Gay Patriot Header Image

Nominations Open for Grande Conservative Blogress Diva 2008

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:18 am - December 4, 2007.
Filed under: Blogging,Mythology and the real world

As the year draws to a close, it is time once again to choose next year’s Grande Conservative Blogress Diva 2008. Terrified of taking off her tiara, two-time winner Sondra K will be defending her title against what is sure to be tough competition for this coveted honor.

This competition began two years ago, following my post, asking: Who are Our Conservative “Divas”?. There, I noted how most gay men have a great respect, if not reverence for strong women. So, we wondered who were those women who commanded the respect of conservative gay men?

Giving that we’re bloggers and defining “diva” as a strong, successful woman who commands the respect of men, we at GayPatriot determined to honor those blogresses who have earned our respect.

Hence this competition.

Nominees need not be conservative. As I wrote last year in announcing the nominees:

Some are libertarian. And others, while more centrist, distinguish themselves by their iconoclasm and the manner in which they take on the silliness of certain leftists — and conservative pretenders.

They are women, who, in the words of one of our last year’s nominees, “drive . . . liberals nuts.” And one way to command the respect of conservative gay men is for a woman to stand up against the angry, conservative-hating left.

Such bloggresses include: Ann Althouse, The Anchoress, Little Miss Attila, Tammy Bruce, Wizbang‘s Lorie Byrd, Dymphna of Gates of Vienna, e-Claire, Jane Galt of Asymmetrical Information, Townhall’s Mary Katharine Ham, Bridget Johnson of GOP Vixen, Sondra K of Knowledge is Power, Carol Platt Liebau, National Review Online‘s K-Lo (Kathryn Jean Lopez), Kate MacMillan of small dead animals, Michelle Malkin
neo-neo con, Betsy Newmark of Betsy’s Page, Pamela of Atlas Shrugs, Virginia Postrel of The Dynamist, Pat Santy, Debbie Schlussel, Alexandra von Maltzan of All Things Beautiful, Cathy Young.

If you would like to nominate a blogress, merely post a comment naming that strong woman and providing a link to her web-site. If you find a blogress in the list above whom you believe should be part of our competition, please second her.

Just after 9 PM 9PM Eastern Standard Time (6PM in the Pacific) on Sunday, December 9 at 9PM Eastern Standard Time (6PM in the West), Bruce and I will review the comments and select those to include in the first round of balloting, which will take place from December 10 until December 16. Those blogresses will the highest number of votes will compete in a run-off from December 17 until the 23rd so we may crown our diva in time for Christmas.

All nominees, by dint of the very nomination, are already divas. But, only one woman can become the Grande Conservative Blogress Diva.

Share

75 Comments

  1. I thought “diva” meant “total bitch”.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 4, 2007 @ 11:47 am - December 4, 2007

  2. Funny thing, all those women you consider, “strong women,” have at least one anti-gay post on their blogs and many–like Kate from SDA–have multiple anti-gay posts.

    [Back up your point with links to actual posts these women have written. While I haven't read every single one of the posts every single one of those women has written, given what I have read from those I visit on a regular basis, I have yet to discover one anti-gay notion and have very often discovered criticism of anti-gay attitudes as well as support for same-sex civil unions and even gay marriage. -Dan]

    Obviously, one way for a woman to, “…command the respect of conservative gay men…” is to not only, “…stand up against the angry, conservative-hating left.” but also routinely trash gay people.

    I suppose the enemy of your enemy is your friend, even if they loathe you as much as any liberal. Sad.

    Comment by John Santos — December 4, 2007 @ 1:35 pm - December 4, 2007

  3. I’m torn between Michelle Malkin, The Anchoress, Dymphonia @ Gates of Vienna, and one not on there: Nice Deb.

    Comment by John — December 4, 2007 @ 1:46 pm - December 4, 2007

  4. Yeah John… but Tammy… I am not such a fan of her blog, but I can never get over how awesome she is when I see her speak in person… Vince P recently posted a great interview link with her, wish I could find it…

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 4, 2007 @ 2:10 pm - December 4, 2007

  5. “Back up your point with links to actual posts these women have written.”

    Dan, go to their respective blogs and sites and use their search function, just like I did. I’m not going to post every single posting, from every blog as a link here in the comments section.

    [if you're going to make an accusation, you need to back it up with facts, not depend upon me to do it for you. I have read each of those blogs on more than more occasion, but some only a few times as they had been recommended to me in years past by other bloggers/readers, so I can't vouch for everything they say. Nor need I. You've made a blanket accusation about all the blogresses listed, yet offer an example from only one. And a dubious one at that. --Dan]

    “have very often discovered criticism of anti-gay attitudes”

    Oh, yes. When they are trashing groups they don’t like. Kate will denounce homophobia, when talking about Islamofacists:

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007545.html

    Yet, will ridicule transgendered people to defend noted homophobe Dr. Bailey:

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006883.html

    By the way, Bailey’s “research” consisted of talking to a handful of trans women in a bar. Bailey is also the person who said a genetic reason for homosexuality must be found and parents of potential gay children should be given the info so that they may decide to abort, or “change” the child before they become an adult.

    That’s just a tiny sampling which will be ignored in the rush towards hero worship.

    Howabout an award for LGBTQ soldiers who have done good in Iraq and Afghanistan, Dan?

