Excitably Andy just won't let the 'Sarah is really Trig's grandma' crap go.
What is wrong with this man?
(and what's wrong with me?, every time I tell myself I won't click on a link to his blog, I end up going over there any way, he's insane, but compelling in an insane sort of way)
(and I'm not demonizing him because he no longer agrees with my politics, I'm calling him insane cause his behavior, especially regards to Palin, can only be described as insane)
(and I noticed I typed 'excitably Andy' instead of 'excitable Andy' as intended, but I think after some consideration that 'excitably Andy' makes as much, if not more, sense)
Showing posts with label Andrew Sullivan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Sullivan. Show all posts
03 October 2008
03 September 2008
If I Ever Write a Post Like the One Below, I Invite You ALL to Come Over to My House, and Slap Some Sense in to ME . . .
Below is the entirety of Andrew Sullivan's liveblog of Palin's speech, annotated by me (in red, and alternate font), for your convenience and elucidation (I suggest reading it from the bottom up):
11.10 pm. Reality television has become our politics.
Yeah, whatever, cry into your beer (I almost typed bear, I think either would be correct) tonight Sully, you just saw The One get schooled.
11.06 pm. Both Huckabee and Palin have used the t-word. Of course, they are not criminally liable, as Bush is.
More moral equivalency crap, at Gitmo the inmates get proper medical attention, food, water, even counsel, some rough interrogation techniques have been used (and some of those techniques are questionable, and should be stopped, but that doesn't mean all interrogation is torture, or the experiences are anywhere close to being comparable), but there is no equivalence to what McCain experienced over his five years in captivity, and to suggest so may make a person popular in the DC-NYC cocktail party crowd, but it sounds on awful lot like the usual lefty America-hating tripe, from someone who is supposed to have a 'conservative soul'.
11.05 pm. Every time the camera pans to McCain's mother, she seems mortified. I don't really blame her. Can you imagine what she was thinking as a tiny special needs baby is passed from person to person for the cable news.
OK, now you're just projecting you jerk. I'm gobsmacked. I can not even begin to describe how full of contempt Sully sounds with that little blurb, and how contemptible I find his attitude.
11.03 pm. However admirable it is to be a mayor, is it really necessary to drip contempt for people who work as community organizers? It seems to me that Palin doesn't quite have the stature to be putting down someone who has won millions of people's votes. This is a much more partisan speech than I was expecting.
Winning primary votes now equals executive experience, that's good to know for future reference. And again with the worshipful attitude towards community organizing, very 'Conservative Soul' of you Sully.
11.00 pm Styrofoam pillars; and self-designed seals. And her lip curls.
And your point, Sully?
10.58 pm. Now it's about big government - which Republicans have exploded in size. But no one can notice the actual record of the GOP in growing government and increasing debt. That would be too much accountability.
Yeah, how dare they not offer an extensive mea culpa at their own convention about all the bad things the GOP has done, I don't recall any of the Democrats owning up to their part in various government debacles . . .
10.56 pm. Obama wants to reduce American power and prevent energy production. The mockery of Obama from Palin is striking. I don't recall anyone mocking McCain at the DNC.
Sully doesn' recall anyone mocking McCain, in a sense he's right, instead the Democrats were too busy running against 'Bush's 3rd term', besides, if Obama had actually done anything before they could mock his policies more, but in the absence of policy, they have no choice but to mock the celebrity and lack of credentials, which is what they mocked, not him personally.
10.53 pm. Drill, baby, drill! I may be just revealing that I'm out of touch, but I don't see why laying pipelines is now a core rallying cry of American conservatism.
There's a 'laying pipe' joke in there somewhere, but I'm not touching it.
10.50 pm. I have to say that the affect is of someone running for high school president.
Yeah, you already implied that with the Tracy Flick comment, jerk.
10.49 pm. Piper is poking Trig in the eye!
He forgot to mention the moment she used a wad of saliva to slick down Trig's hair.
10.48 pm. Ethics reform is her first policy proposal.
Policy, schmolicy, she's an unkown quantity, if she just got up there and was wonky the whole time, she'd have lost the audience, she needed to introduce herself to America, and she did.
10.47 pm. She has this weird tick of scrunching up her face to make a forceful point. Kinda Tracy Flicky.
