Gay Patriot Header Image

Andrew Sullivan – “Conservative” Speaker at Log Cabin fete

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 5:06 pm - March 20, 2006.
Filed under: Gay America,Liberals,Log Cabin Republicans

Dan and I were both mindboggled at the choice of Andrew Sullivan, labeled by the Log Cabin press release as a “conservative”, to be one of the featured speakers at the upcoming LC(R) Convention. We were both wanting to do a post on the subject. But earlier today I sent an email to Patrick Guerriero, Log Cabin Chieftain, that is snarky enough to serve as a post on its own! Yeah… killing two birds with one e-stone!

*******************
Dear Patrick:

I think you guys could have picked a better conservative speaker than Andrew Sullivan??? Calling him a conservative is like saying Pope Benedict is gay-friendly. Here are two examples of Sullivan as a not-so-conservative. (The “Bruce” he refers to is Bruce Bartlett by the way)

That’s why I think Bush’s ratings won’t go much below 25 percent; because 25 percent is about the proportion of the electorate that is fundamentalist and supports Bush for religious rather than political reasons. They are immune to empirical argument, because their thought-structure is not empirical; it is dogmatic. If the facts overwhelm them, they will simply argue that the “liberal media” is lying. Bruce poignantly thinks the GOP is still the secular, empirical, skeptical party it once was. It’s not: it’s a fundamentalist church with some huge bribes for business interests on the side, leveraged by massive debts. So all criticism is disloyalty; and disloyalty is heresy. The facts don’t matter. Obey the pastor. Or be damned.

(Hat tip to Gryph on this one!)

How do you explain the many others in the Republican Party who you and I both know are not “obeying the pastor or be damned” ??? This is an insult to my Republican Party and should be to you. Come on!

And though Andrew protesth loudly today, I think the emailer to him in this posting is spot-on.

“Your blood-and-thunder, hateful tirades against our commander-in-chief in time of war and at a vulnerable point IN that war has at last marked a watershed in your ‘evolution’ from long-ago conservative to current leftist-in-just-about-everything-name [sic].

Your language, your attitude and your position have finally placed you pretty firmly in the camp of Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin and the Hollyweird left in general.

It confirms my ‘bigotry’ from the get-go: Gays cannot sacrifice enough of their sexual self-interest to adhere to an ideology as austere as conservatism. The pull to the left is too strong for homosexuals to resist for very long. So formalize and render legit your new political ‘awakening’: declare conservatism behind you.

There is a long, proud history of betrayal in the homosexual community, whose most celebrated example – the locus classicus, if you prefer – is Philby and his crew.

Congratulations on joining that fine tradition!”

Well, upon second thought since Andrew’s reader is so astute… I guess he is the perfect speaker for your convention given Log Cabin has also abandoned all things Republican and now firmly milks at the teet of the anti-American Gay Leftists now.

My apologies.

-Bruce Carroll (GayPatriot)

Share

29 Comments

  1. Bruce:
    Your email to Mr. Guerriero indicated that you would be providing “two examples of Sullivan as a not-so-conservative.” However, in the first quote Mr. Sullivan does not say anything that could be measured against conservative principles. Instead, he gives his rather odd view of the president’s supporters. The second quote is not by Mr. Sullivan. It is, as you state, from an emailer to him. How an email to Mr. Sullivan is an example of him being “not-so-conservative” is unclear. The only position of Mr. Sullivan cited by that emailer is his opposition to the war. It does not appear that either of your quotes support your position.

    I agree that having Mr. Sullivan speak at the LCR convention seems like a strange fit. Mostly that is because he does not seem to be a very good Republican and may not even see himself as such.

    Has Mr. Guerriero responded? If so, will you print his response?

    Also, why does the first sentence in your email end with question marks? It does not appear to be a question.

    Comment by Michael K. Bassham — March 20, 2006 @ 7:22 pm - March 20, 2006

  2. Michael-

    The question mark was my way of stressing how incredulous I am at the choice.

    I will post whatever response I get. I doubt there will be one.

    -Bruce

    Comment by GayPatriot — March 20, 2006 @ 7:29 pm - March 20, 2006

  3. While Andrew’s reader makes some valid points, particularly in his first two paragraphs, I think he goes too far in his next two. He’s spot on when he notes (in the second ¶) that Andrew’s language and attitude have placed him in the camp of Michael Moore et al., but Andrew from time to time still makes a few lucid posts where he reaches sensible conclusions.

