Defending Andrew

I'm sure he doesn't need my help, but I thought I'd comment on the Right's dislike of its past ally, Andrew Sullivan . There is a common meme in the conservative blogosphere that Sullivan has "lost it." For example, in yesterday's Corner, Victor Davis Hanson rips Andrew . Money quote:

I used to think Sullivan was perhaps unstable, but not necessarily dense. But I fear that he is increasingly both-or more still.

But, as far as I can tell, the only change in Andrew over the past few years is his opinion of the Bush Administration. He supported the invasion of Iraq, and has now admitted it was a mistake - mostly due to the incompetence of the Bush White House. He has taken a very strong stand against torture. But that is not a change, as it wasn't an issue before the war. His view on gay marriage has not changed a whit. In essence, the Right has decided Andrew is unhinged simply because he now disagrees with them on their relatively blind support of Bush.

Some point out how he has contradicted himself in various posts, or, as in the case of Hanson , allegedly mischaracterized another's opinion. As for the former argument, blogs are not journalistic bastions of consistency. As I think Andrew would agree, they are a running commentary of one person's thoughts. Hell, tomorrow I might think Andrew has "lost it." As for the latter claims, so what? Maybe Andrew read it incorrectly; maybe the author wrote it poorly. So it goes. People misinterpret and misunderstand eachother all the time. You correct them (or yourself) and move on. there is no need to claim someone is stupid or crazy.