Andrew Sullivan, Ralph Nader Separated at Birth?
March 10, 2007
It seems to me that Andrew Sullivan is becoming the man-on-man loving version of Ralph Nader. He did some interesting things early in his career, but now that he is sliding into irrelevance he’s becoming increasing shrill and bitter. That’s exactly what happened to Nader.
Early on Nader did Unsafe at Any Speed, the Public Interest Research Group and the Environmental Protection Agency. All good things. Then, driven by ego he ran for president in 2000 knowing full well that he had about as much chance of being elected as the cop from the Village People. His insistence on staying in the race cost Gore Florida and the election and unleashed George W. ush on the world.
Andrew was ahead of the curve by pushing the issues of marriage for same-sex couples and allowing gays to serve openly in the military. He is also a pioneer n the field of blogging. Now he increasing engages in unwarranted attacks against the Human Rights Campaign, the largest civil rights organization working for LGBT equality.
It would be one thing for Andrew to urge HRC to take action that will increase the effectiveness of its work. Its something entirely different that he slams the organization in nitpicky fashion, while failing to acknowledge the great stuff that HRC has done. Its work during the 2006 elections was crucial to the Democrats regaining control of the House and Senate which has turned into the best opportunity ever to pass employment non-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity and hate crimes protection. HRC played a key role in securing marriage rights in Massachusetts and advancing familiy issues in a number of other states. It outreach program to LGBT students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities is the first of its kind. Its work with Iraq War vet Eric Alva to overturn the ban on gays in the military and former NBA player John Amaechi has increased the diversity of the public face of the LGBT community. Andrew knows all of this, but chooses to ignore it because why something good when you can bitch.
Andrew sits in front of his computer hurling spitballs while the staff of HRC engages with the real world to end discrimination against LGBT Americans in every community. Sometimes the folks at HRC make mistakes, something that Andrew with his controversial past should understand. But for the most part, HRC’s work has been on target.
36 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
K | March 10, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Remember that Sullivan is primarily a conservative, and that any activism for gay rights is purely personal. Thus, he’ll fuss and fume — sometimes with considerable eloquence — against George Bush when the Prez is bashing gays or abusing gays for political advantage, but then he’ll always prop up W when he does anything else to gladden the cockles of conservative hearts.
Yes, it’s a shame Sullivan has chosen to go after HRC. And, funny thing, his latest feud seemed to commence about the time stories started appearing about how much HRC helped kick Republicans out of control of Congress.
Meanwhile, remember this: Conservatives are not friends to civil rights for the LGBT community, have never been, and will never be as long as there are religious right votes to be gotten by attacking equal rights. Yes, the Democrats aren’t always friends — but the Republicans are almost always enemies.
2.
Dan Cobb | March 10, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Andrew Sullivan is not a very bright man. He writes well, but sadly the content of what he writes is simply lacking. He has been completely and utterly and repeatedly wrong about EVERYTHING in Iraq. And wasn’t he condescending to the people who REALLY knew what would happen in Iraq with such a moronic invasion for oil. He still supports the war and is just upset with Bush for botching a “blooming democracy in the middle east” –as if even Jesus Christ could have made the Iraqis understand democracy. I don’t dislike him, but his insight and understanding extends only to issues that involve “elite prep school anglo-american attitudes”. If he only ever wrote about US and UK domestic issues… he might not be so bad. On international issues, he’s completely out of his element.
3.
Lee Gordon | March 10, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Supersized flatulant ego always does them in. Can’t blame that on sleep apneia.
4.
Don | March 10, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I hardly think criticism of power hurts the cause. And that’s really what this is all about. Rather than just focus on the fact that you’re opposed to his view on HRC, you decided to break out the old school nelly and insult anything you possibly can about him, based on assumptions, extrapolations, and exaggerations. Grow up, girls – the time for gay facism is long over – it’s about time you realize that not all of us chew on the queer cherry kool-aid ice cube pops and actually think for ourselves.
5.
