GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

GayPatriot Wins “One Step Ahead” Award from Wonkosphere

October 6, 2007 by GayPatriot

I got this email a couple days ago….

I’m pleased to inform you that your blog, Gay Patriot, is recipient of the Wonkosphere One Step Ahead Award for September 2007.

What is this about?  Every day the Wonkosphere web site lists 10 blogs that were “One Step Ahead” on the previous day (see the lower sidebar for today’s list).   These are blogs where the posts two days earlier best “predicted” the posts on all blogs in our directory on the previous day.  In other words, these blogs anticipated (or maybe drove) buzz on the 2008 presidential campaign on a given day.

Yours is one of 5 blogs in our conservative directory that appeared on the list for a significant number of days and with a high rank during the month of September.

That’s pretty cool, especially in that we were in the company of AnkleBitingPundits and HotAir.

Although, I’m not as confident we were driving buzz on the 2008 campaign as we were dealing with the wide stance of Larry Craig.   Oy.

Anyway, we are always glad to win awards!  Thanks to all of our great readers!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Filed Under: Blogging

Comments

  1. Miss Grundy says

    October 6, 2007 at 8:31 am - October 6, 2007

    I read you every day.

  2. V the K says

    October 6, 2007 at 11:51 am - October 6, 2007

    Gratz, Bruce.

  3. Ian S says

    October 6, 2007 at 12:28 pm - October 6, 2007

    Congrats but I can’t help but think that guy in the logo looks like he’s in the process of slipping on a banana peel!

  4. The Livewire says

    October 6, 2007 at 12:48 pm - October 6, 2007

    Actually Ian, I think he got beheaded.

  5. benj says

    October 6, 2007 at 4:03 pm - October 6, 2007

    Congrats Bruce…”you, da man!” As for the logo, it looks more like someone falling backward than moving forward or someone with a physical disability…(gosh, we gays cannot let anything go by without comment can we?)

  6. Robert says

    October 6, 2007 at 5:24 pm - October 6, 2007

    Congtats, Bruce.

    Ian, it’s either a banana peel or a senator with a wide stance.

  7. ousslander says

    October 6, 2007 at 5:49 pm - October 6, 2007

    Yeah for you!

  8. Ian S says

    October 6, 2007 at 6:02 pm - October 6, 2007

    #6:

    a senator with a wide stance.

    Heh-heh. BTW, did you see that the GOP has adopted an elephant with a “wide stance” for its 2008 convention logo. And of course, the convention is being held in Minneapolis. 😉 Say, if any of you guys go, you’ll have to get your pic taken next to the infamous stall.

  9. ThatGayConservative says

    October 7, 2007 at 2:01 am - October 7, 2007

    Kudos!

    Could the logo be Killer Joe?

  10. KYKid says

    October 7, 2007 at 9:17 am - October 7, 2007

    Commenters 8 and 6: did you see this YouTube of Novak claiming that the GOP Senators have known about Craig’s behavior for a long time? The press covers this stuff up until there’s an arrest, but you have to wonder if Craig’s ’82 protestation of being a “bachelor” getting tagged as gay wasn’t a tip to what some have said of his behavior for a long time. Anyways, gives new meaning to the term, “Republican Potty”.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8Hg3O8Vr0A&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbloggernista%2Ecom%2F2007%2F10%2F06%2Frepublican%2Dsenators%2Dknew%2Dabout%2Dlarry%2Dcraig%2F

  11. Ian S says

    October 7, 2007 at 10:33 am - October 7, 2007

    #10: Hmmmm, very interesting. They’ve known just like they knew about Foley. I think they’re bluffing about wanting a full ethics investigation of Craig – that could expose a lot of skeletons perhaps even some of Ms. McConnell’s. In an election year I might add.

  12. KYKid says

    October 7, 2007 at 3:20 pm - October 7, 2007

    And don’t forget dear Lindsay.

  13. ThatGayConservative says

    October 7, 2007 at 10:09 pm - October 7, 2007

    Hmmmm, very interesting. Ian’s engaging in autofelatio with his sockpuppet again.

  14. V the K says

    October 8, 2007 at 10:48 am - October 8, 2007

    OT: First Phony Soldiers, Now, Phony ‘Working Families’. Or, why Democrats think people who can afford to send their kids to $20,000 a year private schools should receive S-CHIP welfare.

  15. Ian S says

    October 8, 2007 at 1:00 pm - October 8, 2007

    #14:

    people who can afford to send their kids to $20,000 a year private schools should receive S-CHIP welfare.

    If you check into that a bit more you find that the school in question provides assistance up to full tuition to those with incomes up to $160,000 a year. One can easily imagine that a family of six earning $45,000 a year just might get free tuition. See here and here for more on this faux outrage.

  16. V the K says

    October 8, 2007 at 1:28 pm - October 8, 2007

    Hm, what to believe? Facts, or left-wing spin for someone whose reputation for honesty is zero.

  17. North Dallas Thirty says

    October 8, 2007 at 1:34 pm - October 8, 2007

    I think the one comment in the thread you cited is a better slap at you than anything else, Ian:

    IF you send your kids to private school – subsidized or not; if you have a lavish home and expensive cars and own capital which you partially rent out, why are you asking the taxpayers to pay for your insurance? And WHY are the democrats such as those in this forum insisting on backing this kind of abuse? If you weren’t so blind to your partisan hatred of conservatives you would actually find common ground and agree that the Frosts are not the people SCHIP was designed to assist.