If looking like a young Reese Witherspoon is a bad thing, then I don't want to be right (and for the record, I look nothing like Reese Witherspoon)
10.44 pm. Palin echoes Giuliani's attack on "cosmopolitan" elites. All the buzzwords are there. Elite. Elite. Elite. This is a culture war speech - and she is becoming a symbol of red America. This is what they have to do top win: divide and polarize again. We are half way through, by the way, and we have not heard a single policy proposal. But we have heard contempt for someone who works as a community organizer in the South Side of Chicago.
There is no higher office than 'community organizer', yeah, right.
10.40 pm. We've just seen a picture of a seven year old cradling and stroking the hair of a Down Syndrome infant. This, apparently, is relevant to deciding who should be the next vice-president of the United States.
A no win situation, had Trig not been there, Sully would have been all, 'See, she's ashamed of her special needs child, what a disgusting parent'
10.39 pm. I'm just slack-jawed that, so far, the entire speech has been basically about her family. She seems as if she just won a reality show and is introducing her folks. And they have passed the baby now to four different people - including another child. Slack-jawed.
How dare she flaunt her damnably fertile uterus, it's an insult to LGBTTTIQQ folks everywhere!
(and if it's not clear already, the portions of this post that are slap worthy are Sully's, my annotations, on the other hand, deserve hugs, kisses, and pats on the back)
11.10 pm. Reality television has become our politics.
Yeah, whatever, cry into your beer (I almost typed bear, I think either would be correct) tonight Sully, you just saw The One get schooled.
11.06 pm. Both Huckabee and Palin have used the t-word. Of course, they are not criminally liable, as Bush is.
More moral equivalency crap, at Gitmo the inmates get proper medical attention, food, water, even counsel, some rough interrogation techniques have been used (and some of those techniques are questionable, and should be stopped, but that doesn't mean all interrogation is torture, or the experiences are anywhere close to being comparable), but there is no equivalence to what McCain experienced over his five years in captivity, and to suggest so may make a person popular in the DC-NYC cocktail party crowd, but it sounds on awful lot like the usual lefty America-hating tripe, from someone who is supposed to have a 'conservative soul'.
11.05 pm. Every time the camera pans to McCain's mother, she seems mortified. I don't really blame her. Can you imagine what she was thinking as a tiny special needs baby is passed from person to person for the cable news.
OK, now you're just projecting you jerk. I'm gobsmacked. I can not even begin to describe how full of contempt Sully sounds with that little blurb, and how contemptible I find his attitude.
11.03 pm. However admirable it is to be a mayor, is it really necessary to drip contempt for people who work as community organizers? It seems to me that Palin doesn't quite have the stature to be putting down someone who has won millions of people's votes. This is a much more partisan speech than I was expecting.
Winning primary votes now equals executive experience, that's good to know for future reference. And again with the worshipful attitude towards community organizing, very 'Conservative Soul' of you Sully.
11.00 pm Styrofoam pillars; and self-designed seals. And her lip curls.
And your point, Sully?
10.58 pm. Now it's about big government - which Republicans have exploded in size. But no one can notice the actual record of the GOP in growing government and increasing debt. That would be too much accountability.
Yeah, how dare they not offer an extensive mea culpa at their own convention about all the bad things the GOP has done, I don't recall any of the Democrats owning up to their part in various government debacles . . .
10.56 pm. Obama wants to reduce American power and prevent energy production. The mockery of Obama from Palin is striking. I don't recall anyone mocking McCain at the DNC.
Sully doesn' recall anyone mocking McCain, in a sense he's right, instead the Democrats were too busy running against 'Bush's 3rd term', besides, if Obama had actually done anything before they could mock his policies more, but in the absence of policy, they have no choice but to mock the celebrity and lack of credentials, which is what they mocked, not him personally.
10.53 pm. Drill, baby, drill! I may be just revealing that I'm out of touch, but I don't see why laying pipelines is now a core rallying cry of American conservatism.
There's a 'laying pipe' joke in there somewhere, but I'm not touching it.
10.50 pm. I have to say that the affect is of someone running for high school president.
Yeah, you already implied that with the Tracy Flick comment, jerk.
10.49 pm. Piper is poking Trig in the eye!
He forgot to mention the moment she used a wad of saliva to slick down Trig's hair.
10.48 pm. Ethics reform is her first policy proposal.
Policy, schmolicy, she's an unkown quantity, if she just got up there and was wonky the whole time, she'd have lost the audience, she needed to introduce herself to America, and she did.
10.47 pm. She has this weird tick of scrunching up her face to make a forceful point. Kinda Tracy Flicky.