Eva Young | March 10, 2007 at 3:31 pm
It’s not just Andrew Sullivan. Michael Petrelis, Pam Spaulding from the left, and Chris Crain and GayPatriot from the right and many other bloggers are making similar points about HRC. I was especially offended when HRC pulled out of the ballot initiative fights in favor of invisibly helping targeted democrats to win election.
6.
Mike Bendzela | March 10, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Sorry, but I don’t buy your spin of the 2000 election.
George Bush was put into office by the republicans who voted for him, not by Nader voters.
Some of us voted for Nader because he represented what we believed at the time.
Gore is a politician. His running mate at the time, Lieberman, was even worse.
7.
Les | March 10, 2007 at 3:58 pm
People sure seem to have a short memory. During his own Sullygate scandal, Andrew wrote on his site congratulating and honoring FreeRepublic.com (the most extremely homophobic and murderistic site on the net).
Also during Laura Schlessinger’s scandal when she called all glbt people ‘biological errors’, Sullivan again tried to cash in being contrarian and arranged a private lunch with her (in order to distinguish himself as a ‘clean’ homosexual vs the so-called ‘militant lifestylers).
8.
Bob | March 10, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Why blame Nader for Bush’s win and not any of the other candidates?
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm
9.
Evelyn | March 10, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Andrew Sullivan – anyone who engages in AIDS Gifting while simultaneously lecturing others on ethics, virtue, and the sanctity of monogamy is by definition a nutball.
10.
MCnNYC | March 10, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Sorry Don….I don’t know where you come to your conclusion that the writer has “decided to break out the old school nelly and insult anything you possibly can about him” there was nothing in the post to warrent your comments.
Considering how much Andrew has in his past that he needs to be penetant for it was even handed.
Look ANDREW SULLIVAN is only concerned about ANDREW SULLIVAN. His writing have always been about himself. I too have issues with HRC but hey they have shown that as an organization they can adapt to critisim. They have expanded from a lobbying organization into a clearinghouse of social services as well.
11.
Don | March 10, 2007 at 4:05 pm
MCnNYC – I was speaking more of the following comments, not the initial writer himself.
12.
Amalekite | March 10, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Gays support Zionism.
More gays support Bush then you think. It’s part of their “me too” activism. They wouldn’t hate Bush as much if they were allowed to participate as full equal partners in Zionist World Domination and Genocide of Arabs. Those spartan greeks, they were a warrior people, neither gays nor neocons can ever understand peaceloving yeomanship. Neocons have their Krauthammers, Sullivans, Foleys, and Hagards, and Phil Englishes, this is NOT a coincidence. Nancy boy warmongers hailing a war for Israel/ not oil.
Zionist wars to protect those “eternally presecuted and innocent” jewish males is hardly masculine. Is it any wonder that Bush (our first jewish president) has let down his fundamentalist homo-hating judeo-Judeo-JUDEO-”Christian” fanbase time after time? And these false Christians can not break their covenant with Israel, (”bless who bless, curse who curse”, in a gay nasally neocon whine) and so their beliefs are compromised. Bush is the best thing to ever happen to the gay community.
13.
Patrick | March 10, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Hmmm…..now the supporters of HRC (also coincidentally the blinder wearing supporters of the Democratic Party) are lashing out at Sullivan and are attaching the tired old “Nader ruined everything” rag to their argument. Like that makes their argument more credible.
Say what you want about Nader. I am exhausted with this pointless argument that will change nothing. To continue to blame him for participating in our democracy is weak and shows how desperate the moderates are to claim victim status. Gee, if everyone would compromise as much as the moderates do, then we could have a real spineless, semi Republican administration. Sounds great.
Say what you want about Sullivan. He is hardly an authority on anything and does nothing more than make a living getting publicity. He does make some valid observations about the HRC. The HRC is an enormous money pit and has little to show for it.
Don’t stop analyzing and criticizing institutions – like the DLC and the HRC – for being inept, self serving and insincere. IF you believe for one minute that either of them won’t sacrifice YOUR rights for their power, you are naive.