    In the third paragraph, I would modify “Gays” with “certain” and “homosexuals” with “many,” adding that “particularly among those gay people concerned with their standing in the (gay) community, the temptation to conform to a left-wing, Bush-hating ideology is strong.”

    I wouldn’t go so far as saying that Andrew has joined the tradition of Kim Philby, but lately he seems more interested in currying favor with the gay establishment than providing a conservative perspective on issues, especially gay ones.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 20, 2006 @ 7:53 pm - March 20, 2006

  4. Bruce-baby you might want to have actually read the source that my quote from Sullivan came from and actually placed it in its full context, a discussion on Bush loyalty, both from and to his supporters, rather than a definition of on what “conservatism” is and is not.

    But since you won’t provide the link, I graciously will:

    http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/03/the_myth_of_bus.html

    You also leave out Andrew’s response to the the other e-mailer criticizing Andrew’s views, (who suspiciously sounds like a regular Gay Patriot reader here, aka unhinged.) …There must be a book title in there somewhere.

    Andrew Sullivan:

    …So let’s recap: I’m in favor of Bush’s tax cuts, but want spending cuts to match them; I favor balanced budgets; I favored and favor the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns, but want to execute them competently, with enough troops, and in adherence to America’s long tradition of humane warfare; I oppose affirmative action and hate crime laws; I favor privatizing social security; I opposed the Medicare prescription drug entitlement; I want more money for defense, specifically more troops; I favor states’ rights; I’m a First Amendment nut; I have few problems with gun rights; I would criminalize third trimester abortions; I support marriage rights for everyone, because marriage is a critical institution fostering self-reliance and responsibility. And all of this now makes me part of the “left,” equatable with individuals who betrayed their own country for Stalin’s Russia. I notice that my correspondent describes conservatism as an “ideology.” I think that speaks volumes about what has happened to what was once regarded as the antidote to ideology.

    And Bruce-baby, you also leave out Andrew’s post on what he would cut from the budget.

    Sullivan Continued:

    …I’d prefer experts like Brian Riedl or Veronique de Rugy to propose detailed cuts. But my back-of-the-envelope wish-list is that I’d repeal the Medicare drug entitlement, abolish ear-marks, institute a line-item veto, pass a balanced budget amendment, means-test social security benefits, index them to prices rather than wages, extend the retirement age to 72 (and have it regularly extended as life-spans lengthen), abolish agricultural subsidies, end corporate welfare, legalize marijuana and tax it, and eliminate all tax loopholes and deductions, including the mortgage deduction, (I’d keep the charitable deduction). For good measure, I’d get rid of the NEA and the Education Department. I’m not an economist, so I do not know whether this would do the trick entirely, and I’m open to debate on any of the particulars. But you get my drift. Maybe someone out there could do the math. I’m also fascinated by Charles Murray’s new proposal to abolish the entire welfare state and replace it with with cash grants to individuals. I look forward to conservatives continuing to insist I’m a lefty.

    Gosh, Andrew sounds just so Liberal and Lefty that it makes me want to sing the blues.

    And Bruce-baby, I’m more than grateful for the hat-tip BTW, you let me know if I can be of any more help with your blog. Especially in the “keeping you honest” department. Cheers!

    Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 20, 2006 @ 8:40 pm - March 20, 2006

  5. I’m still stuck with the memory of 9cent movies. My 2nd presidential vote in 1964 was for Goldwater, the 3rd was for Nixon.

    When you guys write about what is or isn’t a “Republican,” I have the feeling that you all are talking with some justification. My memory of the Republican party of Eisenhower and Taft is very different from my understanding of the Republican party of 2006.

    The “real” Republican is probably somewhere in the middle of that range of extremes.

    Comity, guys. We all need each other.

    Agape.

    Comment by Gene — March 20, 2006 @ 10:47 pm - March 20, 2006

  6. I pretty much agree with everything Andrew says in the second paragraph Patrick quotes, but if he supports all these things why does he devote so much time to bashing the party with the most members supporting a number of these good goals.

    And his critic got it right about Andrew’s language and attitude.

    Perhaps Andrew does support those things, but on the rare times when I check his blog, he’s usually busy bashing Bush — in a tone not too different from that of Michael Moore.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 20, 2006 @ 11:04 pm - March 20, 2006

  7. Good point, GPW.

    My response to Sullivan’s quote is simple; if he wanted all of those things, why did he endorse John Kerry, who believes in and would have imposed the exact opposite?