    How many truly poor people cannot get adequate care because people like the Frosts game the system while they are enabled by “democrats” such as those in this forum?

    And that’s it, Ian. You and your fellow pig Democrats don’t cover all the children you can within the income limit……and yet you demand that the income limit be RAISED?

    You aren’t spending the money you have on helping the children you’re supposed to be helping; instead, you’re demanding MORE money so you can reward your supporters who are more than capable of purchasing their own health insurance and prevent them from having to put their children in the public school system you destroyed.

    Why in the hell should we give you more? You’re like the spoiled-brat child who blows his lunch money on bubblegum cards, then insists you give him more so he can buy lunch.

  18. V the K says

    October 8, 2007 at 2:00 pm - October 8, 2007

    If the mainstream media weren’t the Sorocrats own PR firm, they would never get away with fraud like this. But the MSM is about as interested in fact-checking the bona fides of the victims the Sorocrats trot out as they are in investigating the shady fugitives who are donating to the Hillary 2008 campaign.

  19. ThatGayConservative says

    October 8, 2007 at 2:53 pm - October 8, 2007

    faux outrage

    Bush wants to increase funding to a program, but not as much as the liberals. Therefore, they spin it into “Bush wants to cut funding for X”, “Bush says no on X”, “Bush doesn’t care about you!” etc. Look at VA benefits for an example.

    It’s a shameful, disgraceful liberal lie. If they had the capacity, they should be ashamed.

    Faux outrage indeed.

  20. Ian S says

    October 8, 2007 at 4:14 pm - October 8, 2007

    #17:

    You and your fellow pig Democrats

    My, how uncivil. What a surprise. In any event, it would appear that the SCHIP bill had a lot of GOP support too. Are they all pigs too?

    Still, the ads that are bound to confront every anti-SCHIP Repub schlub running for re-election will practically write themselves.

  21. North Dallas Thirty says

    October 8, 2007 at 4:58 pm - October 8, 2007

    Yep, didn’t think you could answer, Ian.

    Again: You and your fellow leftist Democrats OPPOSE what the Bush administration wants, which is requiring states to cover 95% of the children already eligible for SCHIP BEFORE increasing the income limits.

    In short, you want to screw the poor kids over so you can purchase wealthier families’ votes with “free” government money — and fatten your campaign contribution coffers.

    Furthermore, your means of paying for this is not to increase taxes on wealthier families, but to jack up the taxes on cigarettes — which numerous studies have shown to disproportionately affect POORER people.

    Pure, unadulterated hypocrisy — perpetuated by pigs.

    Why do you hate the poor, pig Ian? Why do you and your fellow pig Democrats oppose requiring SCHIP to cover poor families, versus taking its money to give to rich people who can afford private insurance and increasing the taxes on poor people to pay for it?

  22. North Dallas Thirty says

    October 8, 2007 at 5:18 pm - October 8, 2007

    And again, this whole thing shows what a bunch of scummy trolls and hypocrites the Democrat Party is. They OPPOSE — read that again, OPPOSE — requiring states to ensure that their poorest children are covered BEFORE spending money on coverage for wealthier families. Worse, they are “funding” this, not with a tax on income or with means testing so that those wealthier families would pay more for their free coverage, but with a tax on cigarettes, a sales tax, which, as THEY have previously whined, is “regressive” and “disproportionately affects the poor”.

    In other words, not only are they not covering these poor kids, they’re taking money from their parents — all so that wealthier families who can afford health insurance don’t have to pay for it.

    Pigs.

  23. V the K says

    October 8, 2007 at 5:54 pm - October 8, 2007

    The Republicans have only themselves to blame if the Sorocrats pin this on them. It shouldn’t be tough to explain to real working families that someone making $82,000 a year shouldn’t be entitled to welfare, or that someone who’s 25 years old isn’t a child.

    Meanwhile, in case the Folsom Street Fair wasn’t disturbing enough for you.

  24. V the K says

    October 8, 2007 at 6:01 pm - October 8, 2007

    In fact, if Republicans weren’t completely stupid and out of touch, they could make an accurate political ad along the lines of “Hillary Clinton voted to give amnesty to gang members and illegal alien felons. Hillary Clinton also voted to provide government welfare to families making up to $82,000 while raising taxes and leaving poor children uninsured.”

    Unfortunately, many Republicans voted for those same thing, which just proves that the ruling class is united against We The People.

  25. Ian S says

    October 8, 2007 at 11:57 pm - October 8, 2007

    So, Never Does Truth, why do you hate sick kids so much?

  26. ThatGayConservative says

    October 9, 2007 at 12:35 am - October 9, 2007

    Furthermore, your means of paying for this is not to increase taxes on wealthier families, but to jack up the taxes on cigarettes — which numerous studies have shown to disproportionately affect POORER people.

    Plus the fact that liberals, who love to run our lives are constantly making it more difficult for people to smoke.

    So, Never Does Truth, why do you hate sick kids so much?

    Let’s see, YOU support knocking poor, sick kids off of SCHIP to make way for 25 y/o “kids” and kids going to private school. NDT opposes that and favors SCHIP for kids who really are and who really are poor.

    So the question is, why do you feel compelled to tell poor kids to go fcuk themselves since they don’ have money to donate to Hitlery’s campaign?

  27. V the K says

    October 9, 2007 at 5:19 am - October 9, 2007

    Personal attacks never healed a sick child.

Categories

Archives