St. Bill! In Sid’s Gospel

The New York Observer ^ | May 19, 2003 | Andrew Sullivan

[talleyman]

St. Bill - patron saint of interns?

[sheik yerbouty]

'His Satanic Majesty" to liberals.

[martin_fierro]

Ken Starr fought the good fight, and nothing Clintoon or his weasel flacks say will ever convince me otherwise.

[OldFriend]

Syd was mortally afraid of being invited to a picnic lunch at Ft. Marcy Park.

[Howlin]

Somehow, I don't think we are Sid's target audience.

[headsonpikes]

St. Sidney, patron saint of brown-nosers.

[Uncle Hal]

Know matter what you may think of him, Andrew Sullivan is a great writer. This review was brilliant. I do not always agree with Sullivan but I always read his column and find it full of information and very insightful.

[r9etb]

Coming at the end of an article like this one, it makes Sullivan's judgment look almost as questionable as Blumenthal's.

I think Sullivan's opinions about Clinton's activities have to be judged in the context of his homosexuality.

Sullivan's sexualit, coupled with his Catholicism, may explain his disdain of the "puritanical" Ken Starr -- which seems to reflect an implicit belief that it really was "all about sex." (The stereotypical "gay Catholic" is innately opposed to the church's orthodox teachings on sexuality, and is very clear on the evils of "puritanism.")

[Cincinatus]

Andrew bought the "it's-all-about-sex" line the Clintonistas advanced. ((shrug)) -- I guess nobody can be right about everything.

[Howlin]

I happen to love Andrew Sullivan! Don't always agree with him, but I just love to read his articles -- even if it's just for the "flow" of the words.

[bvw]

Somewhere in his reach is a woman, unfulfilled and wasting. If only Sullivan would set to find her -- for two half lives are multiplied unmarried, but added to when married.

[Howlin]

That is a good thought, bvw; sometimes I think his writing is filled with sadness.

[LADY J]

Being a Democrat today is equal to being a member of a cult.

[KC Burke]

Hey, kid.

Too heck with Sullivan. I'm waiting for Hitchen's review. It will be the antiseptic that only a former pal can deliver.

[Howlin]

Don't wait another minute:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/912263/posts

It's all you expected, and more!

[Howlin]

Aren't you glad our mamas didn't raise us liberal? How would you like to have to spout this drivel day in and day out? :-)

[BunnySlippers]

I'm waiting for Hitchen's review.

It was posted here on FR a couple of days ago. He was seething. He listed points and page numbers and barely restrains himself from going over the edge.

[alwaysconservative]

Bump and thanks for posting this! Andrew Sullivan can dissect these pathetic hangers-on of the left more efficiently and with more steel than practically anyone else on the right; he has the history with these folks and the ability to pierce their feeble defenses by pointing out that their emperor had no clothes.

The need to prove not just that Mr. Clinton’s opponents were evil, wrong, dumb, malign, gob-smackingly corrupt and duplicitous in every single respect, but that the President was noble, grand, progressive, epic and world-historical must, by its very nature, obscure nuance. Nuance, after all, could lead to doubt; and doubt to error; and error to damnation. And beyond damnation, there’s always the danger of becoming a Republican.

One of the best passages I've read lately! This is Andrew Sullivan at his best: finely sharpened and never stooping to crude malice.