    Comment by John Santos — December 4, 2007 @ 2:12 pm - December 4, 2007

  6. I know this is off-topic, but it is blog-related, and follows up on last week’s post about mentally ill Democrats: The Second Annual Worst Quotes from the Kostards is up.

    Derangement and Hatred of America? It has them.

    Comment by V the K — December 4, 2007 @ 2:50 pm - December 4, 2007

  7. John Santos: Your first link shows Kate being pro-gay. And your second link does nothing to show Kate being remotely “anti-gay”. Her post had to do with *transgender* issues (not gay)… and even on those terms, it amounts to nothing. A transgender academic attacked another academic, who had written a book on transgender issues. Kate reported it. Big freaking deal.

    Your original claim was “all those women… have at least one anti-gay post on their blogs and many… have multiple anti-gay posts.” You’ve done essentially nothing to support it, thus far. We have learned that Bailey (the academic who wrote the book Kate mentioned) really irks you. That’s it.

    Howabout an award for LGBTQ soldiers who have done good in Iraq and Afghanistan, Dan?

    That is a great idea! Although – is it practical? Does anyone – be it the military, SLDN, or some other gay group – identify which soldiers decorated in Iraq and Afghanistan are gay or lesbian?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 4, 2007 @ 3:13 pm - December 4, 2007

  8. As to whether Professor Bailey is anti-gay: I’m interested in any evidence that he is. However, his book on transgender issues, in and of itself, does not seem to be it. As Canada’s National Post puts it:

    Throughout his book, Prof. Bailey is politically careful about pronouns and expresses admiration for his research subjects… But ultimately his typology of trans-sexuality… proved explosive. The book attracted the attention of a small mafia of transsexual academics who organized accusations of scientific misconduct against him, compared him to the Nazis, and helped to turn the ensuing years of his life into a nightmare [with charges of personal misconduct as well]… His own university launched an investigation against him…

    In a new article for a forthcoming issue of Archives of Sexual Behaviour, intersex-rights advocate and ethicist Alice Dreger writes at the conclusion of an exhaustive independent investigation that Prof. Bailey, whom she had originally assumed to be guilty of some misconduct, was in fact an earnest inquirer who was “essentially blameless” and had been the victim of a deliberate attempt to “ruin [him] professionally and personally.” The specific charges against him have collapsed…

    So, as I said: if there is real evidence of Prof. Bailey being anti-gay, it will have to be *other than* his book/views on the unrelated subject of trans-genderism, and I’ll be happy to give it an honest hearing.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 4, 2007 @ 3:25 pm - December 4, 2007

  9. I’m looking for the Tammy Bruce links I posted before.. but for your pleasure I have all new ones right now:

    See link for entire interview

    http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/bruce.php

    John Hawkins: Now obviously you probably get a whole different class of hate mail and venom directed at you these days than you used to when you were head of…your local chapter of NOW. Any differences now between your critics on the right from back then and your critics on the left today?

    Tammy Bruce: Well, I�ll tell you something. Every experience I have is an eye opener. When I was on the left my activism began on abortion rights and even in facing pro-life individuals, I would get the occasional death threat but really nothing to speak of. Upon my being honest and coming out and writing my book and dissenting from the left as a liberal, the threats and attacks are extraordinary. It is a remarkable window into the kind of venom, the kind of hate that drives the left.

    Now my problem here is I don�t know if that�s always been the case or if that is a new development over the last decade, (but)…I have one sense that this new kind of hatred that has fomented and is a result of the left for the most part losing power to some degree in this nation or at least a shift of the American attitude (because) the left has been effectively thwarted…

    Hatred is manifest more aggressively and essentially kind of like the death throes of an effort…to try to survive and I think that�s why we saw the kind of hatred we saw in last year�s election, the kind of violence exacted against people who are conservative or Republicans. It is eerily reminiscent of how the left has always resorted to violence and threats and intimidation in order to gain or maintain power.

    John Hawkins: Now this is another quote from the book: “And as I’ve shown how fascism progresses naturally from socialism, the Democrat Party is flirting with becoming fascist. I mean it and I’m not kidding. This is not political rhetoric or hyperbole. I’ve never been more serious or more concerned.” Now, why do you say that?

    Tammy Bruce: You can see it and it�s sometimes subtle and sometimes it�s not so subtle…(J)ust after the election, as an example, and during the election last year — (there was) a shot fired into offices of Republican headquarters, an individual trying to run down Katherine Harris during a campaign rally on a street in Florida — when you had after the election a gang of a hundred masked people with bats invading a GOP office. These are events that never used to play a part in American politics.

    ========

    John Hawkins: Here’s an interesting comment from the book that I assume comes from your Post-NOW days: “Imagine my shock when I realized through talk radio that the enemy wasn’t thinking day in and day out about me. And, most inexplicable, they didn’t hate me at all.” Why did you say that and do you think the average lefty believes conservatives really hate them?

    Tammy Bruce: Oh, yes. On the left, I�ll tell you, (there were) meetings I attended where the discussion was how everyone was working to destroy us. I�ve described (this) in, �The Death of Right and Wrong,� as malignant narcissism and narcissism � and to a lot of people it�s the belief that you�re great, but it really is quite the opposite. It�s based in victimhood and it�s the belief that everything that is happening is happening because of you and as a result, imagine a leadership of a political wing of this country truly believing that everyone who is on the other side is obsessing about them, and making choices based on them, and plotting and planning to hurt them.