If looking like a young Reese Witherspoon is a bad thing, then I don't want to be right (and for the record, I look nothing like Reese Witherspoon)
10.44 pm. Palin echoes Giuliani's attack on "cosmopolitan" elites. All the buzzwords are there. Elite. Elite. Elite. This is a culture war speech - and she is becoming a symbol of red America. This is what they have to do top win: divide and polarize again. We are half way through, by the way, and we have not heard a single policy proposal. But we have heard contempt for someone who works as a community organizer in the South Side of Chicago.
There is no higher office than 'community organizer', yeah, right.
10.40 pm. We've just seen a picture of a seven year old cradling and stroking the hair of a Down Syndrome infant. This, apparently, is relevant to deciding who should be the next vice-president of the United States.
A no win situation, had Trig not been there, Sully would have been all, 'See, she's ashamed of her special needs child, what a disgusting parent'
10.39 pm. I'm just slack-jawed that, so far, the entire speech has been basically about her family. She seems as if she just won a reality show and is introducing her folks. And they have passed the baby now to four different people - including another child. Slack-jawed.
How dare she flaunt her damnably fertile uterus, it's an insult to LGBTTTIQQ folks everywhere!
(and if it's not clear already, the portions of this post that are slap worthy are Sully's, my annotations, on the other hand, deserve hugs, kisses, and pats on the back)
07 March 2008
St. Andrew Upon the Cross
Really, why do I still inflict Andrew Sullivan upon myself? Stop me before I click again. Give me the strength to ignore the allure of that changeable mind.
Here's the latest bit of self-important puffery:
OK, that reminds me why I keep going back to this stuff, he's hilarious. That's some high-grade comedy right there (but only cause he's so damn sincere).
Good thing I don't work for Obama, given that I've compared Hillary to Ben Linus, not that I was any easier on Obama, I find Dr. Jack Shepard far more frightening as a leader than good old Ben.
Here's the latest bit of self-important puffery:
And let me add - since I am not an adviser, since I have kept a very long distance from the actual official campaign, since I am not a Democrat, since I cannot be accused of being a closet Bush-supporter, since I am just a blogger.
Samantha Power is right. The Clintons are monstrous. Samantha has quit because she told the truth.
OK, that reminds me why I keep going back to this stuff, he's hilarious. That's some high-grade comedy right there (but only cause he's so damn sincere).
Good thing I don't work for Obama, given that I've compared Hillary to Ben Linus, not that I was any easier on Obama, I find Dr. Jack Shepard far more frightening as a leader than good old Ben.
11 February 2008
'...and they are so open-minded it never crosses their minds why we wouldn't want to elect a Republican'
Here's the real 'quote' (and a put "quote" in single quotes, cause the 'quote' is from one of those "a reader writes" posts from Andrew Sullivan)
It's nonsense like this that it's hard to take Sullivan seriously.
This is stupid on many levels, Euro-weenie preening superiority, check, not so veiled accusation that all Americans are knuckle-dragging racists/sexists, double check, an utter inability to even conceive of the possibility that the Democratic front runners might fail for reasons related to policy rather than personal identity, big fat triple check.
I check back to his site from time to time, not for an opinion anymore, but for laughs, and it usually doesn't take too many posts to find something snort worthy.
The Swedes here only ask me one question, "Who will be the next President, Hillary or Obama?" They never ask about the Republicans, and they are so open-minded here it never crosses their minds why we wouldn't want to elect either one for any reason. They see no reason a black man or a woman shouldn't be elected. Some want Hillary because they think the U.S. should be led by a woman, but mostly they have no preference. Also, they don't understand why people dislike Hillary so much.
It's nonsense like this that it's hard to take Sullivan seriously.
This is stupid on many levels, Euro-weenie preening superiority, check, not so veiled accusation that all Americans are knuckle-dragging racists/sexists, double check, an utter inability to even conceive of the possibility that the Democratic front runners might fail for reasons related to policy rather than personal identity, big fat triple check.
I check back to his site from time to time, not for an opinion anymore, but for laughs, and it usually doesn't take too many posts to find something snort worthy.
16 May 2007
A Reader Suggests . . .
Scouring my endless torrent of email, I came across a suggestion from a reader
Anyway, that's what "a reader suggests", I certainly wouldn't have put my criticisms of Mr. Sullivan in those terms, I would have just pointed you to his rather incomprehensible man crush on Rep. Ron Paul as all the evidence you need that Sully has lost his freaking mind.
