he not listen to you regarding the sensitive topic of bringing someone's sexual preference into a political debate? No doubt you thought long and hard about this as you moved Andrew Sullivan's name from the top of your blogger's list to way down, under the heading: "hysterical drama queens."
Posted by: PE | September 19, 2005 03:09 PM
> No doubt you thought long and hard about this as you moved Andrew Sullivan's name from the top of your blogger's list to way down, under the heading: "hysterical drama queens."
Hey watch it, or you'll get to join him down there. :P
Posted by: Barry | September 19, 2005 03:25 PM
Wherever.
Posted by: PE | September 19, 2005 04:49 PM
Unfortunately, PE, everything Sullivan says is predicated on the freedoms or lack of same accorded to his Johnson, which seems to do the thinking for him.
I can understand a person changing one's views on issues but to go from pro-Bush to anti-Bush in one day because Bush had the temerity to not condemn the marriage amendment thingy told me everything I needed to know about the depth of his feelings on anything other than his homosexuality.
Posted by: mal | September 20, 2005 10:36 AM