Gotta love me

My goodness. Andrew Sullivan has the audacity to dare explore other options in the wake of what he believes are major problems in the Bush administration!! The Earth has come to a screaching halt!!

Andrew Sullivan is probably one of the most influential bloggers and writers to come along in quite some time. Every day, about 50,000 plus readers stop by his Web site to see what his take on the issues are on a particular day. I'm sure everyone who reads this blog has ventured over there on countless occasions to read Andrew's opinion, because his opinion is important to you. Unless, of course, he happens to have the balls to explore other opinions and compare them to ones you hold dear.

Over the past couple days, I have read countless blogs attacking Andrew Sullivan for his remarks about John Kerry and how Kerry might be a viable alternative to Bush after all. Not all, but most of these blogs have boiled Sullivan's opinions down to one thing:

Andrew Sullivan only gives a shit about Gay Marriage.

I find it amusing that, after years of writing about politics, the war, conservativism, and many more topics, that anyone of you could say something so blatantly irrational. I read Sullivan on a daily basis (and I have even been accused of taking my cues from him!!!) What I see at his blog is a well thought out argument for just about every position he has taken.

He supports the war, for example. He just has problems with the way it has been run since the fall of Baghdad. Abu Ghraib, troop numbers, among other things have made him re-think the Bush administration's handling of Iraqi affairs

(...it's about Gay Marriage)

He's consistently railed on the Bush Administration for the bottomless money pit this government thinks it owns.

(...it's about Gay Marriage)

He's always been consistent when he talks about how the Bush administration seems to be beholden to the religious right. And there's no doubt that, as a major part of their base, the Republican Party does give in when they're told what to do. Look at abstinence programs vs. condom use. Think about how the administration deals with family planning! "No money for you African relief agencies if you promote condom use!!"

(...it's about Gay Marriage)

And yes, there is the issue of equal marriage rights. It's a topic Andrew has always been consistent on. And it's one that he's dealt with in just about every major work he has put out. I know a lot of you out there in your own little dreamworlds don't think it's such a big deal. After all, we're just a small portion of the population right? Well, imagine if, one day, the government decided that they were going to impose a Constitutional Amendment that would nullify any relationship you have with your husband or wife. Imagine if laws were passed saying that you could not even enter into a private contract with someone you were in love with. Hard to imagine right? That's because you will never ever have to go down that road. It's very easy to dismiss something so important to someone else when there is no chance you'll ever have to go through the same crap.

He has worked tirelessly on this issue. And although I do not believe for a second that Sullivan is basing his potential Kerry support on Bush's anti-gay agenda, I personally wouldn't blame him if he did! It goes to the very heart of freedom to be allowed to be in a relationship with someone who you love. If an administration steps in and says you'll never be allowed to do that on an equal footing with the rest of the population, then they should probably lose your support.

Again, I don't believe that is what Sullivan is doing. I think he is just re-evaluating what he has been seeing over the past number of months and wondering if, maybe, there is someone who can do it just as well of better. And if that person is less hostile to gays than George W. Bush is, then so much the better.

If seen many people over the past couple days make comments like this:

Steve Verdon: Sullivan is a One Trick Pony: gay rights. Anything that deviates from his prescribed course on that issue and he doesn't like it.

James Joyner: Andrew is being disengenous about his primary motivation, which [is] Bush's lukewarm endorsement of a constitutional amendment to maintain the traditional definition of "marriage." My strong guess is that, had Bush not done that, the other things Andrew cites would not be enough to make Andrew endorse a liberal Democrat.

Jay Caruso: If [Sullivan] wants to not vote for President Bush because of gay marriage, that’s fine. I’m a one issue voter this year.

And that's just three of the blogs I read every day.

You can make this about gay marriage all you want to. I think you should probably know better, but that's your right. Dismiss every one of Sullivan's criticisms of the Bush administration by bringing it back to "gay."

You can even be hypocritical if you wish, and make him out to be a one issue voter, you know - like Jay Caruso, and most of the other conservatives who've said they're going to hold their nose and vote for Bush this year.