    So it is a self-obsession based in victimhood. Now I was raised on the left to believe that in fact this was life and death, that we�re going to destroy you before you destroy us. Now that is almost non-existent on the right, if you will. I don�t see that kind of � there�s certainly some paranoia when it comes to the extreme right � but the level of paranoia and narcissism really drives all the decision making (on the left).

    I�ll give you an example when it comes to gay marriage. If Christians are against gay marriage, the gay elite don�t believe that�s because the Christian is concerned about tradition, concerned about the future of this nation, or has a series of issues (with it) surrounding their faith, instead, of course, the gay elite says, �Oh, they�re homophobes.�

    They�ve made a decision because they hate me, that they�re thinking this way because of me, that they�re making that decision because they want to hurt me � as opposed to, that they may be against gay marriage because, again, of faith, because of the importance of the tradition of marriage. In fact, God forbid should they ever consider that it might not have anything to do with homosexuals at all, but it has everything to do with (people’s) families, that kind of deeper thinking beyond one�s self, they�re incapable of.

    That�s why on the abortion rights front there is no consideration that a pro-life individual is… really just a person of faith and really truly believes that (conception is) when life begins. Instead it�s about misogyny. It�s about hating women, it�s about controlling women, it�s about men�s jealousy of women, it�s all about us…

    I�ve grown, I�m proud to say, to realize…that thoughtful people can come to seriously different conclusions on the issues and that on the right, more often than not, it really is about the issue, and yet on the left, you have a group of foot soldiers and politicians and leadership raised and believing in the idea that everything is about them. This is a war, people are out to get them, and to suggest otherwise, of course, would completely smash the entire foundation of why the left existed in the first place. They must have an oppressor, they must have a victimizer, because their entire existence relies on it, and if it�s not there, they�ll make it up.

    ======

    John Hawkins: A related question, I guess you would have been pretty surprised when you said in the book that while Christians “hold religious beliefs against homosexuality,” they are some of the most tolerant, understanding, and kind people I have ever met.� So was that a big surprise for you when you weren�t getting condemned?

    Tammy Bruce: Yes, it was; it was shocking. For me it was quite life-changing in my sense of how I viewed the world and I was also, when it comes to my view of Christians, quite surprised by how happy they were. I mean, I remember being on the left; no one is happy, trust me. They (are the) biggest group of miserable people you would ever want to meet. Everything is wrong, everything is going bad, everyone is after you, everyone wants to get you, people are building camps.

    To speak with finally, on talk radio, with Christians, I was struck first by the genuine happiness from these people and also the fact that even though they disagreed with me, finally I was having conversations with people who were curious, disagreed with me, but didn�t want to hurt me, were interested in persuading me, and it was quite a revelation, I have to say. I owe my beginning in talk radio to that kind of — it�s the only place really where you can have that kind of exchange between someone like myself and conservative Christians and have it be safe and have it be really life-transforming.

    Comment by Vince P — December 4, 2007 @ 3:34 pm - December 4, 2007

  10. “if you’re going to make an accusation, you need to back it up with facts, not depend upon me to do it for you.”

    And again, Dan, I’m not going to post links to every blog entry on every blog mentioned by you in this post. If you have time to occasionally read those blogs, then you have time to do a quick and simple search, as I did. I provided an example about a blogger I mentioned in my initial comment.

    “You’ve made a blanket accusation about all the blogresses listed, yet offer an example from only one. And a dubious one at that.”

    And as I wrote in my second comment:

    “That’s just a tiny sampling which will be ignored in the rush towards hero worship.”

    It’s apparent that it won’t matter what evidence I provide here, it will be summarily dismissed by people who accept anti-gay attitudes in those who also harbor anti-liberal attitudes. And again, sad.

    [Let me repeat, you're the one who made the blanket accusation. You wrote that "all" of the women have at least one made at least one anti-gay post and have, at best, identified, only one of those women who may have posted such a piece. And how is it apparent that it won't matter? Again, what evidence do you have to back up that contention? What's sad is not what I said, but what you've said about us. It proves that despite how little you know about gay conservatives, you prattle on about us, making assumptions which have no basis in reality, but a firm basis in your own imagination. With each successive comment, you dig yourself an increasingly deeper hole. --Dan]

    Comment by John Santos — December 4, 2007 @ 4:41 pm - December 4, 2007

  11. “Your first link shows Kate being pro-gay.”

    As I wrote:

    “Oh, yes. When they are trashing groups they don’t like. Kate will denounce homophobia, when talking about Islamofacists:”

    Or did you skip over that part in a rush to try and prove me incorrect?

    “And your second link does nothing to show Kate being remotely anti-gay.”

    I was wondering who would be the first to shriek, “They’re not GAAAY!” Glad you were happy to accommodate me, ILC.

    “Her post had to do with *transgender* issues (not gay) and even on those terms, it amounts to nothing.”

    As interpreted by you.

    “Your original claim was all those women have at least one anti-gay post on their blogs and many have multiple anti-gay posts. You’ve done essentially nothing to support it, thus far.”

    It doesn’t matter how much evidence I provide, it will never be enough for you, ILC. You will dig in your heels and even when presented with links to her posts disparaging gays, you will spin them to make yourself feel better. I won’t be your monkey, ILC.

