"if tomorrow Coulter threw her hat into the ring with us would you except her?"
Absolutely not. But, if people I admired started linking to her blog and after two years' of reading the blog I learned she had something to say...I'd keep reading her.
Glenn Greenwald said it best:
On balance, though, I think the virtues of Sullivan as a political commentator easily outweigh his sins, and The Conservative Soul illustrates why. When he was cheering on George Bush and the Iraq invasion in 2002 and 2003, Sullivan was a virtual hero to Bush supporters. He was far and away the most popular right-wing pundit at the time, and he had a large and loyal constituency. He could have easily maintained and even expanded that popularity -- and preserved the material and other advantages which accompany it -- simply by adhering to his views.
But he didn't do that. He gradually recognized what the Bush movement really was and, as a result, turned on the President and repudiated the political movement which was his fan base. He did so even though he had to know that he would never really be welcomed by liberals, with whom he had been warring for a decade at least. Knowingly alienating oneself from one's core supporters, while being well-aware that it is likely to leave one isolated and without a real constituency, is a commendable act which requires courage. Courage is also required to publicly repudiate one's prior, emphatically advocated positions. That's something which most people, I think, would find very difficult, if not impossible, to do.
And, as an aside, because he has been such a polarizing figure, Sullivan's courage in other, even more important respects has been quite under-appreciated -- courage exemplified by being openly gay at a time when most people weren't, and as part of a political movement where that could only impede him; being one of the first public figures in America to openly disclose his HIV status and to talk openly about living with the virus; and advocating gay marriage long before it was anything remotely like a mainstream topic. Though most people have a strident and absolute view of Sullivan one way or the other, he is a complicated, intelligent, thoughtful and unpredictable political commentator -- open to modifying his views and admitting error -- all of which sets him apart -- and, I think, above -- the majority of the trite, standardized, lifeless pundits who dominate our political discourse.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/andrew-sullivan-and-hollow.htmlYou and I remember a different Huffington. I remember her when she took great pleasure in demeaning every democrat in sight! She was a real witch until her divorce. Nasty. There's a part of me that always thought Arianna turned liberal to goad her ex after the divorce. I've always seen her as less honorable...but that's me.
I'd also point out that we really can't talk right wing shills without mentioning David Brock whose book on Anita Hill was as bad as anything Coulter wrote yet his Media Matters is must reading.
Would I vote for any of the three of them? (Huffington, Brock or Sullivan) Not yet but I send Media Matters money every month and I read Sullivan every day and the other two less frequently.
My dad was a republican until Reagan and it was fascinating to me to witness him switching parties. I want to know what makes people leave the GOP hopefully so more will come to our side.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
