Andrew Sullivan, who seems to have bought into the Obama campaign wholesale despite Obama’s Big Government views – hardly what Sullivan claims to support – makes this pretty sweeping assertion against those who are unimpressed by Mr Obama and his interesting choice of friends and associates.
It’s extremely depressing that the first major national black politician who takes on the victimology of Sharpton and Jackson is greeted by the right with the kind of cynicism you see at Malkin or the Corner or Reynolds. It reveals, I think, the deeper truth: the Republican right only wants a black Republican to do this.
Well, I guess in the case of Malkin or National Review’s roster of writers at its Corner blog, they are, you know, Republican supporters. They are more interested in the views of the candidate across a whole range of issues – Iraq, spending, the size of the government, security policy, immigration, trade – than whether he or she is going to somehow change the “victimology” that Andrew Sullivan writes about. It is a bit like Sullivan moaning that Roman Catholics are only in favour of black priests who are Catholics rather than Protestants. Well, duh. As for Glenn Reynolds, he once supported the presidential run of Al Gore, if my memory serves, so he is hardly a blind follower of the GOP.
Sullivan’s critique of other bloggers would carry more weight if he could accept that US voters face essentially three big government candidates, albeit with subtle differences. I am surprised that Sullivan has not made more of why this is, and what to do about it.
Reminds me of the oft use by the BBC of ‘true fact.’
Remarkable, not, is Mr. Obama’s now repudiation of his strange pastor whose ‘gospel’ he had happily & uncritically accepted these many years…expediency tops religious belief, as well it should in this case…but maybe too late to convince ‘whitey’.
I just can’t read his stuff any more. It’s so full of this kind of ranting incoherence.
Is this because he’s gone mad, or is it because he’s always ranted incoherently and I didn’t notice because I used to agree with him?
Andrew Sullivan introduced me to blogs, his was the first I started reading waaay back when. Today though? I don’t bother. He seldom has anything to say I am interested in making the effort to read.
I may be pre judging him, but this, republicans don’t want to vote for the most left wing presidential candidate since Roosevelt!! Who would a thunk it. Frankly Obama has only gotten to this point because he is black. There is nothing special about his policies, and any white candidate with his associations, and lack of experience, would have been sidelined many primaries ago, but we all know that. And I, for one, could never advocate voting for anyone on the basis of their colour or race.
Andrew, who?
It is sad case when anyone is dissapointed in any position that A.S. takes or does not take.
Articulation capabilities do not not necessarily reflect thinking capacity.
Anybody who thinks Sullivan does anything other than through emotion hasn’t been paying attention.
While Obama’s rhetoric is preferable to that of Sharpton, his polices aren’t much better and I don’t particularly trust him more than any other politician.
The green and libertarian parties have at least considered nominating african-americans on their national ticket, i’d be more interested in getting minority cantidates of integrity more prominance, rather than hoping a helping a prominent cantidate and hoping he or she demonstrates integrity in office.
What Episiarch said. Sullivan hasn’t, that I’ve seen, attempted purely rational analysis for years.
The only issue I have any faith in his seriousness about is gay marriage, and I don’t give a rat’s ass about that, since it’s staggeringly unimportant compared to nearly everything else the US government does and the elections decide.
the first major national black politician
OK, so I realise that what I’m about to say will no doubt be described by some as racist, but wot-the-hell, archy:
As Obama is the product of a mixed-race marriage, what used to be called a “mulatto”, is it appropriate to refer to him as a “black politician” at all? He is as much white as he is black. Why not call him the “first major national mixed-race politician”? What is gained by called him “black”? What point is to be proven? Is it that his (probable) defeat will provide the European Left with yet another stick to beat the US?
To apply Sullivan’s logic to another situation:
It’s extremely disappointing that a World Series win by a Chicago team, the White Sox, is greeted with cynicism at Wrigley Field. Cubs fans, it seems, only want their Chicago team to win.
I get the sense that many people support McCain and Hillary because they don’t like the other option. Does that say something about them? That they are more driven by dislike and hatred than an actual position? Maybe it is because they feel they have no option. There is no alternative for them. But it is sad though. Sad that they can’t mobilize around anything other than what they are against. I hear many Republicans say, “McCain. I hate him, but he is better than the other two.” Sad. Just sad. http://angryafrican.net/2008/04/30/stand-up-for-it/
Isn’t this the time when people are supposed to say what they stand for? And America vote for what they want to be? Maybe people should start thinking about what they stand for. A very novel idea. Supporting someone for what they stand for. Mmmm. Think about it for a minute. Supporting someone for what they stand for. And not because you don’t like the other options. Supporting something because of what it means. Something positive. Not hatred of the other, but belief in this one.
Angry African is an Obama bot that trolls for Obama posts on blogs and comments on them. Don’t feed him.