    [So far you've provided no evidence. You continue to repeat your notion about this blogger--and those who defend him--without even testing your hypothesis which you could easily do if your initial statement were accurate. If, as you said all of these blogresses made at least one anti-gay statement, then it should be easy for you to find such posts amidst the long list of blogresses I provided. --Dan]

    “We have learned that Bailey (the academic who wrote the book Kate mentioned) really irks you. That’s it.”

    And we have learned that for gay conservatives, gay men are pinnacle and all others are what–non-persons?

    Comment by John Santos — December 4, 2007 @ 4:57 pm - December 4, 2007

  12. “That is a great idea! Although – is it practical? Does anyone – be it the military, SLDN, or some other gay group – identify which soldiers decorated in Iraq and Afghanistan are gay or lesbian?”

    Howabout the soldiers themselves:

    JK Knight
    Eric Alva
    Keith Kerr
    Oh, but wait…

    They all challenge conservative thinking and the Bush WH, therefore are enemies of gay conservatives and not deserving of their accolades.

    Nothing to see here, move along.

    Comment by John Santos — December 4, 2007 @ 5:05 pm - December 4, 2007

  13. It’s apparent that it won’t matter what evidence I provide here…

    No, John Santos. Say rather that it’s apparent that you haven’t any real evidence, or perhaps are confused about what would constitute accurate, effective and relevant evidence.

    Kate will denounce homophobia, when talking about Islamofacists

    Translation: Kate is, in fact, fairly or at least ‘average-ly’ pro-gay; I (John Santos) just have to spin it, for unknown reasons of my own, to try and make it come out like she’s not.

    “Her post had to do with *transgender* issues (not gay) and even on those terms, it amounts to nothing.”

    As interpreted by you.

    Translation: I’m John Santos and I’ve got nothing better to respond with.

    It doesn’t matter how much evidence I provide, it will never be enough for you, ILC.

    100% wrong, John Santos. I would like it if you kindly provided ***some*** evidence. Can we please at least get to that point? Where you deign to provide ***some*** evidence of one of the blogresses mentioned thus far, actually being anti-gay?

    Again, the fact that some academic named Prof. Bailey wrote a controversial book about a different topic – transgenderism – and that Kate mentioned it at one point, is… nothing.

    And we have learned that for gay conservatives, gay men are pinnacle and all others are what–non-persons?

    Who ever said that???? LOL :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 4, 2007 @ 5:15 pm - December 4, 2007

  14. It doesn’t matter how much evidence I provide, it will never be enough for you, ILC.

    One wonders why in the hell you bothered posting at all. What a convenient excuse for the fact that you CAN’T

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 4, 2007 @ 5:21 pm - December 4, 2007

  15. P.S. And not that it will make a difference to you in the frame of mind you’ve exhibited thus far, but… I’m actually not a gay conservative. I am a liberal on many social issues.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 4, 2007 @ 5:21 pm - December 4, 2007

  16. Dunno what happened there, but you have a convenient excuse for the fact that you can’t back up your claim.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 4, 2007 @ 5:21 pm - December 4, 2007

  17. “As to whether Professor Bailey is anti-gay: I’m interested in any evidence that he is. However, his book on transgender issues, in and of itself, does not seem to be it.”

    Bailey: “Evolutionarily, homosexuality is a big mistake”
    –J. Michael Bailey on KOOP-FM, Austin, TX, May 2003.

    And:

    “As we learn more about the causes of sexual orientation, the likelihood increases that parents will one day be able to select the orientation of their children. This possibility (at least that of selecting for heterosexuality) has generated a great deal of concern among supporters of homosexual rights, with such selection being widely condemned as harmful and morally repugnant. Notwithstanding this widespread condemnation, and even assuming, as we do, that homosexuality is entirely acceptable morally, allowing parents, by means morally unproblematic in themselves, to select for heterosexuality would be morally acceptable. This is because allowing parents to select their children’s sexual orientation would further parent’s freedom to raise the sort of children they wish to raise and because selection for heterosexuality may benefit parents and children and is unlikely to cause significant harm.”
    –Aaron S. Greenberg and J. Michael Bailey, Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (4): 423-437, August 2001

    “As Canada’s National Post puts it:”

    The Natty Post is a right-wing paper, ILC.

    “So, as I said: if there is real evidence of Prof. Bailey being anti-gay, it will have to be *other than* his book/views on the unrelated subject of trans-genderism, and I’ll be happy to give it an honest hearing.”

    Fine, here it is:

    http://www.indegayforum.org/news/printer/27008.html
    http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/LynnsReviewOfBaileysBook.html
    http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/j-michael-bailey.html
    http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/HBES/Bailey%20on%20homosexuality.htm

    However, I do not have faith in your honesty, nor your desire to hear any opposing view points.

    Comment by John Santos — December 4, 2007 @ 5:26 pm - December 4, 2007

  18. You should check out Rachel Lucas

    rachael lucas

    Funny as hell and underappreciated.

    Comment by tolbert — December 4, 2007 @ 5:33 pm - December 4, 2007

  19. “No, John Santos. Say rather that it’s apparent that you haven’t any real evidence, or perhaps are confused about what would constitute accurate, effective and relevant evidence.”

    And again, ILC, no matter what evidence I provide, it will never be enough, or rather, will never convince you that your position is incorrect.

    “Translation: Kate is, in fact, fairly or at least ‘average-ly’ pro-gay; I (John Santos) just have to spin it, for unknown reasons of my own, to try and make it come out like she’s not.”

