NYT: Andrew Sullivan, 'Conservative?'

Photo of Clay Waters.
By Clay Waters | August 2, 2007 - 13:15 ET

When leading Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney demurred on attending a Republican presidential debate hosted by the video-hosting site YouTube, some web-savvy Republicans protested. That's the background for New York Times reporter Katharine Seelye's "Allies Urge Republicans to Join YouTube Debate" Thursday.

"When the leading Republican presidential candidates started to squirm last week about attending a Sept. 17 YouTube debate, in which the public would ask questions via video, there was a surprising backlash from the world of Republican and conservative bloggers."

What's so "surprising" about bloggers wanting their party's candidates to participate in an Internet debate?

Seelye later referred to the situation as "a mess." Then there was this identification of blogger-author Andrew Sullivan

"Andrew Sullivan, a conservative blogger writing on theatlantic.com, put it this way: 'The current old white men running for the G.O.P. already seem from some other planet. Ducking YouTube after the Dems did so well will look like a party uncomfortable with the culture and uncomfortable with democracy.'"

Here's just how conservative Sullivan is these days:

"And what has this messianic maniac in the White House done? He has set loose a fantastically murderous war in Iraq, he has sacrificed thousands of young Americans with the result not of restraining but empowering our enemies, he has done incalculable long-term damage to the country's fiscal standing, he has indirectly caused the massacre of tens of thousands of innocents, he has come close to wrecking the military of the United States, and he has robbed the United States of its long and hard-won record of humane and decent warfare. This is not the work of a conservative statesman; it's the mark of a delusional fanatic."

That post would pass muster at DailyKos. It's not exactly an emerging trend, either -- Sullivan endorsed Kerry in The New Republic in 2004.

Seelye played up Grand Old Party stereotypes:

"Still, the damage may have been done in reinforcing a stereotype of Republicans as stuck in a time warp, writing off younger voters and afraid to face an unpredictable public that has a negative opinion of the current Republican White House and the war in Iraq."

Or perhaps the GOP candidates looked at the strong liberal tilt of the questions CNN selected for the Democrat's YouTube debate.

Visit Times Watch for a fuller version of this article.

—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Backlash

The Republican candidates have already participated in a CNN debate hosted by Wolf Blitzer. That was inane enough.

There is no reason for the candidates to subject themselves to undignified questions  asked by snowmen or people in clown suits.

Unlike the Democrats, it is the format of the debate,  not the network hosting the debate that gives Republicans pause.

 

there seems to be a pattern

On some forums and blogs that I frequent there seems to be a pattern of some folks saying that they are "conservatives" who oppose the administration or some candidate, but when you read their posts and delve into what they think, they are not conservatives at all. The media seem to be falsely portraying some John Doe as a "conservative" when it will server to show dissention in the ranks.

I'm not sure if this is a concerted effort being coordinated, but it seems to be happening more and more. This Andrew Sullivan event is just the latest.

 

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic

Same People

These people remind me of the callers to radio talk shows that say they are Republicans changing to the Democrat party. Also the ones that call in and say that George Bush gave them a tax cut that they did not need.

Let Democrats muck with pedophiles, perverts and porn

As I blogged before, why have Republicans degrade themselves in the haunts of pedophiles, perverts and porn. Let democrats do it and be common by association.

I may not agree with it, but Huffington has set up Charlie Rose to moderate wacko questions from there for democrats and has offered the same to Republicans.

That is more in tune with what I was advocating in placing Republicans in an environment where they could shine. Rose at least gives people the chance to make their points........last night Rudy did a great job on his program.

Otherwise in YouTube format all you get are these nuts like Sullivan spiking questions with, "Rudy you are a looser, THE QUESTION, and George Bush hates blacks".

Pick the format or create one and drive the message and not be driven by Ned the internet malevolent geek.

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

It's a simple matter of dignity

The left and MSM don't have a clue. None of the republican candidates should reduce themselves to the level of indignity we witnessed in the utube/CNN kindergarten show. It was bad enough to put up with the unprofessionally hosted debate on MSDNC and the meaningless questioning in the last CNN debate. The democrats have no problem answering clowns, hillbillies and snowmen, but republicans want to know candidates positions on the most important issues of our time.