If It Could Happen to Churchill... [Andrew Sullivan contemplates a Bush loss in '04]

Time Magazine ^ | Monday, March 8, 2004 | Andrew Sullivan

[Consort]

Pyrrhric posturing from the former homogenius.

[Steve_Seattle]

Folks can blast Sullivan for the irrelevant arguments pertaining to his homosexuality, but he is on to something. One factor he doesn't mention explicitly, but which I think is important, is that war causes stress, and the public can tolerate the stress of war only so long. If the public can be convinced that the war was unnecessary, or is already won, it might want to get rid of the president associated with that war as a form of anxiety-reduction. The public does not want to think we face an ongoing danger from terrorism, and Kerry's comments that the threat of terrorism was exaggerated play up to that tendency.

[Always Right]

But, hey, Andy...there's an up side for you because if Bush loses, you can marry your boyfriend.

The problem with all the hatred towards Bush concerning gay marriage is that Kerry is against gay marriage too, but supports states amending their constitution instead of the US constitution.

[baseballmom]

I think the war on terrorism is far from over, and Bush's toughness is a vital part of the struggle.

Obviosly, he is NOT saying the WOT is over. He is simply pointing out the fickleness of the voter.

Churchill's opponent in 1945, Clement Attlee, was, like John Kerry today, no heavyweight

Sullivan is cautioning us that just because GW has done such a great job as a war president, there is a real possibility that a mediocre man such as Kerry could pull off an upset.

It's getting to be routine on FR lately, that if some don't like the message, they start trashing the messenger. It really demeans all of us.

[Tallguy]

The problem with all the hatred towards Bush concerning gay marriage is that Kerry is against gay marriage too, but supports states amending their constitution instead of the US constitution.

Which - you are aware - is a totally unworkable proposal (Kerry's) since it ignores the "Full-faith & Credit" clause in the Federal Constitution. In short, as long as a single State recognizes homosexual marriage -- every State must recognize the status.

[The Wizard]

Churchill's war was over.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Kerry isn't against "queer marriage" (whatever that is). He was one of the few who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, and he has taken a stand against Massachusetts amending its constitution to prohibit it. I don't care what words he utters now, his actions speak far louder.

[Always Right]

Which - you are aware - is a totally unworkable proposal (Kerry's) since it ignores the "Full-faith & Credit" clause in the Federal Constitution. In short, as long as a single State recognizes homosexual marriage -- every State must recognize the status.

That is a legal theory that hasn't been tested over this issue in the courts. It is a legitimate concern that people will get these marriages in other states and try to get their state to recognize it, but it is not written in stone how the courts will rule. Getting states to pass amendments is a step in the right direction that will give momentum to a federal amendment.

[Poincare]

Perhaps it's just coincidence, but the gays on KGO radio San Francisco are screaming that the was is over.

[Filibuster_60]

The War on Terror continues, but many Americans no longer see it as a war - many no longer see Iraq as an essential part of it and this means weak support for tough measures against other rogue states and an inclination to multilateral diplomacy. I think Bush is paying the price for the over-ambitious goals he set two years ago - when he essentially pledged to strike not only terrorists but also hostile states. If this war were limited to Al Qaeda and other non-state, transnational entities, Bush can declare victory with UBL's inevitable capture/death. But having all but abandoned the doctrine of preventive war in dealing with Iran, Syria and North Korea, we've defaulted to diplomacy in dealing with these other evils. We've grown tired of military operations and our enemies sense it.

Much of the public sees diminishing returns in the WOT. No major attack since 9/11 diverts their attention to economic concerns. The vast majority of Americans never signed on to the neocon vision of democratizing the world in an activist manner. They now prefer quick disengagement from the Mideast.

[Always Right]

Kerry isn't against "queer marriage" (whatever that is). He was one of the few who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, and he has taken a stand against Massachusetts amending its constitution to prohibit it.

I am quite aware of Kerry's flip flops on this issue. If you go back, Kerry even called the DOMA 'hateful' and compared it to banning interracial marriage. I was just pointing out that today's Kerry position is just as 'hateful' as Bush's is to the supporters of gay marriage. The supporters of gay marriage are being hypocrits by attacking Bush, when their candidate is just as bigotted in their view of the world.

[Tallguy]

That is a legal theory that hasn't been tested over this issue in the courts. It is a legitimate concern that people will get these marriages in other states and try to get their state to recognize it, but it is not written in stone how the courts will rule. Getting states to pass amendments is a step in the right direction that will give momentum to a federal amendment.

Yes, but what about corporations? States can afford to fight against the implications of homosexual marriage ad nauseum, but what if a state recognizing homosexual marriage attempts to leverage it's laws via commercial contracts. Imagine California, Massachussets, Hawaii, etc. telling a Utah chartered trucking company that they can't operate or do business in their states. Again, you get a legal knot tossed into the Federal Courts. You can't avoid the implications -- Bush's hand is being forced on the Constitutional Ammendment.

[bondjamesbond]

Should Andrew Sullivan reject all of your arguments out-of-hand just because you are a heterosexual?

[bondjamesbond]

That would assume, of course, that you are actually making an argument, rather than just yelling "POOFTER!" and leaving it at that.

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

Should Andrew Sullivan reject all of your arguments out-of-hand just because you are a heterosexual?

I think the difference is that I don't give a rat's ass [no pun intended] what Andrew Sullivan does, or thinks, or feels, or cares about, or pre-occupies himself with, or what legal contracts Andrew Sullivan does or does not want to enter into, i.e: I'm not trying to shove an agenda down Andrew Sullivan's throat [again, no pun intended].

[Porterville]

What?? Where not British, how can anyone compare America to Britain? Even one of the Princes would rather be an American.

[Always Right]

Should Andrew Sullivan reject all of your arguments out-of-hand just because you are a heterosexual?

If I change my position on Bush because of my heterosexuality, than yes my arguments are suspect. Sullivan supported Bush up until last week when Bush announced his support of a constitutional amendment. At that time, Sullivan went nuclear against Bush. Sullivan's views are clouded by this, so I don't put much weight into Sullivan's disingenuous rant.

[Scenic Sounds]

Here's what a really smart Democratic contender could say to the President this fall: "Thank you, Mr. President, for your leadership in difficult times. You made some tough decisions, and we are safer as a result. But the very qualities that made you a perfect pick for the war so far are the very ones that make you less effective from now on. You are too polarizing a figure to bring real peace to Iraq. You are too unpopular overseas to allow European governments to cooperate fully in the attempt to hunt down terrorists. And your deep unpopularity in half the country makes it impossible for you to make the necessary compromises that the country needs domestically. Thanks for all you've done, but bye-bye."

I think that the Democrats will take a variation of this tack. I don't think that their nominee will question the President's honesty (although a lot of his henchmen will use that theme to preach to the Democratic choir). I think that the Democratic nominee's theme will be based upon competence. I think it will be argued that the President has mismanaged both the economy and the situation in Iraq.

[Always Right]

That would assume, of course, that you are actually making an argument, rather than just yelling "POOFTER!" and leaving it at that.

You really want an arguement? Comparing the political climate in the US in 2004 to Britian in 1945 is just plain dumb. For every similarity there are a dozen differences. It is a huge stretch. Beisdes, the war against terror isn't even close to over, so the whole point of the article is mute.

[bondjamesbond]

I'm not trying to shove an agenda down Andrew Sullivan's throat

But what does that have to do with Winston Churchill?