Don't believe me? Look at his reaction to the debate yesterday, in a series of posts that boggle my mind he takes on the media for their unfair(!) portrayal of Dr. Ron Paul as a crackpot.
He seems to think that internet polls are beyond gaming and sees Paul's victory in a Worldnet Daily poll as proof that Paul has appeal to rabid conservatives. If The Advocate had a poll on gay marriage and a bunch of "Christianist" (his term, certainly not mine) jumped in and skewed the results, I doubt he'd take that poll seriously. I suspect a serious case of the Mobys whenever these polls go up and some lefty jokers are organizing to screw up every online and text message poll where Ron Paul is an option. If Republicans and conservatives didn't have lives, they could do the same to the Dems and Gravel would win every time, but things like google bombing and astroturf letter campaigns and poll fixing are mostly the provenance of lefty losers and tech savvy idiots with too much time on their hands.
Whenever I visit Sully's site I tell myself this is the last time as he has ceased being capable of sustaining a thought that's worth listening to, yet I still venture over there. What's wrong with me?
Notice how whenever Andrew Sullivan does one of his "a reader writes" or "a reader suggests" that this unnamed reader basically says exactly what Mr. Sullivan was thinking. I'm beginning to think that there are no readers, and that he's faking these emails! I know, shocking to say the least, but it does seem like just a tired, hackneyed and pussified way to distance himself from statements that he wanted to make anyway but which he's hoping to paint with a shimmering veneer of credibility that if he just comes out and says that this is what he thinks may lack. And when I say that this is pussified behavior, I of course mean no disrespect towards his orientation. There are plenty of pussified heterosexual men, and there are plenty of non-pussified homosexual men, but when it comes to matters of intellectual honesty there are more than a few occaisons of late where Mr. Sullivan is one big massive vagina.
Anyway, that's what "a reader suggests", I certainly wouldn't have put my criticisms of Mr. Sullivan in those terms, I would have just pointed you to his rather incomprehensible man crush on Rep. Ron Paul as all the evidence you need that Sully has lost his freaking mind.
Don't believe me? Look at his reaction to the debate yesterday, in a series of posts that boggle my mind he takes on the media for their unfair(!) portrayal of Dr. Ron Paul as a crackpot.
He seems to think that internet polls are beyond gaming and sees Paul's victory in a Worldnet Daily poll as proof that Paul has appeal to rabid conservatives. If The Advocate had a poll on gay marriage and a bunch of "Christianist" (his term, certainly not mine) jumped in and skewed the results, I doubt he'd take that poll seriously. I suspect a serious case of the Mobys whenever these polls go up and some lefty jokers are organizing to screw up every online and text message poll where Ron Paul is an option. If Republicans and conservatives didn't have lives, they could do the same to the Dems and Gravel would win every time, but things like google bombing and astroturf letter campaigns and poll fixing are mostly the provenance of lefty losers and tech savvy idiots with too much time on their hands.
Whenever I visit Sully's site I tell myself this is the last time as he has ceased being capable of sustaining a thought that's worth listening to, yet I still venture over there. What's wrong with me?
01 April 2007
April 1st Guest Post Number 08, Andrew Sullivan
Guest Post from the "Multiplicity of Viewpoints Collectively Known As" Andrew Sullivan
Hello fellow Conservatives. I'm taking a short break from my posts hosted by The Atlantic to speak to the readers of this blog (which XWL has kindly given me access to, today) who may not visit my rather modest blog.
It seems that some people have rejected my rejection of positions I previously held where I rejected the refusal of other people to agree with my disagreement regarding my puzzlement over people who seemed to agree with a position I previously held in which I seemed to have agreed with somebody who had been critical of a "fisking" I had offered on an article that had taken a previous article I had written to task regarding my own troubled admission that I had "evolved" beyond my previous views regarding the topic at hand.
I think I've been perfectly clear from the outset on this issue from the very start, so any confusion that people have had as I've tried to make the record straight (and I use that word reluctantly as I always suspect that people who set records "straight" are in some way attaching a 'heteronormative' layer to the idea of right or wrong), is clearly their own, and not caused by my own labryinthine route through my various positions regarding this very important issue. The people who are puzzled do so for their own political reasons, of that I'm sure. My position is sure to upset the Christianist who are trying to run this country and have undue influence over the sadly misguided Bush Administration, but I will gladly suffer their barbs as I know that my position is the right one to take. As I wrote in The Conservative Soul, "I know you are, but what am I?".
