My subscription to that phony magazine, Internationalist Review,
is now lapsed.

The last salient of thought at that publication
is manned by John Derbyshire and John O’Sullivan,
in my opinion.

There are plenty of other publication worth reading,
and paying for.

It’s like Rush’s argument that “we are winning.” Conservatives love to find their token liberal like Hitchens or Sullivan. Strange.

It was liberals who first gave credence - fake, of course - to AS’s conservatism because he was, indeed, their idea of someone who was almost “a good conservative.”

In fact, there was never anything conservative about him but his desire for lower taxes so he could squander more of his loot at P’town.

Think of everything else. Abortion. The fag and libertine revolution. Feminism. Pornography and censorship. Morals legislation of any kind. Gay priests. Married priests. Gay, married priests - married to other gays, that is. Or maybe nuns. Or whatever. The death penalty, for gosh sake’s. Gun rights.

Did I miss anything? Pick ANY issue that socio-cons are known to have a view on. His is the opposite view, usually the same as the liberals and libertarians.

So it was, all along, a liberal, media pretense that he was any kind of conservative at all. They could and did use him for a Judas goat to lead conservatives to the slaughter - that is, to lead them away from the conservative positions that to this day stand against the cultural revolution of the atheist libertines.

I never knew even one conservative who thought he was actually a conservative.

PS. If the guys at NRO like him, let that tell you what it should about them.

Nice to see Marcus Tullius Cicero again. However, I don’t see that the liberal media had _anything_ to do with Sullivan’s popularity among conservatives. This was purely a phenomenon taking place within the conservative camp, or the conservative mind, so to speak.

RE: Animal House conservative

He used to be funny, now he is funny for fun sake. Then and now his writing is feather-weight with medium life expectancy of 4 hours. I don’t read him anymore.

I still say that putrid purple background at AS’s site has GOT to go! Hot pink—with pansies around the borders—would be more becoming…or maybe, nasturtiums.

I regret to inform Mr Levin that Mr Sullivan’s regular page (not that it’s likely Mr Sullivan has been regular the past decade or so…) is a model of good taste when compared with his old one at Bareback City.

I agree with Mr. Auster: the “conservatives” latched onto Sullivan because he wrote eloquently against our Islamic enemies in the immediate aftermath of September 11, and spent a good amount of time exposing the Leftist Fifth Column.

In Sullivan’s defense, he has always taken occasional stands on principle which demomstrate courage. As editor of The New Republic, he defended Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve. He opposed stem cell research in the pages of the same journal. He brought attention to a horrific rape and murder case, in which two homosexuals can kidnapped and tortured to death a young boy, and which received virtually no media coverage.

Steve Sailer’s discussion of the effects of Sullivan’s injecting himself with testosterone is an illuminating read:

http://www.isteve.com/ManlyMolecule.htm

War makes for strange bedfellows.

I agree that Sullivan is no true conservative, but I disagree with Mr. Auster that he is not regarded as a conservative by liberals. Liberals like Eric Alterman, Atrios, and Michelangelo Signorile hate Sullivan with a passion, are they are far more likely than conservatives, even anti-Sullivan conservatives, to bring up the barebacking incident. I sometimes wonder if some heterosexual liberals use Sullivan to vent their private disgust with homosexuality that they are too PC to express publicly. (That wouldn’t apply to Signorile, who is himself gay, but it might apply to Alterman, who regularly calls Sullivan “little Roy Cohn,” or to Atrios, who never misses an opportunity to make a barebacking allusion.)

The “little Roy Cohn” remark is fascinating. It shows that it’s ok for people on the left to make aspersions about homosexuality, if in the given case it’s connected with conservatism. Cohn is a homosexual conservative villain; Sullivan is a homosexual conservative villain.

There is a really strange thing about ‘power conservatives’ and homosexuality. By ‘power conservatives’ I mean those who want to conserve or even expand the power of the state in which they live, primarily through military adventure. Certainly Roy Cohn is such a man, as is dearest Sully. These guys are the spiritual descendents — and there could be no biological descendents — of Ernst Roehm.

I’ve got to say, the paleo sides house homosexual is much more discrete. I read Raimondo for a year before I discovered he was gay. Moreover, I have yet to see a column from him on the gay marriage issue.

Raimunodo is opposed to homosexual marriage. He views it as a heterosexual institution.