[Torie]

A thoroughly disingenuous piece. Sullivan hasn't bitched about Bush being reckless before. Now suddenly he does. What he bitched about was that Bush was too craven to the religious right when it came to gays. Why doesn't Sullivan just admit that he gives that one issue huge weight, and since he doesn't see much difference between Bush and Kerry on other issues, he is just free to vote based on the gay issue? Wouldn't that be a tad more honest, than all the tendentious bridgework about "recklessness?"

Andrew, I hate it that you have become something of a liar. I thought better of you. I don't mind it much when you annoy "conservatives," I annoy them often myself, but I do mind when you just become another contributor to the tangled web, intending to deceive.

[ambrose]

He has become a liar. He has been slowly pushing in this direction for months and months now. He has already said in an Advocate interview that there is no way he can support Bush, yet in no-Gay publications, he pretends as though he is slowly arriving at some decision to support Kerry.

He is certainly entitled to his opinion, but stop the deceptive games.

p.s.

I think we can do without some of the other comments I am reading here, don't you?

[hansel]

I, too, feel he is being dishonest. He should start out his article saying he could never vote for Bush because of the marriage amendment. What he does here is exactly what he chides other journalists for doing-being biased about something and not revealing that bias upfront.

I have lost a lot of respect for him. While I have found him thoughful, he became opposed to Bush about marriage and since then has let that color his writings.