Andrew Sullivan rightly rips William Raspberry for demonizing President George W. Bush in Raspberry's positive review of Fahrenheit 9/11, concluding:
Now let's summarize Moore's "conclusion": that the Bush family was, by its close financial ties with the bin Laden family, passively complicit in 9/11; that the administration did too little to apprehend the perpetrators of that massacre; that it invaded Afghanistan primarily to get an oil pipeline built; that it shifted the nation's resources to Iraq solely in order to appease oil interests and to enrich its own members; and that it lied about all of this. If William Raspberry really believes all this, then he should tell us why and how. But if he doesn't, he should have the basic integrity to say that Moore's movie is not just "sly" but a fantastical piece of malevolent propaganda whose only connective thread is a pathological demonization of the President of the United States. Raspberry cannot have it both ways. And the fact that he tries to get away with it says a lot about how corrupted the left has become in our national discourse.
Of course, Andrew has himself been just as guilty of demonizing said president himself lately:
Isn't it telling that the Bush administration wants McCain, Arnold and Giuliani as prime-timers for the convention? They're the three Republicans least in sync with the Bush administration. McCain is as close to a dissident as you can find. And Arnold keeps Bush at arm's length. A more representative selection would be: Santorum, DeLay, Ashcroft. And then you see why the Bushies won't let them hog the limelight. Too much honesty could wreck the campaign.
Gee Andrew, it must be frustrating every time President George W. Bush doesn't kowtow to your proffered caricature of intolerance. Of course, President Bush hopes some of their popularity will rub off on him, but McCain, Schwarzenegger and Giuliani could have said no. Could it be that these fine men actually support President Bush and want to see him reelected, even if President Bush is in favor of the FMA? Isn't it possible that President Bush and the Republican Party actually support a big tent and diversity of opinion? If you want a convention and a party where dissenting voices aren't allowed, may I suggest the Democratic Convention where the crushing and silencing of dissenting voices has become infamous. I also have no doubt that you will be able to find many more single issue gay marriage voters there.
Oh, and John Kerry opposes gay marriage as well, or at least he did last time I checked. Perhaps he has a more nuanced view of which I remain unaware.