    No. As I stated, she is pro-gay, when denouncing another group she doesn’t like. As far as spin, ILC, you’re spinning like a Maytage

    “Translation: I’m John Santos and I’ve got nothing better to respond with.”

    Clearly your precious feelings were hurt with my interpretation of your interpretation. I heartily apologize, cupcake.

    “100% wrong, John Santos.”

    Clearly correct. let’s see how you handle the evidence i provided on Bailey’s anti-gay beliefs as proof that you will never accept any evidence I provide, because it does not jibe with your pre-formed opinions.

    “I would like it if you kindly provided ***some*** evidence. Can we please at least get to that point? Where you deign to provide ***some*** evidence of one of the blogresses mentioned thus far, actually being anti-gay?”

    I have provided some evidence and you demanded more. if i do the leg work and provide more, you will demand still more. I’m not going to dance for you, cupcake.

    “Again, the fact that some academic named Prof. Bailey wrote a controversial book about a different topic – transgenderism – and that Kate mentioned it at one point, is nothing.”

    Let’s see how you handle my post below, ILC. We all know how it will play out, but let’s pretend you don’t have an ironclad, preconceived opinion on this.

    “Who ever said that???? LOL”

    Evidenced by your dismissal of Bailey’s’s anti-trans writings.

    Comment by John Santos — December 4, 2007 @ 5:37 pm - December 4, 2007

  20. “One wonders why in the hell you bothered posting at all. What a convenient excuse for the fact that you CAN’T”

    I have gone through this before on other blogs–demands for more evidence, leg work on mt part; demands for more evidence, further research on my part; and still more demands for further evince. It doesn’t end.

    A simple search will take you a moment, just as it did me. However, like most gay conservatives who put other conservatives on a pedestal, you’re afraid of what you’ll find. It’s easier to jump in the dog pile and denounce what I write because it keeps you safe and secure in your ignorance.

    I rarely challenge people to provide me with evidence on blogs. When someone makes a comment I find impossible, I do the research and if they are correct, I may–or may not–acknowledge that. If they are wrong, I correct them.

    Demanding evidence is simply proof of a lazy mind and disinterest in researching, or learning something new.

    Comment by John Santos — December 4, 2007 @ 5:44 pm - December 4, 2007

  21. “P.S. And not that it will make a difference to you in the frame of mind you’ve exhibited thus far, but…”

    An inquisitive frame of mind? I can understand how that might confuse you, as you furow your brow and try desperately to comprehend the new and different ideas presented to you.

    “I’m actually not a gay conservative. I am a liberal on many social issues.”

    Many?

    Comment by John Santos — December 4, 2007 @ 5:50 pm - December 4, 2007

  22. John Santos, for the record: All I’ve done is:

    1) Ask you for some piece of evidence of your blanket contention that the blogresses GPW mentioned are “anti-gay” (your term).

    2) Point out that a single link where Kate mentions a book / controversy in a different area, is hardly such evidence.

    You keep pretending you have provided evidence. But you have not. We’re still waiting for that first piece. Again, a link where Kate briefly notes an academic controversy on some subject, ain’t it.

    I’m beginning to suspect, John Santos, that you have no evidence, and are manufacturing smoke and controversy here to cover that up.

    Buh-bye. :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 4, 2007 @ 5:50 pm - December 4, 2007

  23. An inquisitive frame of mind?

    No, a profoundly immature and irrational frame of mind.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 4, 2007 @ 5:51 pm - December 4, 2007

  24. “Dunno what happened there, but you have a convenient excuse for the fact that you can’t back up your claim.”

    I haven’t the foggiest as to what you are referring to.

    Comment by John Santos — December 4, 2007 @ 5:51 pm - December 4, 2007

  25. “Ask you for some piece of evidence of your blanket contention that the blogresses GPW mentioned are “anti-gay” (your term).”

    And I’ve stated why I will not do the legwork for you.

    [Um, John, I think you've got that backwards. You're the one who made the allegation, so shouldn't you be the one doing the legwork? --Dan]

    “Point out that a single link where Kate mentions a book / controversy in a different area, is hardly such evidence.”

    And it is hardly a reason to claim she is not anti-gay.

    “You keep pretending you have provided evidence. But you have not.”

    I have not–and will never be able to–provide enough evidence for you.

    “We’re still waiting for that first piece. Again, a link where Kate briefly notes an academic controversy on some subject, ain’t it.”

    And again, do a simple search, as I did and you will have all the information you need at your ready.

    “I’m beginning to suspect, John Santos, that you have no evidence, and are manufacturing smoke and controversy here to cover that up.”

    I believe that no amount of evidence will ever satisfy you.

    [And no amount of evidence is just what you have provided. --Dan]

    “Buh-bye.”

    If only.

    Comment by John Santos — December 4, 2007 @ 5:56 pm - December 4, 2007

  26. “No, a profoundly immature and irrational frame of mind.”

    Time spent name calling and making unfounded accusations, could be better spent reading the links I provided on Bailey and admitting you were wrong.

    [What about providing links substantiating the first point you made? --Dan]

    Comment by John Santos — December 4, 2007 @ 5:58 pm - December 4, 2007

  27. “So far you’ve provided no evidence. You continue to repeat your notion about this blogger–and those who defend him–without even testing your hypothesis which you could easily do if your initial statement were accurate. If, as you said all of these blogresses made at least one anti-gay statement, then it should be easy for you to find such posts amidst the long list of blogresses I provided.”

