15 thoughts on “Andrew Sullivan Ten Years Later

  1. I found the Dish via National Review back when I followed them in a sortof gorrillas in the mist fashion to see what the people who were running the government in 2000 were thinking. He’s a great read and I think I found the League via either him or Freddie but since I found Freddie via Sullivan all the roads lead back to the dish either way. Happy anniversary Sully.Report

  2. At the risk of never being liked by the Dish, I find Sullivan too selective and hypocritical in his “passionate” righteousness for my tastes, but if he’s helped you along, that says something.Report

  3. I found the Dish during Election 2008, and it is (in a roundabout way – via the now-defunct culture blog that Friedersdorf and others used to write on, which led to me to Mark Thompson’s blog, which led me here) how I found this site. I used to enjoy it, mostly for his ardent condemnation of torture and of neoconservative warmongering, but I don’t read it any more. I really don’t like his pushing of Trig birtherism, and he seems to be trying too hard to defend Obama simply because he likes Obama, even when his policies are bad and inconsistent with the ones Andrew has previously supported. Sullivan seems incapable of moderation – on torture, on civil liberties, on Iraq, on Obama, on Palin, there is no middle ground. You’d think that having been so wrong about supporting the neocons would have taught him some humility, but it evidently hasn’t.

    Maybe it’s partly that he looks bad by comparison with TNC, who’s exceptional as a blogger in being introspective, thoughtful, and willing to admit when he’s wrong.Report

      1. @dexter45,
        That’s what I’ve been saying for years, but I’m accused of being black and white. I guess it’s a skill unique to liberals, liberaltarians, progressives and moderates to know when there’s no middle. Libertarians and conservatives are just stubbornly ideologically closed.Report

        1. I guess it’s a skill unique to liberals, liberaltarians, progressives and moderates to know when there’s no middle.

          Au contraire. There certainly are conservatives and libertarians who acknowledge that use of torture, starting aggressive wars, and disregard for civil liberties are unambiguously wrong – it’s just that those people have no influence on the consensus positions of the Republican Party.Report

      2. I agree, but unlike Andrew I believe we should draw a distinction between Palin the politician whose statements and ideas I entirely disagree with and Palin the human being whose personal and family life is none of my business.

        I do believe there are some conservative positions that have merit, but the Republicans don’t hold any of them.Report

        1. @Katherine,
          No, the Republicans have no merit, unlike the Democrats who have lots of merit. And although some conservatives are arguably right about a few things, the fact that they will be voting Republican shows that the Democrats have successfully proven that although they are right, the election will probably go mostly Republican, because conservatives are wrong about at least one thing, and that is that although the Democrats are right, they are wrong for American voters, who are wrong to think the Republicans will get it right. The Democrats have been right all along, to everyone’s surprise.Report

  4. Speaking for myself, Andrew was instrumental in introducing me to a much wider and more interesting array of blogs and writers than I’d read before I stumbled on The Dish.

    Word. If someone knows of a better blogroll, let me know. I probably would have found this place eventually, but as it happened, I found it there.Report

Comments are closed.