It is obvious that Sullivan hates Bush for two reasons.....his adherance to traditional Judeo-Christian morality, and his work to protect the rights of the States where determining the definition of marriage is concerned.  Sullivan would rather have a tax-and-spend, agnostic, amoral, post-nationalist liberal in the White House than George W. Bush, and that is hypocritical, given Kerry’s record, history, and flip-flops, as well as Sullivan’s own writings. 

Let the Fisking begin. 

THE GOOD SENATOR: Last night in New York was a shrewd and, to my mind, often effective attempt to recapture why so many of us admired George W. Bush’s leadership during the dark days after 9/11 and the precarious, nail-biting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It still seems to me that no one will ever take away the power of those days - or the soaring rhetoric of Bush’s speech to Congress that lifted him to a new level of leadership.

OK.....two notes.  Sullivan LOVES McCain....he is the liberal Republican that Sullivan wishes to have in the White House.  Note also the past-tense references to the good qualities of Bush.  It’s a little thing, but remember that we are fisking a guy who graduated from college on the strength of his writing.  The past-tense thing is purposeful....he used to admire Bush, and Bush is no longer at the “new level of leadership.”

John McCain’s speech struck me therefore as ultimately about character.

OK....it’s about Bush’s character.  I’m waiting for Sullivan to say “But..”

It was not a complete endorsement of everything Bush. Far from it. Here’s a passage that struck me as an implicit rebuke to Bush’s hubris after the fall of Baghdad:
‘We must not be complacent at moments of success, and we must not despair over setbacks. We must learn from our mistakes, improve on our successes, and vanquish this unpardonable enemy.’

OK...so he didn’t say “But...” He reads McCain’s statement as a rebuke to Bush.  what is a rebuke?  It’s a reprimand.  It’s something I would do to my kids when they get out of line.  By the choice of his words, Sullivan is showing both his distain for Bush (implicitly noting him as the inferior to McCain) and his like of McCain.  And, though the phrase is actually nothing but a reminder that we are in a long-term war, Sullivan finds something in it to belittle Bush.

McCain also avoided harsh partisan name-calling; and you can easily see why an honorable man like this would recoil from old soldiers trying to besmirch the medals of others.

Sullivan is totally fired up about the Swift Boat Vets, and he claims that they are nothing but Bush operatives.  As it has been said, repeatedly, on the ‘Net, this SBVT group would have come out against Kerry no matter who the sitting President was.  However, Sullivan supports Kerry, so he sees them as “..on Rove’s line.” No matter that what the Swift Boat Vets have been proven, at least in part, to be true.....and their biggest problem isn’t Kerry’s medals (though that has been mentioned), but how he carried himself AFTER the Vietnam War. 

Nevertheless, he made a strong case for Bush as a solid leader in wartime, and, more importantly, for the nobility and importance of taking out Saddam. His point about the foolish notion that we could somehow have left Saddam in power in a stable status quo is one I’ve made before and critical to a serious defense of the decision to go to war.

Yes, Andrew, you made that point......a long, long, long time ago. 

It was also delicious to watch this genuine hero go after that dishonest charlatan, Michael Moore. I only wish it didn’t make Moore feel even more important.

Delicious, I tell you....DELICIOUS!  And, note the “genuine” comment.  Who’s not genuine....Kerry?  The Swift Vets?  Who do you think he’s refering to? 

Want a hint? 

The only flaw in McCain’s speech was the delivery. It was oddly flat, almost drained. McCain seemed tired. But he gives me hope that the GOP is not doomed to become the reincarnation of the Dixiecrats, that it can avoid the rancid recesses of its own fears, that it can rise to the occasion of this war.

Comments about McCain notwithstanding, this paragraph pisses me off.  What party poo-pooed this war?  What party tried to distract the American people from what we were doing?  What party opposed going to war to begin with?  Who?  WHO?  The hypocrisy is undeniable.  Money quote from the preceding link: ”Some Democrats are simply uncomfortable about America having a strong and unapologetic role in the world. This isn’t treason; it’s weakness. And weakness in the dangerous world we face is an invitation for more terror. Be warned.” And WHO is rancid, and unable to rise to the occasion?  Well, the gentle reader would say the Democrats, especially after the speeches by Dean, Kerry, Kucinich, and most of the rest...but no, Andrew Sullivan aligns the Republicans with bigots, and cowards, for the SIMPLE FACT THAT THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE HIS PET AGENDA, THAT BEING THE TOTAL SOCIAL AND LEGAL ACCEPTANCE OF GAY MARRIAGE, ISN’T FORCED DOWN THE THROAT OF AMERICA!! The Republicans (and I am NOT one, by the way) are the ones that worked to fight off the anti-war impulses of the Democrats, and the ones that had peaceful debate about the gay marriage issue.  They weren’t in lock step, and weren’t going over the edge in their criticisms of their political adversaries.

Sullivan has gone over....the fact that he came back from this vacation vamped up for Kerry proves that....it wasn’t war fatigue, of his pissed-offedness about gay marriage, it was his liberal, leftist disgust at Bush’s person that made him change his mind. 

That’s all I have right now.