Author: Andrew Sullivan

I’m glad that Glenn Reynolds backs everyone’s right to marry the person they love, just as Dick Cheney does. But he’s way too soft on Bush about this. First he says Bush is “vague” in his opposition to gay marriage; then, realizing this won’t wash, he says Bush is “lukewarm” against marriage rights. Then he wants to change the subject and say that Kerry is just as bad (I’ve made a similar but less glib argument myself with regard to the awful Kerry). Then he wants to dismiss the Federal Marriage Amendment as “certain to fail.” (Just don’t hold your breath waiting for Glenn to criticize those Republicans now preparing to get another vote on it in the House). I’m afraid Glenn is wrong on all of this. The truth is: Bush’s longstanding opposition to marriage rights, (and indeed any measures to help gay people) is not the issue here. Heck, I endorsed him in 2000 fully aware of his position and his very anti-gay record. I’m not a one-issue guy. But what did it for me (and many others) was Bush’s swift, unnecessary and ill-informed support for an amendment to the very constitution that would bar any state from even allowing domestic partnerships, let alone civil marriage, for gay couples. That’s unnecessary at this point, extremist and unconservative. The fact that Bush has said nothing conciliatory or even compassionate about gay people even while he takes this position is just as telling. He treats gays as political pawns, not human beings. Besides, the FMA violates so many principles conservatives hold dear that it is an alarm bell for how far this president has gone in handing over conservatism to the Roundhead right. Heck, even Cheney has no influence when it comes to the demands of James Dobson, Rick Santorum and Richard Neuhaus.

THE CLOSET TOLERANT: Now you might argue that Bush has to do this and that he is really a closet tolerant. But, to my mind, that makes his position worse. Give me a sincere opponent of gay equality over a cynical manipulator of homophobia any day. My frustration is that you can make all the civil, constructive arguments you want (and I’ve spent two decades doing exactly that). But this administration is utterly uninterested in argument, won’t meet with or listen to anyone who backs marriage rights, and has made no real argument on the issue – except that civil marriage is “sacred” (is this Iran?) and that heterosexuality deserves to be “honored” simply because it should (laughable). Moreover, they refuse to curtail any of the truly hateful anti-gay rhetoric of their allies; and have allowed their own party platform to incorporate the most extreme anti-gay position in history. What’s the use of constructive arguments against that? It’s like debating with a tank. My fear is simply that Bush and Rove want to re-make Republicanism into a big-government, Christian right movement. To his credit, the president is very candid about this; and the people he backs (from Marilyn Musgrave to the fanatically anti-gay Zell Miller) would go much, much further in stripping gay citizens of even basic rights. I know Glenn opposes this movement too. He’s a humane and civilized fellow. It’s just sad that he’s so vague and lukewarm in his opposition to what Republicanism is becoming under this president. Maybe he will return to criticism once this campaign is over. For some of us, that may be too late.

Tim Perry has another amazing letter home from a Marine. Read it all. They are indeed doing God’s work. As the odds mount against them, we have to pray they will prevail.

Another classic:

Bush Campaign More Thought Out Than Iraq War
WASHINGTON, DC-Military and political strategists agreed Monday that President Bush’s re-election campaign has been executed with greater precision than the war in Iraq. “Judging from the initial misrepresentation of intelligence data and the ongoing crisis in Najaf, I assumed the president didn’t know his ass from his elbow,” said Col. Dale Henderson, a military advisor during the Reagan Administration. “But on the campaign trail, he’s proven himself a master of long-term planning and unflinching determination. How else can you explain his strength in the polls given this economy?” Henderson said he regrets having characterized Bush’s handling of the war as “incompetent,” now that he knows the president’s mind was simply otherwise occupied.

Yep. Fallujah should have had more swing voters, I guess.

My eyes are now glazing over at fonts and typewriters and all, but, for fairness’ sake, I should link to these arguments saying that the Killian docs are legit. And to those of you claiming I bought these memos hook, line and sinker, please recall that in my very first post on them, I asked: “Are these forms forgeries?” and invited anyone to debunk them. That’s not someone closed to argument.

Here’s a fun animated electoral college map that shows how the race has shifted since May.

