Ah, So That Was What Glenn "Ultimate Patriot" Greenwald Was Hinting At

The idiotic fart of a post in which he basically called Instapundit and other pro-war pundits homos was very much about Thompson's sexuality.

I've written a fair amount recently about the media's obsession with the faux-masculinity of GOP candidates in general, and the tough-guy military persona of Fred Thompson in particular, and don't have all that much to add about that specific topic at the moment.

The post went on to note Chris Matthews' kinda-gay fawning over Thompson, which, to be fair, was kinda weird, I have to admit.

Put that together with this piece...

Last week, in response to Michael Moore's request that Thompson debate him over health care, Thompson -- showing what a tough guy he really is -- filmed a forty-second You Tube video where he smoked a cigar and told Moore to check into a mental hospital. Chris Matthews had Mark Halperin on his show (who, it is always worth noting, was until recently the Political Director of ABC News and is now at Time) to giggle like sixth-grade boys high-fiving each other after the cool kid they are desperate to be near (played by Thompson) unleashed some adolescent prank on the nerdy kid in the corner...

His posts continue to insinuate that if you like Fred Thompson, you must, in some way, be either a closeted gay or clueless gay who just hasn't figured out yet that he digs on manroot.

Now, the Fred Thompson gay thing has been percolating on the left and amongst gays for some time, and as Greenwald himself percolates in both groups, I'm pretty sure he's heard the gossip from his fabbo military sources at the Club Copacabanga in Rio. So why does he keep hitting this particular theme? Is it just coincidence? Or is he even more passive-aggressive than even the queen of passive-aggressive slander, Andrew Sullivan?

And on that: perhaps the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic would like to know the sewers his gay-gossip-gravevine blogger is taking his respected magazines into.

Is the publication of unsourced gay rumors now part of The Atlantic's traditions? Will they allow Andrew Sullivan to do to them what he did to The New Republic, i.e., turn a respected, serious magazine into a cheaper, tawdrier knock-off of The Gay Blade?

Can we expect to see Hillary Clinton's long, long, long-rumored lesbianism to be discussed in the new gay rumor blogs as well?

Don't you think the owners of this magazine have more of an interest in protecting the institution's reputation than allowing Andrew Sullivan free reign to peddle libelous gossip even Hustler wouldn't touch?

Perhaps they should be informed what is being written in their name.

Or did they actually consult with Sullivan on how this gay-grapevine hit could be massaged into being vague enough to be non-libelous?

I'd like some answers. Think we'll get any?

If You're An Atlantic Subscriber... please take the time to write the Atlantic and ask them if this now represents the magazine's editorial standards -- fag-bashing rumors that even Larry Flynt shies away from. And make sure to sign your name and address and note you're an Atlantic subscriber.

They sort of owe you answer. You are, after all, a customer.

posted by Ace at 01:02 AM

| Access Comments