Andrew Sullivan, small-government conservative? Who knew!
He’s basically a nervous leftwinger these days, despite his unwillingness to admit it.
I’m not going to vote for someone else because Obama is black, but rather because he’s a socialist and a racist. I won’t vote for Clinton, not because she’s a woman, but because she’s a socialist. Similarly, McCain won’t get my vote because he’s a neocon, but because he’s a socialist.
Likely, I won’t vote at all. I may just stay home and watch V for Vendetta.
Angry African, I would gladly vote for someone if the option were presented to me. A lot of people (probably most voters) do just that early in the primary season. However, when the candidates you like go down in flames, and you’re left with only “evils”, most people will vote for the lesser one. Perfectly rational, although eventually it does lead to voter apathy, as we have been seeing for quite some time now.
There is a chance that the Libertarian Party will nominate someone for whom I could vote. That didn’t seem possible a few months ago, but recently a few acceptable candidates have surfaced. We’ll see. If not, I’ll probably join Col. Hogan. “V for Vendetta” always makes me feel better.
I has been smited! Actually, I’ve come to enjoy that; I choose to read the notice as “smile” control!
I am one of those in a quandary for some one to vote for. I would indeed like to vote FOR someone, but I require the following from that person, as an absolute minimum:
* Strong on Second Amendment
* Agrees to govern by the Constitution
* Intends to finish the job in Iraq and Afghanistan
* Will repeal McCain-Feingold, Patriot, Real Id, Protect American Act, Sarbanes-Oxley and other anti-American, anti-Constitutional acts
* Wil not raise taxes.
* Will not increase regulation.
Anyone seen him or her? Race, sex, religion, national origin are irrelevant. Find this person and I will back them.
Dale- Ditto.
(btw it seems we’re both from Belfast and now in America?)
Ahhhh, my first supporter.
Find this person and I will back them.
Don’t forget to tell the rest of us about this wondercandidate.
Sullivan turned on a dime once it became known that Bush was going to announce support for a federal heterosexual-only marriage amendment. I believe he referred to it as “war.” In fact I know he did, though there have been too many years intervening to search for the post.
While I believe Sullivan was and is right on that issue, it didn’t change the facts on the ground in Iraq, on the economy, and it certainly didn’t make Obama an acceptable candidate for an Oakeshott conservative, which is what Sullivan still claims he is. All that outrage would be easier to accept from a libertarian, but Sullivan’s never been close to that.
Sullivan has a great mind. I understand and sympathize with his obsession on the one issue, but everything he writes should be viewed in that light. He’s not honest, even to himself.
I used to read Sullivan too. He started getting strange even before the gay marriage issue, at least to me.
Re: Dale, John, Achillea, and a.sommer:
Check American Conservative Party. We’re just starting up, holding our breath, and hoping for the best. No candiates yet, but those positions Dale stated look familiar 😀
Sorry for going off topic!
Senator Obama has a leftist voting record and a leftist background.
What is finally starting to be understood about the Rev. Dr J. Wright is that his racial stuff is not the really important thing – what is important is his liberation theology i.e. his Marxism.
Senator Obama was trained in this way of thinking (at Harvard and so on) long before he ever met J. Wright. And Obama was willing to tolerate Wright’s racial ranting because of their common Marxism.
As for the “socialist” McCain – if never voting for a tax increase and attacking earmarks, farm subsidies and out-of-control entitlement programs is “socialism” then the charge has some point to it.
Why do people not think for a change – and actually check the background and voting record of the three candidates.
Or just look at the New Hampshire Republican Primary (the first real test – Iowa being a caucus State).
The top four Republican candidates were John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Rudy G.
Which of those four had the most Conservative record and the most Conservative positions?
It was not “universal health care” Romney or Huckabee – their records as State Governors were bad.
And Rudy G. did various things like support the government “insurance” scam in Florida (to try and win votes there) and had a record of supporting “gun control” and other such.
The New Hampshire Primary showed which Republican candidates had any chance at all (and the candidate I like best, Fred Thompson, was NOT one of them).
And the Republica voters in South Carolina, Florida (and so on) opted for the most conservative (in the American sense) candidate.
People who are blinded by John McCain’s support for “campaign finance reform” and his opposition to torture and to Gitmo, just can not see that he was the MOST conservative serious candidate in the race (as defined by who actually got the votes of ordinary people in New Hampshire).
But it is the truth.
By the way John McCain is wildly more free market than “no-child-left-behind” (and so on and so on) Bush.
To support “compassionate” Bush twice and not support John McCain makes no sense at all.
By the way, have a look at what John McCain is proposing on tax and compare it with what either Sentator Obama or Senator Clinton are proposing.
Or are we all stuck in the “I hate John McCain so much I do not care about his past record or his present proposals” trap?