If you start talking about Deep Throat, I'm leaving.

Very nice entry. I thought that the response from Andy on his blog showed him to be capable of, despite what I thought before, being a (cl)ass act. The "moment" was funny and so were the responses. I think Glenn might have "over-engaged" on this one.

Wolcott's comment does sound like something somebody in "The Corner" might write, something good old John Derbyshire might write, except that Derbyshire is a better writer than Wolcott, has much more _style_. Derbyshire is extremely interesting, one of my favorite adversaries. Just seeing his name cracks me up. I would love to see a "Crossfire"-type show starring John Derbyshire and Andrew Sullivan. Or maybe a "sit-com" like "The Odd couple" in which they have to share a room. THAT would be funny!

Here's something I've been thinking: We hear constant attacks against "the gays", "the homos", "the fags" "the homosexual agenda", "JEWdicial activists", etc., but never against any particular individual homosexual except one: Andrew Sullivan. I don't see such vitriolic attacks against Larry Kramer, Michelangelo Signorile, or other Leftist "activist" homosexuals. All the ire and bile seems to be reserved for Sullivan.

Andrew Sullivan has been hated by the Left (e.g., Wolcott) ever since he started fisking Fifth Columnists after 9/11/2001. And he is equally hated by certain elements on the Right since he is, with Jonathan Rauch, the most articulate defender of homosexual marriage. Not promiscuity or adultery or "queer liberation", but marriage, the most conservative ideal.

It reminds me of how, while he was alive, Martin "Lucifer" King was hated (even, ultimately, unto death) even more than Malcolm X, H. Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael, Eldridge Cleaver, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, etc., have been.

Hmmm....

I don't like the free-for-all which has been declared on Andrew Sullivan. It's all too easy to forget his many contributions to the war on terror. There was no more articulate voice in support of the invasion of Iraq. I think that's the main reason why he is so hated by the left.

(There's also the much-suppressed story of how he came to lose his job as Editor of the New Republic.....)

You clearly had way too much fun writing this post.

Butt... butt... butt... butt! That's not Fair! ;]

Certain elements, maybe, Steve. I'll note that Sullivan is also villified by some on the right for reasons that have nothing to do with his defense of SSM, but rather for his sudden reversal of support for conservatism followed by his endoresement of Kerry. I can think of a lot of conservative pundits who quoted Sullivan religiusly when he was pro-Bush and pro-Iraq, and then turned on him savagely when he began to lean Kerry.

I should say perceived "sudden reversal" - people who believed that Sullivan was a conservative were simply deluding themselves. He's never been particularly conservative.

I say that as someone who's never been a Sullivan fan, never read him much, and almost never linked him: not because of his views on anything, just because I've never particularly cared for him as a writer. I'm still not into bashing him for his party switching. [There's more than enough there to poke fun at him for his hyperbolic style of writing and expostulation when I'm inclined without needing other material ;)]

Wolcott and other leftists villification of Sully is interesting. Is it because of his support for the Iraqi war? Is it because he did jump political fences at one point, and endorse conservatives, whereas other gay conservatives have been more consistent in their affiliations?

I've noticed that political pundits seem to reserve their worst venom for those they percieve as "betraying" their previous alleigances. Zell Miller is a case in point.

Eric, I'm sorry but you've over-extended your pun quota. We're going to have to take you in for BUP -- Blogging while punning. (Frankly I'd like to make it BUTT, but I don't think I can convince anyone to spell puns ttpuns. I am but an egg and must bow to the master. [I don't mean it that way. Neither of us would enjoy it. Trust me.])

If scratching your butt becomes "Buttgate", then picking your nose becomes "Nosegate" or "Boogergate". har! har! Since the original "Watergate" was an imbroglio in which a President was being impeached (until he resigned), are we going to make these things "high crimes and misdeameaners"? None of us will be safe then!

I've always liked Andrew Sullivan's style of writing, though he is not nearly as fun to read as Eric Scheie. "Hyperbolic"? You should look up that other "A. S." man's man, i.e., Arthur Silber. He's a lot more hyperbolic. I love his style, though he is a bit long-winded for my tastes.

Sullivan is a fiscal conservative, a bit of a Tory traditionalist, and, at least beginning with 9/11/2001, he was hawkish on the War, more so than President Bush during most of 2002. He constantly fisked the Fifth Columnists of the nihilist Left, and they have never forgiven him for it. They still hate his guts, no matter who he voted for President this year, and they will always hate him.

You are quite right that people hate someone they regard as a traitor than they do an open foe. E.g., the radical Leftists hate Christopher Hitchens much more than they ever hated, e.g., Jesse Helms.

Well, actually, Arthur Silber isn't so long-winded. It's just those long articles he quotes on the situation in Iraq. I get tired of reading about "q's" not followed by "u's".