If we give them the power and responsibility to protect us, we are going to be in serious trouble. They blamed Nader in 2000. In 2004 they – specifically Dianne Feinstein – blamed same sex marriage for the defeat of the Democrats on election day. They never take responsibility if they can blame someone else for their shortcomings.
14.
Bill | March 10, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Andrew Sulllivan had his head so far up George Bush’s ass he was his private dilido. But give Andrew some credit. He did renounce George and has been against the way the Bush Adm. has conducted the war. As far as Andrew not being bright, give me a break
15.
Mike | March 10, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I’ve been involved in politics for 30 years and have to say that the otherworldliness and rank ignorance of some of these comments is stunning. Elections are about winning, not going down in principled defeat. Unless your party wins, there is no way it can enact its platform. The Democratic Party is multi-cultural and fights for gay rights. The Republican Party is virtually all-white and fights against gay rights. Yes, it is that simple. Andrew Sullivan was a major enabler of the most virulent elements of the Republican Party while it suited him. He supported George W. Bush. He supported the war in Iraq. He was happy to be the token “out” homosexual on the Republican plantation, attacking Democrats — and Bill Clinton in particular — for every imagined ill. Yes, Sullivan took the same tone as those who believed then or, unbelievably, still believe Ralph Nader should not be held accountable for costing Al Gore the election in 2000. Was Clinton’s defeat of George H. W. Bush in 1992 unrelated to Ross Perot? Gore won the popular vote by more than half a million votes. The votes that went to Nader in Florida clearly cost Gore there, though he was finally defeated by the actions of a partisan Republican majority on the Supreme Court who called a halt to the recount. And recognizing that Sullivan is a fuck-up is now considered gay fascism? When will certain people realize this is not a dinner party debate, and those people Sullivan helped put in office have been conducting an anti-gay crusade?
16.
Chadwig | March 10, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Your Premise is stupid. Number of total votes in Florida in 2000 that went to Nadar- 97,000. Number of DEMOCRATS who voted for BUSH in Florida in 2000- 250,000+.
Every time I hear this old self-pity canard I automatically assume the poster doesn’t have anything to say.
I didn’t even read the rest about Sullivan.
It really is so pathetic that you’re not even willing to do two-minutes of homework before you lay blame for everything Bush has done at the feet of a true American and Progressive Hero – Ralph Nadar. His crime? He dared to run for office.
Did I say pathetic yet?
17. Top Posts « WordPre&hellip | March 10, 2007 at 6:58 pm
[...] Andrew Sullivan, Ralph Nader Separated at Birth? It seems to me that Andrew Sullivan is becoming the man-on-man loving version of Ralph Nader. He did some interesting […] [...]
18.
Mike | March 10, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Your assumptions are as foolish as your math. I knew Nader. Nader was a hero of mine. Nader changed. Bush “won” Florida by 537 votes. Nader even said it was more important to defeat Democrats than Republicans. With Nader, the Green Party received substantial contributions from Republicans whose purpose was not to promote a progressive agenda but to use the Greens to help defeat real progressives. Nader’s “crime” is the same as many others in history. He succumbed to his own ego. So we have Nader — supposedly on the Left — and Sullivan — very much on the Right — doing their best to choke the best chances for making progress in this country. And that is most profoundly pathetic.
19.
Houndentenor | March 10, 2007 at 7:12 pm
I disagree with Andrew quite often, but he is right about HRC. The top down approach to activism hasn’t work and never will. They raise a lot of money and accomplish nothing. I dropped my membership in 1998 after receiving a rude, condescending response to my complaint about their endorsement of Al D’Amato for Senate. When he lost the gay vote (and the election) to Schumer that was a real indication that HRC had neither clout nor the ability to sway gay voters through its endorsements. HRC is irrelevant except that it provides a few very good job for well connected gays.