    Dan, I appreciate that insinuating your comments within the comments of others is the MO around here, but it really is tiresome.

    [I'm sorry, John, but I'm just waiting for you to back up the point you made in the first post. If you'd spent less time commenting here, then maybe you could actually do what should come easily to you if your statement were accurate--find posts to substantiate your point. I've been using this comments to challenge you on that since you first started commenting here today. --Dan]

    Comment by John Santos — December 4, 2007 @ 6:07 pm - December 4, 2007

  28. So, leaving that waste of time behind…

    I’m looking forward to other people’s nominations! :-) I always learn a couple good new blogresses from this contest. (So GP / GPW, thanks for doing it.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 4, 2007 @ 6:24 pm - December 4, 2007

  29. “So, leaving that waste of time behind”

    Considering how fast you responded to my other comments, I thought you would have responded quickly regarding the links on Bailey. I suppose you’re still mulling them over.

    If you don’t like wasting your time, don’t jump into other people’s debates, ILC.

    Comment by John Santos — December 4, 2007 @ 6:35 pm - December 4, 2007

  30. Since you’re so inquisitive, John, perhaps you ought to Google Burden of Proof. You might learn something.

    As I said, if you haven’t got the sack to back up your claims, why bother commenting?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 4, 2007 @ 6:43 pm - December 4, 2007

  31. “Um, John, I think you’ve got that backwards. You’re the one who made the allegation, so shouldn’t you be the one doing the legwork?”

    I suggest you read comment #20.

    “And no amount of evidence is just what you have provided.”

    I provided two links regarding one blogger I mentioned.

    “What about providing links substantiating the first point you made”

    Why don’t you tell me how much evidence will be enough and I will provide it then.

    “I’m sorry, John, but I’m just waiting for you to back up the point you made in the first post.”

    I provided evidence to back up my first point, but it wasn’t enough for you. Why don’t you tell me exactly what it will take to convince you–how much evidence will be enough?

    “If you’d spent less time commenting here, then maybe you could actually do what should come easily to you if your statement were accurate find posts to substantiate your point.”

    You do realize telling me to stop commenting and do some research is ridiculous, while you continually post and refuse to do any research?

    “I’ve been using this comments to challenge you on that since you first started commenting here today.”

    And again, placing your comment within other’s comments is a nuisance. It’s tough enough replying to more than one person, without having to also comment on comments within a comment. You’re probably the kind of man who plays Beatles records backwards.

    Comment by John Santos — December 4, 2007 @ 6:44 pm - December 4, 2007

  32. “Since you’re so inquisitive, John, perhaps you ought to Google Burden of Proof. You might learn something.”

    All I read in your comment is fear of realizing something ugly about people your worship. Don’t worry, sweetheart, I won’t take away your security blanket of ignorance.

    “As I said, if you haven’t got the sack to back up your claims, why bother commenting?”

    And as I’ve written, I won’t dance for you, cupcake. I’ve gotten into these pissing matches before where no amount of evidence is enough. Do the research, if you wish and prove me wrong.

    Comment by John Santos — December 4, 2007 @ 6:48 pm - December 4, 2007

  33. Well, I’m outta here, I have a showing. It wasn’t fun, but it was interesting.

    Comment by John Santos — December 4, 2007 @ 6:52 pm - December 4, 2007

  34. Whoops, gotta circle back to catch one last thing, just for complete fairness.

    John Santos’ #17 must have been delayed in moderation, and has only appeared some minutes ago.

    John Santos, #17 still doesn’t provide evidence for your blanket claim about Kate and other conservative blogress divas being “anti-gay”. However, it does answer a side request that I had made, for information about Prof. Bailey’s views on the subject of gay people specifically. Thank you for obliging me on that point. Paul Varnell at Independent Gay Forum, at least, is a writer I can respect, and his review of Bailey’s book has a few holes, but clearly it at least tries to be thoughtful (as opposed to emotional).

    I see you had mentioned something about “admitting I’m wrong” but I’m afraid that makes no sense! Again, I had ASKED you for information about Prof. Bailey’s views about gay people specifically, since (by my own admission) I had none, and had made no claims about his views on gay people.

    I will leave off any discussion of your little attack on me at the end of #17, except to say briefly that I think it betrays the deep-seated prejudices with which you arrived at this blog.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 4, 2007 @ 6:57 pm - December 4, 2007

  35. I thought you would have responded quickly regarding the links on Bailey.

    Again, your #17 was apparently caught by the spamfilter. (Links often cause that.) That would mean it really wasn’t visible to anyone but you, princess, until a few minutes ago.

    don’t jump into other people’s debates, ILC

    Again, what I’ve done in this thread is:

    1) Ask you for some piece of evidence of your blanket contention that the blogresses GPW mentioned are “anti-gay” (your term).

    2) Point out that a single link where Kate mentions a book / controversy in transgenderism, is far too weak to count.

