JONAH GOLDBERG TAKES ANDREW SULLIVAN TO TASK for his regular attacks on President Bush, and I think he's got a point:

A blog which soared with high-minded rhetoric about how the war on terror is the test for this generation and that Bush was the right man to lead that struggle, now day-after-day tries to whittle away at reasons to support Bush in the fall as if the war on terror were merely another issue which can be trumped by any other issue you happen to feel more passionate about.

UPDATE: Jonah notes that Sullivan has pulled a fast one:

I must say I was surprised to discover this link from the gay magazine The Advocate. It seems that Andrew had been unequivocal about his opinions on Bush in that publication but not in his blog. In his Advocate essay he writes:

But it’s time to say something very clearly: Bush’s endorsement of antigay discrimination in the U.S. Constitution itself is a deal-breaker. I can’t endorse him this fall. Like many other gay men and women who have supported him, despite serious disagreements, I feel betrayed, abused, attacked.

And...

I will be excoriated by the same people who always denounce anyone who doesn’t toe the Democratic Party line. “What took you so long?” they sneer. Hope, engagement, principle are my answers. I do not regret trying to make conservatism safe for gays. It’s still possible to be in favor of small government, low taxes, a tough foreign policy, and to be a proud gay man. My principles haven’t changed. Nor will they anytime soon. But when a president allies himself with forces that really do want to keep gay people in jail, therapy, or the closet, it’s time to break off. The deal is broken. And no amount of rationalization can make it whole again.

Now I disagree with much (but not all) of what Andrew says in his essay. But it's an honest and decent position. Still what baffles me is why, to my knowledge, he's made no reference to this essay or his absolutist position on his site. Maybe, I missed it and he has. But I don't think so. Obviously, there's no binding code of ethics governing the blogosphere and even if there were I doubt it would have anything to say about not linking to articles you've written elsewhere or being obligated to express every significant opinion you have. But still, reading Andrew over the last year, you would have gotten the impression that at least theoretically his mind was open on who to support. According to this piece, it isn't. And that strikes me as an extremely significant silence.

(Via InstaPundit.)

UPDATE: Ace of Spades has some thoughts on Sullivan, in a long, detailed post.

ONE MORE UPDATE: This sounds like some furious tap dancing to me.

A THOUGHT: When Andrew finally does line up for Kerry, watch The New York Times eventually start running him on the Op-Ed page again.

OK, ANOTHER UPDATE OR TWO: More from Ace of Spades, here.

Meanwhile, Sullivan takes a real cheap shot at Jonah, quoting anti-gay posters from Jonah's mom's site, Lucianne.com. One would assume that when Sullivan endorses Kerry, it will be in spite of some of the more extreme comments written by the folks who post at say, Democratic Underground or IndyMedia.