NRO's Mike Potemra voices his support:
Sullivan is in many ways a complicated case: On some issues, he is basically right; on others, he is a complete crank; on many, of both kinds, he has an emotional tendency to lose perspective. But in the case of the anti-Semitism charge, I don’t think it’s complicated at all.
I'm grateful. I have not gone out of my way over the years to make friends in the blogosphere, to put it mildly. I think it's more honest and healthy to be an equal opportunity offender. I don't blame liberals for never forgiving me for certain conservative positions in the past and present; and I don't blame many on the right for finding my sometimes brutal rhetoric offensive.
But I'm not in this game to make friends. I have my friends and their friendship is not about politics or argument, but about life and love and present laughter. In my personal life, I always try to be civil. On the blog, I write more like a British parliamentary debater - and anyone who has watched Prime Minister's Question Time can see how brutal the rhetoric can become. That's how I was trained. It's how I love to fight.
But I also try to ensure that the arguments of those I attack are also represented on this blog; I post real dissents; I admit errors when necessary; I engage in more introspection than some online; and I link to a wider variety of other writers from different perspectives - known and unknown - than many other bloggers. That's how I try and balance my Irish bluster.
But my anger - which is different than hatred - is also genuine and real, not contrived.
I am incensed by the way in which this country adopted torture and much of the MSM and the Congress let it slide; by how conservatism has been abused by the GOP; by how alleged conservatives bankrupted this country and now blame it on others; by how most neoconservatives have preferred power to honesty in grappling with their failures; by how religion has been cynically used as a tool by Rove; by the way in which gay people and their dignity has been cruelly maligned. And I remain very firmly of the belief that in due course many of my points will be vindicated, even as they have often been written off as the rants of a crank. I think that my view of Palin in all its particulars - mocked by many - will also stand the test of time.
Does this sound arrogant? Maybe. I prefer to see it as sincere. I have made some glaring errors - the McCaughey piece which I didn't fight hard enough to edit as it should have been, and the excess of my rhetoric after 9/11. But I am not apologetic about wading into troubled waters in my career - marriage equality in the 1980s, Serbian genocide in the 1990s, Clinton's shamelessness, Ken Starr's repulsiveness, Serbia's genocide, Christanism's relentless rise, Islamism's unique danger, Obama's unique promise, the data and debate on racial IQ, torture under Cheney, the end of the plague in 1996, the biological differences between men and women, corruption and evil in the Catholic hierarchy, the evil of Saddam, the injustice of affirmative action, the idiocy of hate crime laws, the cowardice of the MSM, the brutality of the Tehran junta, the moral slide of Israel, the power of AIPAC, and the clinical derangement of Sarah Palin.
I love blogging because the only people I really have to answer to are you - not my DC peers or editors or publishers or colleagues or even friends. I remain committed to that, and my conscience and the truth as I can best see it. I am grateful for the large amount of support. But in the end, what matters is whether I'm right or wrong. And all I know is that you never fail to point out when I screw up.
So keep it coming. From all sides.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.