    Thus, you keep pretending you have provided evidence of Kate and other blogresses being anti-gay, but you still have not. Good job manufacturing smoke and thread controversy, though!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 4, 2007 @ 7:03 pm - December 4, 2007

  36. And now that your #17 did appear, and I’ve seen it and provided the precise acknowledgment it merits, it’s really goodbye.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 4, 2007 @ 7:09 pm - December 4, 2007

  37. If I put up a John Santos is an asshole post does that count as anti-gay?

    [GP Ed. Note -- Eh... not anti-gay.... but definitely violating our commuinty terms of conduct. If this truly is SondraK, I'm getting in touch with you directly :) ]

    Comment by SondraK — December 4, 2007 @ 7:11 pm - December 4, 2007

  38. Commenting to another post, Gothguy suggested Cassy Fiano. Never heard of her, but I’ll try to check her out.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 4, 2007 @ 8:40 pm - December 4, 2007

  39. I will correct myself here: Many bloggers–oh, SandraK for example–don’t need to be anti-gay. Her readers and commentators do a fine job of bring homophobia and anti-gay sentiments to any debate.

    Comment by John Santos — December 4, 2007 @ 9:12 pm - December 4, 2007

  40. Translation: Santos got pwned at Sondra K’s blog.

    Comment by V the K — December 4, 2007 @ 9:24 pm - December 4, 2007

  41. Actually V The K, what has been proven is that conservatives will immediately crawl into the gutter and use anti-gay language, yourself included.

    I won’t be loosing sleep over the comments of a bunch of anonymous posters, but will keep the posting as proof that conservatives are the phobes that we all know they are. I’m sure my readers will enjoy this.

    Comment by John Santos — December 4, 2007 @ 9:29 pm - December 4, 2007

  42. Her readers and commentators do a fine job of bring homophobia and anti-gay sentiments to any debate.

    Too bad that Mr. Hysteria here hasn’t realized that some of these same commentators are gay/lesbian themselves.

    The mere concept escapes him.

    Comment by The Ugly American — December 4, 2007 @ 9:50 pm - December 4, 2007

  43. Not providing evidence of a claim is simply proof of a lazy mind and wanton, recreational sliming. Link up or shaddap.

    Comment by Claire — December 4, 2007 @ 9:59 pm - December 4, 2007

  44. Getting to the point:
    Second Sondra K.

    Game over, hand her the Tiara.

    Comment by Jerry the Geek — December 4, 2007 @ 10:35 pm - December 4, 2007

  45. except to say briefly that I think it betrays the deep-seated prejudices with which you arrived at this blog.

    Oh she’s not new. She’s been here before and if I recall, was banned.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 4, 2007 @ 11:40 pm - December 4, 2007

  46. Uh, John #39.

    There was no DEBATE to be had. If there was, you should have politely invited me to which I most likely would have declined not having the time to “debate” someone I never even knew existed until now on a topic that couldn’t interest me less.

    You made a crappy comment that broadly included me and it was untrue and very stupid. You might best have simply apologised and moved on.

    But YOU chose not to and we responded to retarded as we do best. You are NO BETTER than any of us.

    Comment by SondraK — December 4, 2007 @ 11:46 pm - December 4, 2007

  47. So, where do we find your readers, John?

    Comment by SondraK — December 4, 2007 @ 11:47 pm - December 4, 2007

  48. John Santos, you ignorant slut.

    While gay men tend to reverence (GPW’s word) strong women, they also tend to loathe strong women who don’t reciprocate. Which isn’t the same as being “anti-gay.”

    Further, when certain divas align themselves with specific parties and candidates (note Cher fawning over the Clintons in the opening seconds of this gala fundraiser), it is inevitable and appopriate for people with differing opinions about LGBTetc. issues to seek out other parties and other candidates.

    TTFN.

    Comment by Jeremayakovka — December 5, 2007 @ 12:32 am - December 5, 2007

  49. Oh she’s not new. She’s been here before and if I recall, was banned.

    Well TGC, that would explain why she played all her cards (complaints and mind-games) way, way, way, WAY too early. WAY before she had anything to justify them, in this thread.

    I got the feeling she just needs attention. Maybe never had a real friend?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 5, 2007 @ 12:47 am - December 5, 2007

  50. Click for visuals. Cher for Bill. Diana Ross for Bill (also Whoopi).

    Comment by Jeremayakovka — December 5, 2007 @ 12:53 am - December 5, 2007

  51. I would like to nominate Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury.

    That should get Jon Santos worked up…

    Comment by PatrickP — December 5, 2007 @ 1:07 am - December 5, 2007

  52. 48: Jeremayakovka

    I been trying to get people to see that video for a few weeks now.. it’s amazing what Her Thighness gets away with.

    Comment by Vince P — December 5, 2007 @ 4:13 am - December 5, 2007

  53. This is funny:

    RAP BANNED!
    I have to say that I don’t like rap music, maybe it’s a sign of my advancing years! However I was intrigued to read that homophobic rap music has been banned in Brighton in case it offends the city’s large gay population. Music venues in the city have been ordered not to play certain tracks by artists such as Eminem and 50 Cent. But hey, it offends me also so why do homosexuals get the priority? If gays can get Rap music banned, can we hetero’s get gay music banned? Isn’t it time Cher and Kylie got the axe?

    Comment by Vince P — December 5, 2007 @ 4:56 am - December 5, 2007

  54. #52, Backatcha, VtP! It’s beyond “amazing” – it’s an affront to any benchmark of political decency

    I propose for Honorable Mention for GCBD Camille Paglia. She’s neither conservative nor a blogger (her online presence is monthly columnist at Salon.com). Based on her recent spot-on criticism of Ms. Rodham Clinton, I say she deserves an asterisk (if not an exclamation point).

