Time for the Bottom of the Barrel moment at Sadly, No! This week we turn to Andrew Sullivan (are you as astounded as we are?) and his support never-ending admiration for President Bush (who some say is unelectable.)

President Bush says:

Bush has condemned the [Massachusetts] ruling before, citing his support for a federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union. On Tuesday, he criticized it as “a very activist court in making the decision it made.” “The court, I thought, overreached its bounds as a court,” Bush said. “It did the job of the Legislature.” Previously, though Bush has said he would support whatever is “legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage,” he and his advisers have shied away from specifically endorsing a constitutional amendment asserting that definition. But on Tuesday, the president waded deeper into the topic, saying state rulings such as the one in Massachusetts and a couple of other states “undermine the sanctity of marriage” and could mean that “we may need a constitutional amendment.” [Emphasis added]

Andrew concludes thusly:

Those people who believe this president cannot speak in coherent sentences don’t realize how clever his alleged incoherence is. … All in all: a carefully tailored piece of obfuscation. It seems to me that, from this statement, we neither have an unconditional endorsement of the FMA nor an uncategorical defense of states’ rights with regard to marriage.

Meanwhile, Hillary Rodham Clinton said (in 2000:)

The most common liberal argument for civil union but against marriage was summed up by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in January. “Marriage,” she said, when pressed to take a position, “has got historic, religious, and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been: between a man and a woman.”

Andrew concluded thusly (same link as above:)

Those who wish to deny it, on the other hand, have been required to utter nothing more substantive than Hillary Clinton’s terse, incoherent dismissal.

Unless, of course, those are George W. Bush, in which case the more incoherent it is, the better it becomes. That will be $75,000 please.

Update: The Snarky Cat is also puzzled by Sullivan’s praise.