Author: Andrew Sullivan

“I’m wondering if you could answer for some of your politically torn readers a question. I know I speak for myself and a lot of GOP Undecideds, when I ask you this question in all sincerity: I voted for Bush, was pro-war, and now, along with many others, concede that Iraq has become a debacle and (unlike yourself) think the War on Terror (not Iraq) would have been more efficient, better funded, and as a whole more successful if we had not marched into Baghdad. I know you don’t agree with this, but let me tell you, this is the sentiment of a lot of moderate, even conservative Republicans who are disgusted by Bush’s arrogance. A lot of my friends like to say that Bush would be better on the War on Terror than Kerry, and I want to believe that, I really do, but no one has convinced me of that, much less the president himself. No matter how “single-minded” (obtuse, in my opinion) the president is, he’s done nothing to shore up support in his REAL BASE–southerners and midwesterners like myself–who don’t see how a lunatic fiscal policy, right-wing social policy, and a general F-U to the world in general improves America or its War on Terror. My point is this: I really loathe Kerry, but when it comes down to it, if you exclude Bush’s support for the war, why does he deserve four more years? And to all those who think this administration dropped the ball in Iraq, how can we believe that that they will make us safer? I haven’t voted for a democrat since Kennedy (at the time I lived in California and knew what kind of moral idiot Nixon was) and I don’t want to–but frankly, can someone please make the case for Bush? Because no one has, and frankly, to the Republican faithful like myself who roll our eyes at Sean Hannity, Bush has a heck of a lot of convincing to do.” This reader has a point. It certainly helps explain the July gay-baiting campaign. More feedback on the Letters Page.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “No true believing Christian or Jew can afford to sit this fight out. The fight is not over. You must continue to speak up to ensure Washington understands we want the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage clearly and formally recognized in our Constitution. You must keep in mind where your Senator stood on this vote as Election Day approaches. This past weekend many Christian churches held “Protect Marriage Sunday” to make certain their congregations understand the importance of marriage before the expected vote later in the coming week. More actions like this will keep the issue on the political front burner. It’s important that those who believe in marriage as a covenant between a man, a woman and God emphasize to Washington that the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) remains a priority.” – Paul Weyrich, in his latest newsletter. Civil marriage is now between a man and a woman and God?

I am too quick sometimes to ascribe to the mass of evangelical Christians the views of their “leaders.” There are, in fact, many Christians who do not endorse the gay-baiting campaigns of, say, the Traditional Values Coalition. They are Christian libertarians, like Josh Claybourn, or simply those who believe that religion is best served when it isn’t merged with politics. Here’s a typical email from one such reader:

I am a Christian and for the life of me cannot understand how the FMA is protecting what my wife and I share together. People should take a good look at what heterosexuals are doing to marriage. (example: Brittney, J-LO, and the reality TV shows that toy with marriage) It makes me sick when some leaders of this country get on a crusade that would limit freedom for certain individuals. I am from a very small town in West Tennessee. The first time that I ever went to school with someone from a different ethnic group was in college. The first gay person that I meet was in college. I never once had any trouble accepting the differences that we had. So how can the people, who have sworn to protect the Constitution, want to add an amendment that would limit freedom? I hate that I have to cut this short, Andrew, but remember that there are Christians that support your right to live free and open. I assure you that I will raise my children to keep their beliefs and faith strong, but never judge someone for being themselves.

That, indeed, was how I was brought up. But it highlights again the damage the political-religious right is doing to Christianity and the country.

I love Internet quizzes and here’s the latest from Slate, determining how red-state or blue-state you are. It turns out I’m bang in the middle – a lovely shade of lavender.

Check out their new campaign, called “Homosexual Urban Legends.” Its banner poster shows the face of a young child, spliced with a demonic-looking, green-shaded older man with a beard. The first item in their series is called: “Exposed: Homosexual Child Molesters.” Karl Rove must be thrilled. It’s working! It’s working! Here’s the image:

Maybe Stanley Kurtz is right. Only a couple of months after the Goodridge ruling came into effect in Massachusetts, even the swans are becoming lesbian. It’s the beginning of the end, I tell you. (No data yet on the rate of homosexuality among Norwegian parrots.)

The Republican leadership, furious that courts are – shock! – upholding minority rights, are now planning to strip them of jurisdiction in such cases. That’s now the DeLay strategy:

Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) told reporters yesterday that he plans to use “jurisdiction stripping” measures to achieve other social policy goals as well. For example, he will push legislation to stop federal courts from hearing lawsuits related to the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The GOP also wants to use their plantation in DC as an experiment, dictating that the district cannot recognize marriages from elsewhere, if they are between gay citizens. And this is the party that trumpets that the voters should decide. Not in DC.