    It shows nicely the depths of Sullivan’s hatred and irrationality that he would choose to endorse and support the candidate LEAST likely to do what he wished.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2006 @ 3:10 am - March 21, 2006

  8. Bruce, nice call on the LCRs and Sully as key note.

    But I say, let him come to the zoo and take a spot in the cage… it may draw more media attention and that’s what LCR needs these days –media, press attention and memberships. LOL.

    Just make sure that organizers leave about 1/2 of his speaking time for a Q&A session… and make sure you get the mic for at least one salvo. I hope they aren’t paying him more than a plug nickel.

    When an organization goes after a “controversial” speaker for keynote, you usually hope he/she will be a contrast to the organization and underscore –by contrast– the value of the organization’s voice. In this case, the LCR would have had to go with someone on the radical Left like MichaelMoore or CindySheehan or HowieDean –ooops, scratch Dean, he’s more like the LCR than unlike the LCRs– but you get the idea.

    Nawh, let Sully speak as keynote. It’ll just nail the coffin shut on the LCR leadership a tad faster.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 21, 2006 @ 6:08 am - March 21, 2006

  9. and claps to the big pink starfish Patrick Gryphon… Patrick-the-Pink might be a bigot but he’s right on Sully still holding conservative beliefs –Sully’s just not part of the rah-rah-Bush crowd. Probably due to a slight in the seating arrangements at some State Dept dinner in 2004 where Sully was placed next to Louie Farrakhan and had to endure the slings (no pun) and arrows of outrageous misfortune.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 21, 2006 @ 6:17 am - March 21, 2006

  10. Well apparantly he supports all those things in the second paragraph, but doesn’t care to see any of them implemented, considering his support of Kerry.

    I think that is half the problem here is that the sins of the dems are overlooked and forgiven, while the GOP is held to the fire.

    Comment by just me — March 21, 2006 @ 6:46 am - March 21, 2006

  11. What’s even more ridiculous is that Sully addressed the LCR convention just two years ago in Palm Springs. Even if you concede that he’s a good messenger for conservatives and/or Republicans (about which I am more skeptical than ever), couldn’t they have at least a little … you know … variety?

    Comment by Malcontent — March 21, 2006 @ 10:19 am - March 21, 2006

  12. If you bothered to read Sullivan once in a while, folks, you’d know that he supported Kerry because he thought a Democratic president might inspire Congressional Republicans to act like real conservatives again.

    If you guys manage to oust him from the LCR convention, perhaps you could get Maurice Bonamigo to speak. I hear he’s available. I hear he’s always available.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 21, 2006 @ 10:24 am - March 21, 2006

  13. Please. Continuous obstructionism based on opposition to the President as a political philosophy has been pretty well disproved as pointless and self-damaging, given the Democrats’ use of it for the past five years and their resulting LOSS of power, prestige, and Congressional seats.

    Then again, I lack Andrew’s insane hatred of Bush and his resulting need to rationalize it; with both of those, that argument looks pretty good for endorsing someone who is completely opposite in virtually every respect of what you allegedly believe.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2006 @ 12:44 pm - March 21, 2006

  14. NDXXX, yeah that’s all true –but he’ll bring some controversy to the convention. As CindyZeroScheehan will attest, if she’d put down te donuts long enough to speak, controversy draw attention.

    I hope a group of true gay conservatives hold him accountable after his keynote address. I hope there’s a Q&A session –hell, even the President had one at his recent address before the Cleveland City Club… and he did fab at fielding tough questions.

    Let’s remember that Log Cabin Republicans are not necessarily conservatives… in fact, most of the ones I know are moderates, progressives, and social activists who probably have more in common with Christy Todd Whitman and Rudi Guiliani and Arlen Specter than W or Dick Cheney or Sens Frist, Allen or McCain or any Libertarian.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 21, 2006 @ 1:32 pm - March 21, 2006

  15. And Tim, boy-o, I do read Sullivan. Right before I come here in the morning.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 21, 2006 @ 1:34 pm - March 21, 2006

  16. Sully has already said that he prefers an incompetent defense against terrorist attacks on America to a ban on gay marriage. He has NO traction with the mainstream American right.
    The Log Cabin Republicans lost any traction they had when they refused to endorse the party’s choice in 2004.
    Politically, a nobody talking to a bunch of nonconsequentialities.
    Bruce, why waste the ink?

