Please go to this site and defend Gay republicans. Because they are getting away with atrocities.

http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?plckForumPage=ForumCategories&category=PluckForum#

If the FCC can license broadcast stations and pull their licenses on a whim, I don’t see why the same shouldn’t happen for such journalistic malpractice in print form.

If I ran a publication, even if it was overtly right- or left-leaning, I would feel ashamed as a journalist to publish such a piece as news rather than editorial/commentary.

I guess that’s why the Newseum devotes less than one-third of the space to journalistic ethics as it does to its gift shop.

I haven’t read Out in years. I thumb through a copy every now and then and remember why I don’t bother. The same for the Advocate.

But yes, it is shoddy to write an article on a subject without talking to anyone with up-to-date first hand knowledge. But what else is new. this is the lazy media. The same ones who can’t figure out anything until it lands in their laps (and even then it helps if it was already written in press release form).

Basically any time I read a story or article about a subject I know in great detail I’m appalled. This sucks but this is the modern media. Lazy, overpaid and dumbed down.

Did you write to “reporter” Charles Kaiser or to the editors of Out Magazine to voice your complaints?

I doubt it would do much good; after all you did mention that traitor to all things homosexual, Robert L. Traynham. The folks at Out probably think you deserve to be struck by lightening just for using his name! Still they deserve a piece of your mind and you might enjoy giving it to them.

So many ways today to find gay Republicans and talk to them, especially today with this thing they call the Internet. Or maybe Kaiser still focusing on the politics of the 1980s doesn’t know of modern means of information gathering.

Given the obvious stupidity of his piece, I’d be surprised to learn the man knows how to type.

It seems, however, he’s not really interested in learning what gay Republicans have to say.

Which simply means he’s a typical gay Democrat.

For these leftist scribes, their narrative is more important than the facts.

This is true of all leftists regardless of their profession.

Matt wrote to Mr. Kaiser:

I got my journalism degree with honors at Northwestern University. Where did you get yours?

Hmmm. A box of Cracker Jacks?

And I thought this comment from Art in SF was freaking hilarious:

You should only get the same rights that your political party would give you.

Sweet Jesus! How ignorant can you get? The “rights” that liberals give us is what they piss and moan about the most. Gotta dump more money and votes on ‘em though, ’cause they use their tongues purtier than a $20 whore.

I was appalled to read the one-dimensional and shopworn portrayal of gay Republicans in your story “Washington’s Gay War,” which I learned about via Chris Crain’s blog. The stereotypes you have perpetuated with this damaging piece are better suited to 1908 than they are to 2008.

I’ve been living in D.C. and active in both political and gay-community circles since 1995, and the Washington you describe is not the Washington I know. The Washington I know is one in which voters and political operatives of all stripes live in various states of “out-ness” or “closeted-ness.”

I am laboring under no delusions about which party is generally more friendly to “gay issues,” at least insofar as they are defined by liberals, but by the same token, the Democrats’ actual legislative track record on these issues belies the lip service they have given the gay community for decades, while greedily grabbing our dollars. Your casual black-hat-and-white-hat treatment of the subject is devoid of any nuance and serves no discernible purpose beyond stoking the divisiveness that is already endemic within gay ranks.

Like virtually every other mainstream media outlet, you parrot partisan bloggers who don’t bother to give a moment’s thought to the potential negative consequences of outing gay Republican staffers. I have seen firsthand how the voting records and policies of social conservatives can be nudged, even if only slightly, in the direction of greater dignity and equality for gay people. But again, that level of nuance seems to evade your capacity: It’s far easier to drive a tired meme into the ground than it is to inject new and original thought into the public discourse.

It is also amazing how you are able to lay all of the peccadilloes of gay politicians at the feet of Republicans while ignoring past scandals involving Democrats like your beloved Barney Frank, Gerry Studds and others. Statements like “everyone agrees that the Foley scandal was a key element in the Democrats’ success in retaking both houses of Congress” in 2006 are just so much partisan hackery and shoddy journalism. Everyone? Really? Most exit polls I am aware of place the blame for the 2006 GOP implosion on voter dissatisfaction with progress in the Iraq war and the fact that Republicans had “gone native,” spending like drunken sailors and cozying up to corrupt lobbyists. The Mark Foley issue was barely a sideshow in that broader context. (Before you fob off my criticism as armchair quarterbacking, I got my journalism degree with honors at Northwestern University. Where did you get yours?)

Maybe your most delicious editorial decision of all was to quote a gay reporter whose entire frame of reference appears to have been gained in two of the most liberal cities in the universe. Many of my gay friends in “flyover country” (I grew up in Minnesota and Wyoming) are insulted by this special brand of naked elitism on the part of the “egalitarian” Democrats. If a reporter were expressing similarly biased but conservative views at a major daily newspaper, I would expect for him to be fired immediately.

Perhaps if you had deigned to speak to an actual gay Republican for your article rather than ignoring us or rehashing the work of other reporters, you might have learned why some of us choose to vote the way we do, even in spite of the panoply of supposed offenses you cite. If your next article requires a relatively prominent, successful and proud gay man who votes mostly for Republicans and who is not “cowering” anywhere, my personal cell number is 202-XXX-XXXX.

I almost wish that I still subscribed to your pathetic rag, just so I could cancel my subscription.