“No one lied. No one made up the intelligence. No one inserted things into the dossier against the advice of the intelligence services. Everyone genuinely tried to do their best in good faith for the country in circumstances of acute difficulty. That issue of good faith should now be at an end … But I have to accept, as the months have passed, it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion, Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy … I have searched my conscience, not in the spirit of obstinacy, but in genuine reconsideration in the light of what we now know, in answer to that question. And my answer would be that the evidence of Saddam’s WMD was indeed less certain, less well-founded than was stated at the time. But I cannot go from there to the opposite extreme. On any basis he retained complete strategic intent on WMD and significant capability. The only reason he ever let the inspectors back into Iraq was that he had 180,000 US and British troops on his doorstep … Had we backed down in respect of Saddam, we would never have taken the stand we needed to take on WMD, never have got progress on Libya … and we would have left Saddam in charge of Iraq, with every malign intent and capability still in place and every dictator with the same intent everywhere immeasurably emboldened. For any mistakes made, as the report finds, in good faith, I of course take full responsibility. But I cannot honestly say I believe getting rid of Saddam was a mistake at all.” – Tony Blair, yesterday. It’s a classy, honest, intelligent and sincere rebuke to the anti-war arguments. If only the president had the character and strength to say something as candid.

It may not be huge in national polls, but it does seem to have had an impact on the electoral college, according to this synthesis of new polls in eighteen states:

Was there an Edwards bounce? Yes. Kerry picked up 30 electoral votes since yesterday and now leads by 117 EV. Of the new state polls, Kerry is ahead in 12, Bush is ahead in 4, and one is an exact tie. Since all of these are battleground states, this is good news for Kerry. He is ahead in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri. There is no conceivable scenario in which Bush can lose the majority of these states and win the election. But before Kerry supporters start popping the champagne corks, note that the vice-presidential bounce is usually short lived. Two weeks from now we will find out how much real change there is, if any.

another site comes to the same conclusion: Kerry: 322; Bush: 216. On the other hand, the Iowa futures market has Bush inching ahead a little this week.

SANTORUM’S HYPERBOLE: Eugene Volokh rebuts the Senator’s hysteria about the Defense of Marriage Act.

MEL’S ENGLISH PRIEST: An old duffer who refused to say the Vatican II mass died yesterday:

A quiet, kindly man who had been a practitioner of martial arts in his younger days, on July 2 Father Oswald Baker declared: “I am ready to die” – which he then did.

A lovely obit appears here.

ALLAWI ON SADDAM: He insists that the old dictator had contacts with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Someone tell the New York Times.

MARRIAGE IN CANADA: Another province, the Yukon, grants gays the right to civil marriage. CORRECTION: Yukon is a territory, not a province.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “You write that Dean Jones ‘is known chiefly as one of Disney’s top stars in the 1960s and 1970s.’ Perhaps the highlight of his career, however, was his starring role as Robert in the Sondheim musical “Company.” There is some sad irony there.” More ironies on the Letters Page.

“Whoa! Wait a second! FMA collapses because of lack of REPUBLICAN support, and you label the Republican Party as exclusionary? Yes, some in the party supported it because of a heartfelt conviction that it was the right thing to do. The FMA went to honest debate within the party, and guess what? It lost. Seems to me the Republican Party is not the scary, neo-fascist entity you make it out to be. I consider myself to be pretty conservative, and a “right wing” Christian – one of your favorite whipping boys – but I did not support FMA on grounds of Federalism, and because, quite frankly, I thought it unnecessarily hostile. That being said, however, there is room for reasonable debate, and the only place where that debate could take place is the non-monolithic Republican Party. And as far as the consequences for W: Conservative Christians are not going to abandon him since, after all, he supported the amendment. He has maintained his good will with them. And I suspect that most of us out here following the debate have the intellectual integrity to understand that the point is debatable. The debate having been joined, it appears that your side won. So lighten up. Now that the light has faded from this sideshow, let’s get back to where this election should be fought – who will best prosecute the war on terror. Hint: It ain’t John Kerry.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.

Wonkette has been having some fun with the celebrities Rick Santorum turned out for his alternative Hollywood endorsement of the FMA. The headliners? Drum roll, please:

• Darrell Green (Green played for the Washington Redskins for twenty years, earning seven trips to the Pro-Bowl.- Once the fastest man in the NFL, he retired as the oldest defensive back ever in the NFL) —– ——- ——-
• Dean Jones (Jones was nominated for a Golden Globe Award in 1971, and is known chiefly as one of Disney’s top stars in the 1960s and 1970s.- He is also known for his leading role in ” Herbie the Love Bug.”) —– ——- ——-
• Marvin Winans (Marvin is a member of the gospel group The Winans, who are Grammy, Dove and Stellar award-winners.- He is also pastor of a church in Detroit, Michigan.) —– ——- ——-
• Pat Boone (Boone was the second most-popular singer in the United States in the 1950s – second only to Elvis Presley.- He’s recognized by Billboard Magazine as the #10 rock recording artist in history.)

Of course, Pat Boone’s orange-chartreuse-sherbert jacket stole the show. But hey, no one can accuse the GOP of being out of touch with the 1950s, can they?