The thing that I really like about the Andrew Sullivan column I blogged about yesterday was that it was a quintessential pre-02/24 Sullivan piece. It reminded me why I had read Andrew’s blog so religiously in late 2003 and in the early months of 2004. His treatment of the president was even-handed. He identified Bush’s strengths as well as his weaknesses. While he criticized his missteps and failures, he did not suggest that they would give others a reason to “loathe” the chief executive.

Several of our readers also appreciated the old Andrew. Submandave writes that he once offered “a well reasoned voice with a perspective different from [his] own.” VinceTN said he misses “the enjoyment I got from reading Andrew.” Sarah Rolph recalled how he “eloquently” made the case for gay marriage.

The great irony about Andrew’s column was that I had discovered it while working on a piece (where I was goingn to) take Andrew to task for failing to acknowledge the Vice President’s opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment and the president’s openness to civil unions. Because he did note the president’s acceptance of gay friends, he did not need address the latter point. It was enough to acknowledge that the president does not have an entirely negative record on gays.

Some of our critics have taken us to task for our criticism of Andrew and Log Cabin. But, we have also striven to identify when they hold true to conservative and libertarian principles. Just as I praised Andrew for his recent column, I praised Log Cabin Executive Director Patrick Guerriero for chastising gay groups when they rushed to oppose the confirmation of then-Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr. I would rather praise than criticize.

If you see articles, columns or posts where Log Cabin or Andrew take conservative positions — or challenge the left, please let us know so we may post them as appropriate.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

A week or so ago, I met a man, who, not knowing I was a Republican, dropped a line in a discussion about movies to note how delighted he was that only two-thirds of Americans approved of he president’s performance. He suggested that those who disapproved of the president shared his disstaste for the man. Like many Bush-haters, he seemed convinced that the president’s low approval numbers will translate into a huge Democratic wave this fall. And a sign that, after five years of W, Americans are becoming increasingly liberal.

I did not fully understand the president’s low numbers until I left the blue island of the Hollywood area and returned to red areas of my home state last month. Two of my brothers, each of whom has contributed generously to the president and the GOP (and both having their pictures with the president displayed prominently in their homes and offices), were furious at him for failing to hold the line on spending.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC indicates they’re not alone. Other Americans want the federal government to hold the line on spending. “Asked to choose which should be its top priority, a stunning 39% selected “prohibiting Members of Congress from directing federal funds to specific projects benefiting only certain constituents”–i.e., the pork-barrel spending at the heart of the Congressional earmark process.“

Polls show the president’s support is slipping among his base. According to the latest Gallup survey, “52% of conservatives and 68% of Republicans approved of the job he is doing. Both are record lows among those groups.” It’s not just spending. Over at “Powerline, John Hinderaker tells the president he should “go on national television and say you were wrong, and you’ve changed your mind. About immigration.”

While the Democrats — and the left — may be delighting in the president’s sinking poll numbers, the numbers do not suggest Americans are becoming any less conservative. It’s one of the reasons I don’t expect this fall’s election to resemble 1994. But, then again, Republicans have been known to snatch defeat from the jaws of decline.

Glenn Reynolds quotes David Winston’s Roll Call article noting that Democrats seem to think “it’s 1994 all over again” and they’ll pick up enough seats in the fall elections to cause control of Congress to switch parties (as it did a dozen years ago).

While I acknowledge that the Republican Congress of 2006 has some of the same problems as the Democratic one of 1994, I note that the energy for serious reform, then as now, was in the GOP, albeit now within a minority of the majority party, rather than in a majority of the minority party as it was prior to the 1994 elections. (Winston suggests that the Democrats’ left-wing ideology will prevent a repeat of the 1994 shift in congressional control.)

Democrats who are now saying it’s 1994 all over again should bear in mind that, in the last days of the 2004 campaign, many were saying it was 1980 all over again, a year when a challenger would come from behind to oust the incumbent president of the United States.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!! While you’re here, take a moment to explore “the most reliably conservative gay blog on the Internet” where recently we offered our thoughts on Barbra Streisand, Andrew Sullivan (here and here) and the rabid left.