20.
blinoffalex | March 10, 2007 at 7:20 pm
I disagree with the previous poster about hte activism it always works, workd and shall be working and accomplish a greate deal of greate achievement not only in sport but in life in general. I suggest you change your own life attitude and stay positive.
21.
bloggernista | March 10, 2007 at 8:04 pm
I stand by my criticism of Andrew and Nader. Andrew and a few bitter queens like Chris Crain and Michael Petrelis are engaged in a coordinated attack against HRC. Its stupid, unhelpful and self-serving.
To say that HRC has not accomplish at the federal level in the last 12 years ignores the fact that Republicans whom Andrew supported were in charge of Congress. HRC’s work to help the Democrats regain control of Congress has radically increased the chances of passing ENDA and hate crimes legislation both of which will be transgender inclusive. Anyone who denies this is either politically naive or simply blinded by their hatred of HRC.
You don’t have to love the organization, but they are the strongest advocate we have on Capitol Hill. While people like Andrew bitch about the group’s budget, Focus on the Family alone has almost four times HRC’s budget. We need to stop the bitchiness and get serious about being serious about achieving full equality.
22.
Alice | March 10, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Over 250,000 self-identified Democrats voted for Bush — but we wouldn’t want to look in the mirror now, would we?
23.
Chadwig | March 10, 2007 at 10:46 pm
You stand by your criticism of Nadar, but offer no rebuttal to points made in his defense.
Still pathetic.
24.
SJohn | March 11, 2007 at 2:09 am
Look, the fact is that there were a lot of fairly small things that, had they been different, would have resulted in a Gore win in 2000. You can say that Nader was ONLY one of them, or you can say that Nader was ALSO one of them. So, no, it’s not ALL Nader’s fault, but had he, say, pulled out of Florida, Bush wouldn’t have become president. I assume most of us can agree that that would have been a good thing, yes?
So maybe Nader’s no worse than a lot of other people, but he’s certainly no better. Because of his “The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans” stance, Bush is in the White House. Yes, a lot of other things could have changed that, but SO COULD HAVE RALPH, and he didn’t. So he’s not totally to blame, but he gets no attaboys from me, that’s for damn sure. He’s just another f**king politician who put his own interests above that of the country, no matter how you want to spin it.
And what has Ralph, or the Green Party, or all of you who voted for him got to show for it now? A nice warm feeling in your heart? Here’s what we DON’T got: ENDA, an end to DADT, an end to DOMA. Here’s what we DO got: War in Iraq, Gitmo, Abu Gharaib, warrantless wiretaps, screaming budget deficit, screaming trade deficit, and I don’t even know how many states with constitutional bans against my honey and me ever being able to enjoy the thousands of benefits of marriage. So, yeah. Thanks Ralph. Thanks all of you who still think he’s worth voting for. There’s your fucking rebuttal points. Now jam them up your ass.
25.
bloggernista | March 11, 2007 at 3:06 am
Chadwig, what’s pathetic is that a lot of the people who voted for Nader are screaming the loudest about all of the incredibly damaging things President Bush has done like the Iraq war, the rcord federal deficit, illegal wiretapes etc without owning up to the fact that their votes helped to put Bush in the White House. Does that mean that Nader is solely to blame? No, but he knew the stakes, he knew that he couldn’t win and he insisted on staying in the race in crucial states like Florida.
Like Nader, Andrew Sullivan and a few others are engaged in coordinated attack against HRC, not because it will help to improve the organization, but because their egos and need for attention demand it.
26.
jake | March 11, 2007 at 1:51 pm
of all the things that cost gore the election, by far the most important and unjust is the fact that a candidate can win the popular vote and fail to win the presidency. why is the anti-nader outrage so much greater than outrage against the electoral college, a fundamentally undemocratic feature of our political system? and why do we continue to hear so much anti-nader vitriol when instant-runoff voting, a simple reform of the voting process, would eliminate the spoiler problem and make our system more democratic? who among the nader haters is acting to fix this country’s lack of democracy rather than telling those of us who vote green to shut up and support the democrats’ aggressive foreign policies and neoliberal domestic policies?