    Comment by DaveP. — March 21, 2006 @ 2:59 pm - March 21, 2006

  17. I have never understood why or how Sullivan has obtained the label ‘conservative’. Does personal conduct account for anything anymore? Isn’t our behavior the foremost evidence of our character and values? Remembering the barebacking scandal he was involved in several years ago and how he defended what is literally homicidal behavior towards others – I have to again ask how this is a conservative role model? In fact, I see Sullivan as the worst type of example for the gay community. Someone who doesn’t practice what they preach. Giving the anti-gay crowd that much more to distrust us on. Where are the truly conservative gay men and woman who live a wholesome life and are not ruled by overblown lust and lack of self control?

    Comment by Rick Malthese — March 21, 2006 @ 3:18 pm - March 21, 2006

  18. I have never understood why or how Sullivan has obtained the label ‘conservative’.

    Andrianna is not now, nor has he ever been, anything approaching conservative, at least not by American definitions. I’m sure he’d be a slobbering right-winger in the UK, but then, that doesn’t make him a conservative, just not as much of a diapered, panty-waisted, bed-wetting tuck me in at night mr. government socialist as most Brits.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 21, 2006 @ 3:31 pm - March 21, 2006

  19. The Log Cabin Republicans lost any traction they had when they refused to endorse the party’s choice in 2004.

    They won my respect, at least.

    For once a gay group stood up and said, “No. We’re not going to support or endorse homophobia. We may vote for you as individuals, but what you are saying goes against everything we stand for as a group.”

    Then of course they screwed it up by blowing a million dollars on running attack ads against religious people. THAT, if anything, is what made them “nonconsequential”.

    Does personal conduct account for anything anymore? Isn’t our behavior the foremost evidence of our character and values? Remembering the barebacking scandal he was involved in several years ago and how he defended what is literally homicidal behavior towards others – I have to again ask how this is a conservative role model?

    In the first place, that’s a tad bit overdramatic.

    Andrew made it clear what he wanted and that he was HIV-positive. He was not hiding his serostatus, nor was he trying the “chat only” routine. Had he been hiding his HIV status or raping men, THAT would qualify as homicidal. Nor was he planning to carry out sex in public.

    The problem is, Rick, that if you take that into consideration, it boils down to a matter of someone’s private bedroom behavior. If someone were to pass a law making it a crime for HIV-positive people to have bareback sex in private, then it would be a problem, but no such law exists.

    In short, I disagree with what Andrew was doing. But it is his business, and I have no compelling legal or personal reason to intervene.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2006 @ 4:52 pm - March 21, 2006

  20. Sorry, NT30, but that won’t wash. When the Convention meets to decide what the Party platform for 2008 will be, they won’t be asking if anyone accepts your interpretation of massive bipartisan support for traditional marriage (or opposition to judicial abuse of power) as “homophobia”, or who has what respect for same; they’ll ask if they can trust the LCR’s to deliver their votes.

    The answer will, of course, be NO.

    With that settled, the next question will be, “Why should we even issue invitations to these people, much less moderate or change our platform for them?”
    In 2002 they could have become part of mainstream Republican thought and worked to create change, the same way the Latino and other rights lobbies have. In 2006, they’re off the radar, and the Christian groups that people like Gryph seem to hate so much have another arguement to deploy against their inclusion.

    I’m glad you have respect for the LCR’s… because no-one else does.

    Comment by DaveP. — March 21, 2006 @ 5:12 pm - March 21, 2006

  21. It’s kind of interesting DaveP, my first GOP convention was ’80 in Detroit. The CA LCRs had a reception each night and Howard Baker came to one, Al Haig another, and Bob Dole a third.

    If Bruce and others are successful in purging the LCR leadership of it’s non-Republican, left-of-center ‘tude, the LCR could seek redemption in time for 08 and at least be at the table for some of the action. It’s a long shot; but worth it.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 21, 2006 @ 5:37 pm - March 21, 2006

  22. “Andrew made it clear what he wanted and that he was HIV-positive.”

    This is absolutely not true. If you remember the web advertisements he placed, one stated that he had the virus, ONE DID NOT! I’m not sure why the gay press seems to always ignore that. Check out the actual sites if they still exist somewhere. At least we agree, that it is a very pertinent fact.

