Andrew Sullivan is an interesting guy

He's a progressive, but also very much a Capitalist and an Anti-Socialist (Being from the UK, Socialism left a bad taste in his mouth)

He's a Christian, but not of the Evangelical variety. This does not make him a Couch Christian (not to be confused with the Crouch Christian who dye their hair pink) or a lukewarm Christian.

He is also gay, and out of the closet. Gay Rights are naturally a big thing for him.

He supported the Iraq war at first - and at the time was a Republican. As the Bush/Cheney lies started to pile up, he (like much of America) changed his tune and became a Democrat.

He is very intelligent. You or I might disagree with him on a lot of things (and I do) but every position he takes was well researched and well thought out.

I like his columns and like seeing him on Real Time - in fact that place is the best forum for his style.

Did he? I don't recall reading about that anywhere.

He's soured on the whole neocon worldview he used to have, but that doesn't make him a Democrat.

less selfish politics

a great article on sullivan http://www.villagevoice.com/2001-06-19/news/the-real-andrew-sullivan-scandal/

I may not agree with every position he takes, but he is always rational and reasoned. Seems like a truly decent and nice man.

and probably a libertarian type, which explains the apparent contradictions.

Any time I have seen a modern conservative try to appear rational, it is because their was an ulterior motive, usually either power or money.

He is socially progressive, but still a staunch conservative. I like Sullivan, but I think he is a lot more complex thank you suggest. He is NOT a Democrat.

most of his political positions appear to be based on sheer calculation rather than any personal belief or ideals.

Well whatever - given a choice he would be near one of the last people I would seek opinions from.

contest and postings are wonderful.

He's still capable of mild RW viewpoints, but I don't think he's coming from a blind faith to the RW doctrine but rather from a continuing process of challenging his long-held positions. He will post several different takes on an issue, such as health care, that offer analysis different from his own and give them kudos for valid analysis. He will come around eventually.

so we find it hard to think of him as a progressive, or even, for that matter, a decent person.

I remember when he used his position at TNR to promote The Bell Curve, when he accused liberals of being a treasonous "fifth column" in the wake of 9/11/, when he treated George W. Bush as Casear returned from the wars, and when he made his right wing cred by attacking the "libidinal pathology" of gay people while secretly cruising barebackcity.com.

In fact, one of the most disturbing things about DU's rightward lurch these past few years is seeing Sully treated as some sort of prophet.

makes sense...I unrec everytime he's posted here.

though many in the mainstream media choose to call him that.

While it's important to recognize that people can change, there are a number of gay liberal progressive Democrats with eloquence who have remained consistent over many years - why can't we spend our time admiring people like them, rather than people like Sullivan?

That was my problem with him back in his salad days, when he seemed to be omnipresent. It was like the only LGBT person on any of the cable media programmers' Rolodexes was Sully (along with maybe Camille Paglia to fill in when The Official Voice of Gay America was busy applying his testosterone gel).

That was it.

No matter what the story, when "the gay perspective" was needed they called in Andrew Sullivan, whose usual contribution to the discussion was that those other homos generally are pretty awful, what with their libidinal pathology and their hairy backs and such, but Sully is much nicer than they, being a conservative Catholic with big, dewy eyes.

The purpose Sully served in those days was much like that which Armstrong Williams served for white racists--a member of a hated minority willing to validate the hate in exchange for a pat on the head. Thanks to him, right wing haters were able to say things like, "even Andrew Sullivan admits that {insert homophobic slur here}"

My problem with this was not that Sully had a media voice (he has every right to kiss the boot that kicks him) but that nobody else could. Things have improved considerably in the past few years, but for far too long, he was just about the only LGBT person in the general media.

I enjoy Sullivan's writing and check out his website every day. I think he is typical of conservatives in the UK who hold progressive views on social matters. His commitment to exposing all of Palin's lies also makes him one of my favorite. Daily Dish is now associated with the The Daily Beast and that move has brought him a wider audience.

views about anything but his own career advancement.

But he's no Santorum either...

I prefer moderates like him on Real Time instead of straight out batshit crazies like Tancredo

And now I just view him as a hypocrite who every once in a while gets a few things right, but not someone whose judgement I would trust. After all, he's flip-flopped already on issues he was certain of not so long ago.

What's interesting is how these former Republican Bush supporters and rabid anti-liberals are more acceptable on DU today, than many of the real liberal writers who USED to be highly respected here.

Did this board get a whole new membership or something? It feels very different to me than it used to be.

Everything you say is true. A.S. used to frequent a now defunct early discussion board where I posted. He used to 'borrow' ideas and phrases from a gay physician who posted there who was twice as smart as Sullivan. Two weeks or a month later, we'd see how Sullivan even borrowed the guys sig line!

He just wants to be in with whoever is in power. He pimped for big pharma and got lots of bucks. He argued against meaningful health care reform. He's an 'I got mine' conservative.

It's shameful that he'd get praised HERE! ICK!

And to refresh any dusty memories, The Bell Curve was the book that claimed that black people had naturally lower IQs. AS thought it was an important perspective to put forward. Barf.

...he was for the Iraq war before he was against it, he was for torture before he was against it...

He changes his tune depending upon who is in the WH and which way the wind is blowing...

with no moral compass and a wet finger in the air trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing, a huge hypocrite, a traitor, a liar, a self hating fool, and a greedy fuck head.

I will give him some respect for his social liberalism, and for opposing the Iraq war; but I disagree with him on too many things to be a fan.

'(Being from the UK, Socialism left a bad taste in his mouth)'

Huh? There are plenty of us in the UK for whom Socialism (inasmuch as we've had it) does *not* leave a bad taste, whereas Thatcherism most definitely does!

And would love to use the UK Model

HOWEVER, if you're rich I can see how you might have a problem with some parts of it.

Back in the 60s, for example, if you were rich (and this is real rich, not wannabe rich) you payed up to 95% in taxes

Granted, I think we could soak the rich, but one can see why he didn't like it

He's a self-desribed "Gay Catholic Tory.:

Seriously I couldn't give a fuck less about him. The New Republic has been beating the drums for war at least since the Reagan years and their staunch defense of Israeli aggression is nauseating--if Sullivan has repented somewhat I'm skeptical.

That's why I don't use it

I am a LIBERAL, not a progressive

Carry Nation was a 'progressive'

William Jennings Brian was a 'progressive'

Progressive just means marching towards progress. It never specifies what that eventual progress is.

I am a Socialist and a Liberal.

I believe in a big safety net, and very little state social conditioning