But in summary, just to clear the air, and to make sure that critics of me like the InstaSupporterofTORTURE can't miscontrue any future statements I may make on the subject, let this be the final word on this important subject:
The Pet Shop Boys are kinda gay (and that's why I love them).
PS: I use this YouTube video from the Pet Shop Boys below to ask my critics the very important question, "What Have I Done to Deserve This?"
Hello fellow Conservatives. I'm taking a short break from my posts hosted by The Atlantic to speak to the readers of this blog (which XWL has kindly given me access to, today) who may not visit my rather modest blog.
It seems that some people have rejected my rejection of positions I previously held where I rejected the refusal of other people to agree with my disagreement regarding my puzzlement over people who seemed to agree with a position I previously held in which I seemed to have agreed with somebody who had been critical of a "fisking" I had offered on an article that had taken a previous article I had written to task regarding my own troubled admission that I had "evolved" beyond my previous views regarding the topic at hand.
I think I've been perfectly clear from the outset on this issue from the very start, so any confusion that people have had as I've tried to make the record straight (and I use that word reluctantly as I always suspect that people who set records "straight" are in some way attaching a 'heteronormative' layer to the idea of right or wrong), is clearly their own, and not caused by my own labryinthine route through my various positions regarding this very important issue. The people who are puzzled do so for their own political reasons, of that I'm sure. My position is sure to upset the Christianist who are trying to run this country and have undue influence over the sadly misguided Bush Administration, but I will gladly suffer their barbs as I know that my position is the right one to take. As I wrote in The Conservative Soul, "I know you are, but what am I?".
But in summary, just to clear the air, and to make sure that critics of me like the InstaSupporterofTORTURE can't miscontrue any future statements I may make on the subject, let this be the final word on this important subject:
The Pet Shop Boys are kinda gay (and that's why I love them).
PS: I use this YouTube video from the Pet Shop Boys below to ask my critics the very important question, "What Have I Done to Deserve This?"
02 March 2007
Oh Man, She's So Bad That I'm Going To Have to Agree With Andrew Sullivan
It pains me to do so, but I agree with Sullivan on this one. But I agree with Ed Morrisey even more.
Not only should Ann Coulter have been shouted down for this stupid statement, but she probably shouldn't have been invited to CPAC in the first place.
She's an actor on a stage, I doubt she really believes one tenth of the things she says, but she's got her act, it gets her coverage and sells her books.
Still, no reason to enable or legitimize her. She used ugly language in an artless manner, and her point made no sense. Call Edwards a vapid, preening, pretty-boy, but not what she called him. Though I think her reference Isaiah Washington nonsense contains some sort of point worth exploring.
She's as bad in her way as any 9/11 conspiracy nut, or holocaust denier, or apologist for Islamist terrorist.
Still, I think Sullivan's panties are needlessly bunched about this (I would use that metaphor regardless of his sexual orientation, afterall, there's no reason to believe he's a cross-dresser, he just habitually gets his panties in a bunch), he should unwad himself and realize that she's a joke (and really, since the last time I visited his site, he's posted twice more on the subject), and that she wasn't well received in the room (for the most part, his reporting from the scene would suggest she received universal adulation the whole time, but I doubt his objectivity), or by other conservatives, and though there are still some anti-homosexual elements within the Republican party, it's not a defining characteristic of the party for anybody except folks like Sullivan himself.
A lot of this nonsense would go away if the state got out of the marriage business all together. Rather than picking which unions to recognize, the state should just say that 'marriage' however you choose to define it is between you, your partner(s), and your higher power (or lack thereof).
Not only should Ann Coulter have been shouted down for this stupid statement, but she probably shouldn't have been invited to CPAC in the first place.
She's an actor on a stage, I doubt she really believes one tenth of the things she says, but she's got her act, it gets her coverage and sells her books.
Still, no reason to enable or legitimize her. She used ugly language in an artless manner, and her point made no sense. Call Edwards a vapid, preening, pretty-boy, but not what she called him. Though I think her reference Isaiah Washington nonsense contains some sort of point worth exploring.
She's as bad in her way as any 9/11 conspiracy nut, or holocaust denier, or apologist for Islamist terrorist.