    She is, like me, ever the interstitial contrarian.

    Comment by Jeremayakovka — December 5, 2007 @ 5:25 am - December 5, 2007

  55. I second The Anchoress and want to nominate Fausta Wertz

    Comment by Obi's Sister — December 5, 2007 @ 8:48 am - December 5, 2007

  56. spot-on criticism of Ms. Rodham Clinton

    Comment by Jeremayakovka — December 5, 2007 @ 9:58 am - December 5, 2007

  57. The onliest lady what could takes mah vote away from SondraK (or Sandrak as a certain left-wing nitwit calls her) is Laura Ingraham, but fortunately, she doesn’t blog.

    Comment by V the K — December 5, 2007 @ 10:36 am - December 5, 2007

  58. I nominate Tammy Bruce. Is there a rule against multiple winners? Just don’t, for the love of God nominate Star Parker. After she said that comment in October at some conservative forum that “we should quarantine all the sodomites” I lost all respect for her.

    Comment by Jimbo — December 5, 2007 @ 12:46 pm - December 5, 2007

  59. I nominate Tammy Bruce too.

    Comment by Vince P — December 5, 2007 @ 1:14 pm - December 5, 2007

  60. I may be a bit biased, but I’m going with Bridget for this one. My back-up vote would be for Tammy Bruce, purely for having a gun named Snuffy.

    Comment by Crabs — December 5, 2007 @ 1:58 pm - December 5, 2007

  61. I nominate SondraK. Nothings changed, she is still the ultimate.

    Comment by MitchM — December 5, 2007 @ 5:31 pm - December 5, 2007

  62. Tammy Bruce #1
    Michelle Malkin close 2nd

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — December 5, 2007 @ 6:44 pm - December 5, 2007

  63. Ha! I’d be intrested in reading my own “anti-gay” entries. They might broaden my mind.

    I’m afraid I might be out of my league here, though. At least last year I didn’t come in dead last!

    Rachel Lucas alone may kick my butt . . . it’s sure nice to have her back.

    I may vote for Tammy, or Fausta . . . or Virginia Postrel! (Unless I may the short list, in which case: me me me!)

    Comment by Little Miss Attila — December 6, 2007 @ 9:50 am - December 6, 2007

  64. I happen to have once owned the same model gun as Tammy: I named it Betty. Unfortunately, my mother stole it. Oh, well.

    Also–and speaking of firearms–you MUST include Zendo Deb at TFS Magnum:

    http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/

    Comment by Little Miss Attila — December 6, 2007 @ 9:59 am - December 6, 2007

  65. I think all my sisters from The Cotillion need to be considered. Heck, half of them are already on your list!

    Comment by Greta Perry — December 6, 2007 @ 10:17 am - December 6, 2007

  66. I second the motion for Little Miss Attila and nominate e-Claire. Just because.

    Comment by Darrell — December 6, 2007 @ 10:36 am - December 6, 2007

  67. Lots of great talent out here, huh?
    I’m torn.
    Tammy Bruce, Michelle Malkin and Debbie Schlussel are my faves here.
    Tammy’s gonna get my nod based on her recent killer essay about feminists and Islam.

    Comment by mean Gene — December 6, 2007 @ 2:16 pm - December 6, 2007

  68. Just saw this! Thanks guys – coolio! You’ve put me in great company – what more can I ask?

    Comment by The Anchoress — December 6, 2007 @ 8:02 pm - December 6, 2007

  69. I’d nominate one of my favorite blogresses on the whole interweb, the “Dyspeptic Marine wife/tech wench” who until just very recently blogged Villainous Company She just retired from blogging after several years of writing one of the best blogs around. But you woudld have to be familiar with her blog because she has taken down all her archives.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 7, 2007 @ 2:35 am - December 7, 2007

  70. I hereby wholeheartedly second the nomination of Pamela of Atlas Shrugs!!

    Comment by Bruce W. — December 7, 2007 @ 12:57 pm - December 7, 2007

  71. Seconding Little Miss Attila!

    Comment by Janette — December 7, 2007 @ 1:37 pm - December 7, 2007

  72. Thank you for nominating Pamela of ‘Atlas Shrugs.’ Pamela stands bold and defiant against the Jihad and against the Left who give it cover. Pamela obtains interviews (podcasted on BTR) with serious, highly-placed people who share their insights with us. I’ve known Pamela for over two years, and she has my highest regard for her courage to tell the truth no matter how un-PC it is or no matter how much derision she will be subjected to her detractors (those who have actually devote hours to writing blog posts unflattering to her.) Pamela is a role model for anybody who wants to make a better world. Thanks again for considering her!

    Comment by x_dhimmi — December 7, 2007 @ 1:51 pm - December 7, 2007

  73. I’m with Little Miss Attila. Where the hell are these alleged anti-gay postings on my site? I even posted my sisters-in-law’s wedding pics!

    Comment by Virginia Postrel — December 8, 2007 @ 4:03 am - December 8, 2007

  74. E-Claire and Kathy Shaidle are nominated….may I second them?

    Comment by SondraK — December 8, 2007 @ 11:39 pm - December 8, 2007

  75. Sondra K, I think you just did.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 9, 2007 @ 2:05 pm - December 9, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.