    Also the fact that he asked for anonymous “gang bangs” literally translates into homicidal. Remember, he had no idea of the serostatus of his victims. They could have very likely been part of that ‘gifting’ craze (ie HIV negative men or woman who wanted to become part of the ‘club’). To put people at risk like that, anyone, is incredibly amoral.

    “If someone were to pass a law making it a crime for HIV-positive people to have bareback sex in private, then it would be a problem, but no such law exists.”

    I would never suggest that. And you are missing the point. Acts in private can certainly be both legal and homicidal. I stand by the characterization as I know in my heart it is accurate in regards to the behavior Mr. Sullivan himself admitted to. Again, the only part I see as non-conservative, is the action of inviting multiple anonymous partners to receive HIV+ body fluids (ie a deadly virus).

    “In short, I disagree with what Andrew was doing.”

    What specifically do you disagree with?

    “But it is his business, and I have no compelling legal or personal reason to intervene.”

    Once again, I offered no such intervention. I just asked how such a person can possibly be considered a ‘conservative’. I honestly think we believe too little in ourselves to herald someone such as Mr. Sullivan as a ‘conservative’ or a role model for gays. I just think we can find much much better (for example the author of this site).

    Comment by Rick Malthese — March 21, 2006 @ 5:37 pm - March 21, 2006

  23. When the Convention meets to decide what the Party platform for 2008 will be, they won’t be asking if anyone accepts your interpretation of massive bipartisan support for traditional marriage (or opposition to judicial abuse of power) as “homophobia”, or who has what respect for same; they’ll ask if they can trust the LCR’s to deliver their votes.

    That is a gross oversimplification of my position, DaveP.

    I believe that it is within voters’ rights to pass laws that explicitly ban gay marriage. I believe that it is an abuse of judicial power for those laws to be overturned, especially on spurious grounds. I also believe that the reason that most of these amendments are even up for public discussion is because the judicial power has been constantly encouraged to be abused by hatemongering leftist gays who cannot persuade the public of their position, mainly because their position is only hate and contempt for the rights and opinions of others.

    But that does not make banning gay marriage anything but homophobic. It makes it easier to explain why people are homophobic, but banning gay marriage is not the answer to that particular question.

    With that settled, the next question will be, “Why should we even issue invitations to these people, much less moderate or change our platform for them?”

    Because the margin of victory in your last election was barely more than the number of gays who presumably voted for your candidate.

    In these days of a divided electorate, one ignores minority groups at their peril. Furthermore, one ignores minority groups with money and a willingness to use it at even more peril. You can attempt to screw gays over, but it will cost you — and it very well could cost you an election.

    Gays are a seesaw group that can attract moderates from both sides, Democratic and Republican. The reason our power as a community has been diluted is because leftist whores like Joe Solmonese, Elizabeth Birch, Matt Foreman, and others have made it clear that they will support even vicious homophobes as long as they’re Democrats.

    The reason it was vital that LCR do what they did in the last election was to demonstrate that they, among all gay groups, are able to transcend partisanship. Help gay rights and you get support; don’t, and not even party affiliation will save you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2006 @ 5:43 pm - March 21, 2006

  24. ND30, you might want to look less at the margin of victory for the Republican party in ’04 (though more on this later) and look more at the margin of DEFEAT of your side of all of those ‘Defense of Marriage’ ballot initiatives. In some states, 3:1 against you or worse- that’s not a majority, that’s a barbershop harmony; and it’s ‘Democrat’-registered voters as well as Republican-registered ones. There is no evidence that Republicans- or Democrats for that matter, and you’d better think about that- can lose a statistically interesting number of votes by NOT backing gay marriage.
    Wasn’t there a Defense of Marriage bill on the ballot in Ohio in ’04? Happen to remember how that turned out?

    Oh, and while we’re on the subject, why would the Republican Party WANT your vote if you keep on trying to smear them as ‘homophobic’? Isn’t that sort of like the NAACP continually calling President Bush a ‘racist’ and then wondering why he feels he can do without their help?

    As far as “support” goes, how many members does the Log Cabin Republicans boast? If the game is about winning elections no matter the cost, as you imply, than why should the RNC alienate a overwhelming majority of, not their voting base, but of the WHOLE electorate in order to placate a group that does not even speak for a bare minority of their own identity-group and which cannot be relied upon to deliver even its own votes?

    ” Help gay rights and you get support; don’t, and not even party affiliation will save you.”

