Printer friendly version

March 1, 2004

And Now... The Predictable Smear Campaign

Admit it. You knew it was coming. It's just too much his M.O. for Sullivan to have resisted daily dishing dirt on the man who poked his house-of-cards theology.

First, he took a break from his day off to recycle old controversies:

The man who allegedly only put as much violence in his movie as occurred in the Gospels was also asked how he would greet Frank Rich, one of his more prominent critics. Gibson replied, "I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick ... I want to kill his dog." This is the man now hailed as the savior of America's evangelical Christians. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

Today, he's dug up an out of context comment as a means to split that inimical Religious Right:

GIBSON ON NON-CATHOLICS: They're all going to hell. That includes all those evangelicals who are flocking to his movie and even his wife.

So now, between the President, the Church, the Republicans, John Derbyshire, supporters of the FMA, and Mel Gibson, one would do well to put on waders before visiting

And it continues:

NOTICING EVIL: David Frum parses Mel Gibson's verbal non-committal on whether the Holocaust really took place as we know it did. Bill Safire is unnerved as well. Gradually, conservatives are cottoning on to the real agenda behind "The Passion of the Christ."

Oooo. The Real Agenda! I'm thinking this deserves status as a daily feature, here on Dust in the Light. Especially since Sullivan has apparently decided to actively work for the President's ouster:

Neither Bush nor Kerry wants to help. They're both cowards (although Kerry seems to have a better grip on fiscal reality than Bush does). So gridlock is the best option. The combination of Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress was great for the country's fiscal standing. Independents and anyone under 40 concerned with the deficit don't need a Perot. They just need to vote for Kerry and hope the GOP retains control of at least one half of Congress.

Looks like Sullivan intends to vote for the one who will further the gay marriage cause and make excuses why that actually, really, surely, I'm-not-kiddingly will be better for the country. See, Kerry will split the government, which will be good for the deficit. Really!

Maybe in addition to a Sully Smear Watch, we should have a cross-blog contest for outrageous arguments that he might make to nullify his previous Bush-supporting positions. Here's my first entry:

A lot of the initial gutsy moves required to kick off the War on Terror have already been made. Once in office, Kerry wouldn't pull back on that progress, and what we need now is a President who will refocus international cooperation toward the group effort of the more-subtle work that lays ahead.

Start the clock.

Posted by Justin Katz at March 1, 2004 12:10 PM
Bloggers Blogging

Thanks for pointing that out Justin. I noticed it too. I'm counting on you and others to keep Sullivan honest, he's becoming dominated by emotion, rather than reason, lately. I can barely stomach going to his sight anymore. But I do, so I guess he's effective. Just have to keep my waders on.

Posted by: Marc C. at March 1, 2004 1:18 PM


We've had our tiffs, but I want to thank you for pointing out the absurd and hysterical hatchet job that Sullivan is pulling. I could not believe my eyes today when I actually saw him dragging out the "shellfish" canard on his blog today. His wilful and perverse misreadings of the film are simply silly. And his ridiculous claim that the First Amendment is some sort of granite barrier against Gay Brownshirts bent on crushing free speech is particularly silly since he himself has noted the phenomenon in the past. Andrew is showing himself to be a man who will do and say *anything* to preserve the capability of his groin to do whatever it wants. I firmly believe he will support the candidate who will promote that, even if that candidates completely repudiates all that Sullivan has written in support of Bush and the War. For Sullivan, the War was all about protecting the biggest threat to gay sex. Now Bush is a bigger threat, so he must be stopped at any cost to Sullivan's own integrity. He has lost my last ounces of respect.

Posted by: Mark Shea at March 1, 2004 3:56 PM

ust wanted to add that even I, someone who has defended Sullivan in the past - and even support some of his agenda, am very disappointed in the way in which he has attacked Gibson (and the film - but mainly Gibson).

There can be a legitimate debate about whether the film is unnecessarily violent - but Sullivan's comments are clearly not intended as arguments in any debate. They are simply shallow and low-class. He has chosen to engage in purely partisan-esque trash talk. His rantings on this subject are all style and zero substance.

I even wrote him. (as you know) No response. He has responded to me in the past - even when I've criticized him.

He should be ashamed. But I have a suspicion that he's not.

Posted by: Mark Miller at March 1, 2004 4:40 PM

Is there some underlying reason why all of us are named "Mark(c)?" The etymology of the name means "warlike," perhaps we all troll the web looking to take part in idealogical battles...

Posted by: Marc Comtois at March 2, 2004 7:39 AM


Posted by: Marc C Porter at March 2, 2004 7:46 PM

Weird even!

Posted by: Marc C Porter at March 2, 2004 7:48 PM


Posted by: Mark Shea at March 3, 2004 12:33 PM