James Lileks is less than impressed with Andrew Sullivan's poorly-thought-out and naive endorsement of John Kerry.

But in wartime, a president bears the greater responsibility for keeping the country united. And this president has fundamentally failed in this respect.

Oh, surely. But maybe - just maybe - many people did not want the country to be united if it meant being united behind Bush. He is a much more potent and immediate threat, after all. Who’s heard from Osama lately? Meanwhile Bush is out there every day handling snakes and speaking in tongues and supergluing parapalegics to wheelchairs, because his weird-beard God loves suffering and commands him – via text-messaging, for all we know – to kill them oily rag-heads. I mean, today I was behind a car whose bumpersticker had a picture of Bush with the slogan "American Terrorist." I know that driver was so behind Bush before he failed - in a fundamental way - to convince the driver he was not equivalent to Abu Nidal. Probably because he misprounced "Nuclear." Farking moron.

Keeping the country united? Good luck. Imagine FDR running a war with a press composed of cynical snickerers who derided the president as a rich old cripple who thought the best way to defeat Tojo was a war in North Africa and preached defeat every day through the hard slog of the Pacific theater. Imagine running a war with an entertainment industry that declined to make a single movie about the conflict - why, imagine a "Casablanca" where Rick and Sam argue about whether America started it all because they didn’t support the League of Nations. Imagine a popular radio drama running through the early 40s about a smart, charismatic, oh-so-intellectual Republican president whose bourbon baritone mocked FDR’s patrician whine, a leader who took no guff from Stalin OR Hitler! Lux Soap brings you, The West Wing of the White House! Imagine Thomas Dewey’s wife in 1944 callling the WW2 a war for oil; imagine former vice presidents insisting that FDR had played on our fears after Pearl Harbor. Imagine all that.

FDR won the 1944 election 25,602,504 votes to Dewey’s 22,006,285. And this was almost two million votes less than he got in 1940. Did he fail to unify the country, if half the voters wanted someone else? Or is that just how we always are, more or less?

Let me see if I understand this, Sullivan thinks Kedwards will unite the country? How can the same people who say the race is open to be won by both candidates. Then complain about how divisive it is, then say Kedwards will be a uniter.

Either Sullivan has a tumor or I do.

(Disclaimer: I find both candidates distasteful, Bush however slightly less than Kerry.)

I love the last lines of Lilek's screed:

I admit. I have a fantasy. Kerry wins. He’s having a summit with Tony Blair. In the middle of the conversation, Chirac calls up; Kerry excuses himself and has a brief chat about a new resolution to let French oil companies bid on reconstruction projects, and they have an amiable conversation in French. Kerry hangs up.

“Your predecessor,” Blair says, “spoke to him in English.”

“I know,” says President Kerry. “He couldn’t speak French.”

“He didn’t have to,”

Rand, why didn't you also write down Sullivan's response to Lilek? You know; for the sake of fairness?
__________________________________________________

In the interests of debate, here's James Lileks' dissection of my endorsement. I think it comes down to: he doesn't trust Kerry in any way. If that's your opinion, then I think you have to vote Bush. But it isn't mine. One other thing: there is nothing in his piece about Bush's record. Reading James is always a pleasure. But he could have written this piece a year ago without changing a jot. Has he learned anything from what has happened in Iraq? Or is he just not telling?
__________________________________________________

"Has he learned anything from what has happened in Iraq? Or is he just not telling?"

Perhaps what we've learned on 9/11 outweighs other considerations. Nothing concentrates the mind like being shot at, and missed.

Rand, why didn't you also write down Sullivan's response to Lilek? You know; for the sake of fairness?

Ummm...because at the time I made this post, he didn't yet have one? I do have other things to do than continually go to see what follow-ups occur on all my past posts...

»»Ummm...because at the time I made this post, he didn't yet have one?

...and you never post any updates, do you?

»»I do have other things to do than continually go
»»to see what follow-ups occur on all my past posts...

With all due respect Rand, this was not really your post, was it? Sure, you wrote one sentence, but the rest was all Lilek's, wasn't it?

..and you never post any updates, do you?

Of course I do, as you'd know if you read me regularly. That doesn't mean that I always do. I'm not clairvoyant. I only read Andrew once a day. If I saw a response, I'd point it out tomorrow morning when I read it.

Are you accusing me of trying to suppress information? If that were the case, I'd have deleted your pointer to Andrew's rejoinder (which, for what it's worth, I found less than compelling).

How many more pointless questions are you going to have?

What the hell is remarkable or impressive about Andrew Sullivan's
response to James Lilek?

Lilek says something interesting; he makes an almost absurdly
valid point if one has any imagination at all. Does Sullivan
respond to it? Not one bit.

Mark, Canute is impressed, thus it must be impressive...

»»I only read Andrew once a day. If I saw a response,
»»I'd point it out tomorrow morning when I read it.

You say you only read AS once a day. Well, here we come to the crux of the matter: Since you neither post a comment on AS' choice for president every day, I assumed that you were interested in Sullivan's response to Lilek, in such a way, as to check out AS.com more than the usual once a day visit.

»»Are you accusing me of trying to suppress information?

Not at all.

»»How many more pointless questions are you going to have?

You seem to have got yourself all fired up today, haven't you?

»»What the hell is remarkable or impressive about
»»Andrew Sullivan's
response to James Lilek?

Sullivan's response is neither remarkable nor impressive; it just points out that there is nothing in Lilek's piece about Bush's record.

Since you neither post a comment on AS' choice for president every day, I assumed that you were interested in Sullivan's response to Lilek, in such a way, as to check out AS.com more than the usual once a day visit.

Apparently, you made an invalid assumption. Tomorrow morning would have been soon enough. In fact, having now seen his weak response, next week, or indeed never, would in fact have been soon enough.

»»Are you accusing me of trying to suppress information?

Not at all.

Then apparently you did indeed have no point.

»»»»Are you accusing me of trying to suppress information?

»»»Not at all.

»»Then apparently you did indeed have no point.

Surely I did have a point Rand. There's a difference in suppressing "information" than not having the intention to write about a Sullivan response to Lilek.

"Has he learned anything from what has happened in Iraq? Or is he just not telling?"

Learned:
Arguably the best prosecuted war in the history of warfare can be equated to a quagmire by the New York Times. And people will buy it.

There's a difference in suppressing "information" than not having the intention to write about a Sullivan response to Lilek.

The problem is, you have assumed that 'intention' out of thin air.

I had no intention to follow it up. I also had no intention to not follow it up. I just made a blog post, and gave no thought whatsoever to following it up, so I still don't see your point, and I suspect that I never will (nor will any of my more sane readership).

Jesus, Rand, his point is to keep you arguing. If you said "black is black" he'd debate the meaning of all three words and the spaces between them. For the sake of said sane readership, please don't waste your time. Go write something sensible about space policy instead, so we can learn something.

Andrew Sullivan has already admitted he's a one-issue voter in this election, and that issue is Bush's support for the federal marriage protection amendment (see http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_08_29_dish_archive.html#109418570873093116). It was at least honest of him to come out and say this, finally, but he's definitely gone off the deep end of partisanship the past couple of months. Hopefully after the election he'll get his bearings back, because seeing Sullivan acting as a campaign backer instead of writing as an objective observer is disappointing to read.

I'm with Carl - Sullivan is Gay first, and an American second.

I didn't say it, tagryn did, but I agree with Tim McNabb anyway. Heck, I would vote down the FMA just to see Andrew Sullivan recover his marbles. I don't care that much about gay marriage otherwise.