    Care to name ONE politician who failed of election because the LCR’s failed to support them?

    To quote a friend of mine: at the end of the day, the Log Cabin Republicans are just another political pressure group- just like the American Potato Growers or the Helium Lobby. In the real world, they will get exactly as much attention and consideration as they can deliver votes.
    In 2004, the Log Cabin Republicans proved that they cannot reliably deliver votes and therefore do not merit consideration. If I was you, and believed in their long-term goals, I’d be very angry at them.

    Comment by DaveP. — March 21, 2006 @ 6:59 pm - March 21, 2006

  25. Three things contributed to those lopsided victories in 2004, Dave:

    – The Goodrich decision and similar pending cases

    – Leftist whore groups like HRC and NGLTF diverting millions of dollars away from fighting said initiatives on the state level and into praising as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” homophobic politicians like John Kerry, who encouraged voters to raise and pass said constitutional amendments.

    – LCR’s misguided decision to attack people of faith

    Take any two of those away, and these initiatives would not have passed at all, or by much, much smaller margins.

    The majority of the public is not homophobic by nature. But the actions of hatemongering gay leftists are what push them in the direction of these bans — a fact which is lamentably pushed and magnified by the actions of certain factions in the Republican Party.

    In that context, LCR is valuable as a counterweight to both leftist gays and to bigoted Republicans.

    Furthermore, in doing so, if LCR is able to demonstrate that being gay does NOT automatically make one a leftist abortion-supporting hatemonger, the voting bloc that has traditionally passed these measures will be shattered.

    In short, if given a choice only between a homophobic ban and giving in to the hatemongering gay left, people will choose homophobia. LCR’s role should not be to stay silent in the face of a homophobic ban,. but to speak out in favor of the “middle road”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2006 @ 7:59 pm - March 21, 2006

  26. ND30, at the end of the day you’re less than 5% of the electorate and can raise less cash than any one major Hollywood studio spends on the Oscars. I could probably beat the entire roll of votes of the LCR’s just by getting an additional one-in-one-hundred NRA voters to show up at the polls. You’ll have to persuade, not badger- and in throwing around the word “homophobic” at every opportunity, you’ve persuaded me of a few things… maybe not what you were hoping.

    “Furthermore, in doing so, if LCR is able to demonstrate that being gay does NOT automatically make one a leftist abortion-supporting hatemonger,”

    A laudable goal. So you intend to do this by calling Republicans names until they give in? Perhaps by refusing to back the party that LCR nominally belongs to until they geek to demands that NEITHER party will grant? Allowing them the grand privilege of sacrificing 50% plus of the electorate for 3% minus that badmouths them, and has already proved that it will bolt the second it doesn’t feel pandered-to sufficiently? It’s true that in close elections it’s worth courting minority blocs- but you forget that for every bloc you court, you have to balance its vote and cash potential with what it will demand, and what it will cost you in terms of other blocs you alienate.

    In the great bottle-party of politics, you’ve got to bring something to get served. LCR brought a bottle of beer which it threw out the window unopened (and won’t be invited to the next shindig as a result), and you’re trying to get a Martini by throwing mud on the bartender. Wanna get an invite to the next party? Bring something worth drinking, don’t slang the host, and don’t start threatening to walk out if you can’t spin the records.

    Comment by DaveP. — March 21, 2006 @ 8:36 pm - March 21, 2006

  27. A laudable goal. So you intend to do this by calling Republicans names until they give in?

    I suggest you read a bit more of my writing before you conclude that’s the way I operate.

    I call homophobic what I think is homophobic. But as that example shows, there’s a whole lot more than that to what I think and how I feel.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2006 @ 11:05 pm - March 21, 2006

  28. I wonder if GayPatriot has read Harold Bloom’s The Anxiety of Influence. Its thesis seems remarkably cogent at the moment, for reasons which must seem all too obvious.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 22, 2006 @ 5:33 am - March 22, 2006

  29. How do you explain the many others in the Republican Party who you and I both know are not “obeying the pastor or be damned” ??? This is an insult to my Republican Party and should be to you. Come on!

    Psst… when you throw all your other principles out the window (federalism? fiscal conservatism? civil liberties?) it kinda looks like Bible-thumping is all you have left.

    Don’t shoot the messenger.

    Comment by scarshapedstar — March 23, 2006 @ 11:00 am - March 23, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.