Doug Bandow joins the growing throng of principled conservatives unwilling to give Bush a second term. Money quote:

Quite simply, the president, despite his well-choreographed posturing, does not represent traditional conservatism — a commitment to individual liberty, limited government, constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility. Rather, Bush routinely puts power before principle.

One wonders why this kind of piece isn’t published by the Weekly Standard or National Review.

Another theory as to OBL’s whereabouts. But why no video?

Well, kudos to the blogosphere, although big media didn’t give Powerline the credit they deserve. I’d say, given the preponderance of expert opinion, that it now looks probable that the Killian memos were hoaxes. Maybe this would have emerged without blogs. But it sure emerged more quickly because of them. Now the real question: who hoaxed CBS? And why?

THE PLAIN MEANING: Yes, I’ve looked at the full quote of Dick Cheney’s comments about a terrorist attack if Kerry is elected. Yes, he clearly did mean that the full scope of Kerry’s anti-terror approach would make us more vulnerable, a perfectly fair point. But it’s also indisuptable that his words are most persuasively interpreted the way everyone first interpreted them. Here they are in full:

Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we’ll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we’re not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

Maybe Cheney misspoke, and it’s certainly fair for a politician to clarify his remarks in retrospect. But Cheney makes no apology. He just says “I did not say if Kerry is elected, we will be hit by a terrorist attack.” This is what gets me about the guy. He cannot acknowledge even minor error. His attitude is essentially: I’m running a war and critics can go fuck themselves. Remember his response to Abu Ghraib? People should “get off [Rumsfeld’s] case.” The sheer effrontery of people trying to hold someone accountable for one of the worst humiliations for the U.S. in decades. Cheney’s arrogance and his absolute refusal even to countenance the views of others are dangers for this country. In a second term, all his worst instincts will be reinforced.

I’ve believed this for a long time now, but the latest video from al Qaeda’s “Number Two,” Ayman al-Zawahri, gives more credence to the belief. We haven’t had a real, live, authentically-dated video that authenticates bin Laden’s existence for well over a year. Why not? Wouldn’t it be of extreme importance to his followers that they be reassured that he is still alive? If they can put together a video of al-Zawahri, why not one with OBL? This isn’t completely salient to the war on terror which is far broader than one man. But I’m working under the assumption that what remains of the mass murderer is under a rock somewhere on the Pakistani border. I don’t want to ruin Maureen Dowd’s day but that’s by far the most plausible explanation for his long, inexplicable silence and absence.

“Perle’s depiction of his delight at first meeting the future president reads like Fagin relating his initial encounter with the young Oliver Twist.” – Patrick Buchanan, in his new book on the neocons, as noted by Tim Noah.

FOX’S POLLING: Fox’s polling has always been pretty reliable to my mind and their data showing a razor-thin lead for Bush seems more credible to me than the Washington Post poll. Or maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. The undecideds – once a key segment for Kerry – are still less anti-Kerry than anti-Bush but it’s close. Bottom-line: Bush has shaken some vets and independents away from Kerry and had huge success in bolstering Kerry’s negatives. But this is not an election already decided. And even the Washington Post poll shows a far closer race in the swing states.

WRITE A BUSH SPEECH! Here’s how.

CATO BALKS: Here’s an interesting quote from a new piece at TNR.com (subscribers only, alas):

“Most people at the Institute have no plans to vote for the president this time,” said one member of the Cato policy staff who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “There will be some votes for Kerry inside the Cato Institute this year.” Of course, given that Cato has only a few dozen staff members, Bush doesn’t have to worry about losing the think tank’s vote this November. To be sure, Bush’s nascent “ownership society” agenda, which is said to include renewed efforts at social security privatization, could win back some at Cato (see Jonathan Chait, “Up and Away,” page 22). But, judging by the depth of the animosity toward him at the Institute right now, it will take a lot more than a stump speech to do so. Moreover, its antipathy is indicative of a growing belief among the GOP’s fiscally conservative constituencies–not just libertarian ideologues, but big-business executives, small-business owners, virtually any voting bloc concerned with fiscal restraint–that Bush has been an abject failure. And, in a close election, that could make a difference.-

I have to say I’m delighted by Cato’s stand. Bush is slowly destroying conservatism’s small government credentials and commitment to expanding personal freedom. It isn’t “going left” to abandon his big-government philosophy; it’s staying true to conservative principles.