Got-damn, Ace, I love you like no other, but lately you're on Sullivan's back more than his boyfriend is. Was there, uh, something you wished to share with the group?

More on-topic: I didn't like "outing" when AIDS activists were advocating it, and I don't like it any better now. Given Sullivan's own nasty experiences with it in that particular regard, I don't expect he's any happier with the practice now.

Hell, Ace, go for it. Personally, I don't think there's such a thing as being too strident in pointing out hypocrisy...the damn hypocrites count on their detractors to get bored and tired of pointing out the duplicity.

I don't think of it as beating a dead horse. I think of it as tenacity...a sterling quality!

I'm expecting he'll claim he's been to busy in the whirlwind of his P-town social life -- expect lots of conspicuous references to his boyfriend -- and lighten up on his blogging for a little while. Just a hunch.

"Activist Mike Rogers has been calling the offices of at least 13 members of Congress urging the closeted gay staffers to confront their bosses on the issue, and outing them to the chiefs of staff if they refuse to discuss the issue with him."

Sounds just like blackmail to me, pure and simple, and yes, for consistency's sake, A.S. should be outraged, and yes, Ace, it's not unreasonable to point this out.

good job Ace, but remember, he gets tons of email. He can't read every piece.

[cough]bullshit[cough]

This story has already grown cold. No need to blog about it now; gotta stay cutting edge, you see.

Given Sullivan's own nasty experiences with it in that particular regard, I don't expect he's any happier with the practice now.

You don't expect? Well, I would expect him to say something about it-- as the entire topic touches upon his three Big Issues, homosexuality, sexual privacy, and gay marriage.

And yet, Ilyka, it's day four with no comment.

Why do you imagine that is?

Is it possible that he, like Kerry, just hasn't had the time?

Well, Ace, given that he just hasn't had the time to attentd National Security Briefings, that's indeed possible.

/snark

Doh. Missed the "like john Kerry", thought you were talking ABOUNT Kerry. Never mind, move along, nothing to see.

Ace,

I agree with you on this one.

The three issues you mention, "homosexuality, privacy, and gay marriage," have been at the forefront for Andrew Sullivan, and it is surprising that the outing of an elected national representative should not be met with sudden alarm and vigorous condemnation.

Leave us not forget Sully's own standards when it comes to not vigorously condemning something which is so outrageous. Does anyone remember his ranting that National Review and other conservative entities said either nothing or too little about the Virginia attempts to curtail homosexual rights? According to Sully, their silence implied tacit approval, and he vigorously condemned them for it.

So by his own standards Sully is A-OK with blackmailing closeted homosexuals if it advances the Noble Struggle (TM) for gay marriage,

Please don't attribute venal motives to Sullivan. Perhaps he's just afraid to tangle with Signorile again for fear of further revelations.

Actually, I emailed Sullivan after the Goldberg outing and got a rather quick, all lowercase reply. I replied to that and got another reply. So he does reply.

Perhaps he's just afraid to tangle with Signorile again for fear of further revelations.

The mind boggles at what they could be. No, don't tell me, I don't wanna know.

Jeff,

Why give him such a pass? I have come to believe that Sullivan will pretty much do or say anything to defend his pet project. The proponents of gay marriage can do no wrong, the opponents can do no right. If that means being a hypocrite, sign Sully up.

My top 10 (okay, four or five) alternative explanations for Sullivan's allegedly egregious egregiousness are right here. I'm careful to allow in that comment that it may be quite true that he's just being inconsistent.

But now I come to myself and remember that inconsistency can also be understood as flexibility or prudence. I rarely hear the word "prudence" fall from anyone's lips when moralizing, which in a way is surprising, since the ancients, perhaps most notably Aristotle, considered prudence the greatest of the moral virtues, distinct from and higher than justice, moderation, and courage.

On that account, even if we found a perfect demonstration that Sullivan has been unjust, we'd still need a demonstration that he's also been imprudent before we could conclude he's been wicked.

But as I write, it strikes me that many writers here give the impression of wishing that Sullivan would just go away. Indeed, he's not obligated to be a pundit--or will someone now say that God has given him a mandate? So he didn't comment. And on something else he will comment. And on yet something else, he won't. If he's not obligated to say anything at all, what's the source of his obligation to say anything about this?

Doug,

Give it up. It's embarassing already.

UPDATE: Sullivan speaks -- he's just come out with a Time essay called 'Hendra's Secret? The Limits of Privacy'. Amazingly, it contains not ONE WORD about the Mikulski outing. You gotta give him credit for sheer unmitigated gall.

FYI I just checked, you weren't chosen as Email of the Day again. Sorry.

"Give it up. It's embarassing already."

The "argument" from shame doesn't work on me.

poker me up