27.
Alice | March 11, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Over 250,000 party turncoats voted for Bush but instead of placing any blame on them blame one of the other candidates — wow, that’s classy and brave!
It’s so much easier to be anti-Nader (let’s stop using our seatbelts too!) than to having any meaningful examination on how an election was not only lost but handed away through inaction and cowardness.
Let’s not bruise our egos by having to face up to the fact that our Democratic Party leadership let us down — that would hurt too much.
28.
bloggernista | March 11, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Alice, I am not anti-Nader nor do I excuse the Democratic Party and john Kerry for running a weak campaign. Nader played the spoilsport and you should let go of your ego as a Nader supporter to admit that. I am less interested in fighting over Nader and am more interested in figuring out how we can get a smart and liberal Democrat in the White House.
29.
bloggernista | March 11, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Jake, you make some good points. Maybe part of the answer to your questions in that its easier to grasp Nader as spoiler than it is to get excited about instant run off elections or the Electoral College. There are many reasons that Al Gore is not president now including the Electoral College, Katherine Harris, Ralph Nader, the Supreme Court and the weak campaign that he ran.
30.
Smiley | March 11, 2007 at 6:36 pm
HRC is not supposed to be partisan; on the democrat or republican side. It’s Human Rights, not Democratic Human Rights or Republican Human Rights. And AMaleKite – what the heck are you talking about????
31.
Pam's House Blend | March 12, 2007 at 9:13 am
Like Nader, Andrew Sullivan and a few others are engaged in coordinated attack against HRC,
I definitely wouldn’t consider my legitimate criticism of HRC’s slow responses and cleaving to the Democratic party as part of a “coordinated attack” to derail HRC. I want our advocacy organizations to be strong, and not compromised and paralyzed because of fealty to one party at the expense of supporting, for instance, GOP legislators who are clearly taking risks to be our allies (and, I might add, I’ve never voted for a Republican). It was blogger coverage of the GOP Wyoming legislators who voted to defeat an anti-gay bill that brought the story to the attention of HRC, which was very slow to acknowledge support from the other side of the aisle.
32.
Alice | March 12, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Sorry that you can’t admit your anti-Nader feelings. Maybe more time will help.
Perhaps you could examine your ego and its attachment to blaming Nader as avoidance to looking at the weak job Democrats did during and after the stolen election, especially the way Lieberman continually undercut Gore.
If you want to figure out how we can get a smart and liberal Democrat in the White House then aim your sights at the GOP-wannabes at the DLC and their ilk.
33.
bloggernista | March 12, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Pam, I don’t by your statement that HRC has been slow to recognize Republicans who have been supportive of LGBT issues. Remember the crap that HRC got for its past endorsements of Gordon Smith, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chaffee, Alfonse D’Amato and others. People tend to see what the want to see. Democrats claim that HRC is a sellout for endorsing supportive Republicans. Republicans claim that HRC is a tool of the Democratic Party because Democrats have been more supportive of our issues and therefore have received more endorsements from HRC.
I have never said that you criticism of HRC was part of a coordinated. I do believe that Andrew Sullivan and a few others are engaged in a joint attack on the organization. I have never said that HRC is perfect, but if you are going to criticize the organization for doing something that you disagree with its important to recognize the group when it does something good.
34.
Pam's House Blend | March 14, 2007 at 10:35 am
if you are going to criticize the organization for doing something that you disagree with its important to recognize the group when it does something good.
And I do — regular readers of my blog know that, as do the folks at HRC.
35.
bloggernista | March 14, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I know that you do. My comment was directed towards what Andrew is doing which is simply attacking HRC, but not acknowledge the good work that the organization does.
36. I Heart Matt Sanchez &laq&hellip | June 9, 2007 at 10:59 am
[...] best track record when choosing blogger crushes. The last one was Andrew Sullivan until he went all Michelle Malkin crazy over the Human Rights [...]