Still, I think Sullivan's panties are needlessly bunched about this (I would use that metaphor regardless of his sexual orientation, afterall, there's no reason to believe he's a cross-dresser, he just habitually gets his panties in a bunch), he should unwad himself and realize that she's a joke (and really, since the last time I visited his site, he's posted twice more on the subject), and that she wasn't well received in the room (for the most part, his reporting from the scene would suggest she received universal adulation the whole time, but I doubt his objectivity), or by other conservatives, and though there are still some anti-homosexual elements within the Republican party, it's not a defining characteristic of the party for anybody except folks like Sullivan himself.
A lot of this nonsense would go away if the state got out of the marriage business all together. Rather than picking which unions to recognize, the state should just say that 'marriage' however you choose to define it is between you, your partner(s), and your higher power (or lack thereof).
22 January 2007
It's the Latest National Pastime
Over at Ace of Spades (via Instapundit)
The latest national pastime, finding new ways to describe the incosistency of Andrew Sullivan.
Pardon the a[m]biguity of the referent of "his" in that sentence. But I think the ambiguity serves the headline. Once Instapundit gets done explaining to Andrew Sullivan what Instapundit's position is on the surge, perhaps he can tackle the thorny question of telling Andrew Sullivan what Andrew Sullivan's position on the surge might be.
The latest national pastime, finding new ways to describe the incosistency of Andrew Sullivan.
11 January 2007
26 October 2006
Zero To High Dudgeon in One Question
First, I've always liked the phrase, "in high dudgeon", looked up what dudgeon actually means, the phrase doesn't actually make much sense anymore and should have long ago fallen out of favor, but it persists, kept alive by freaks like me.
Second, who am I claiming can go from zero to high dudgeon in one question?
I bet if I told you it's a big time blogger I'm talking about you'd get it within five guesses.
Hugh Hewitt interviewed the ever excitable Andrew Sullivan, and much unintentional comedy ensues. I only listened to the first part of the almost 2 hour interview, it's enough.
(quick to claim martyrdom, with Andrew Sullivan you'd be wise to always expect the Spanish Inquisition)
Also, the first part of Mr. Sullivan's interview also includes delightful (and short) interviews with Christopher Hitchens and Lynne Cheney. Lynne's book sounds like a worthy stocking stuffer, and well, as I said already, I'd Gay Marry Mr. Hitchens, so my feelings about him are obvious.
Just for the record, I wouldn't want to Gay Marry Andrew Sullivan (Gay Marrying a gay man presents problems I'm not prepared to deal with), or Hugh Hewitt, they both have a habit of the wrong kind of stridency in my opinion. After hearing the first bit of the Hewitt-Sullivan tete a tete, you should do yourself a favor and check out the parody version committed by Hugh Hewitt with the help of the ever clever James Lileks (whom I would also Gay Marry, but he falls outside my top five. Also Lileks references the whole mess at the end of this edition of The Bleat).
My advice to both Mr. Hewitt and Mr. Sullivan, drop this and move on, you'll both become insufferable very quickly on this subject if you aren't careful.
How many posts am I going to keep talking about Gay Marrying various men?
Until it stops amusing me personally, I'm not there yet. But soon.
Second, who am I claiming can go from zero to high dudgeon in one question?
I bet if I told you it's a big time blogger I'm talking about you'd get it within five guesses.
Hugh Hewitt interviewed the ever excitable Andrew Sullivan, and much unintentional comedy ensues. I only listened to the first part of the almost 2 hour interview, it's enough.
(quick to claim martyrdom, with Andrew Sullivan you'd be wise to always expect the Spanish Inquisition)
Also, the first part of Mr. Sullivan's interview also includes delightful (and short) interviews with Christopher Hitchens and Lynne Cheney. Lynne's book sounds like a worthy stocking stuffer, and well, as I said already, I'd Gay Marry Mr. Hitchens, so my feelings about him are obvious.
Just for the record, I wouldn't want to Gay Marry Andrew Sullivan (Gay Marrying a gay man presents problems I'm not prepared to deal with), or Hugh Hewitt, they both have a habit of the wrong kind of stridency in my opinion. After hearing the first bit of the Hewitt-Sullivan tete a tete, you should do yourself a favor and check out the parody version committed by Hugh Hewitt with the help of the ever clever James Lileks (whom I would also Gay Marry, but he falls outside my top five. Also Lileks references the whole mess at the end of this edition of The Bleat).
My advice to both Mr. Hewitt and Mr. Sullivan, drop this and move on, you'll both become insufferable very quickly on this subject if you aren't careful.
How many posts am I going to keep talking about Gay Marrying various men?
Until it stops amusing me personally, I'm not there yet. But soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)