And Kerry is more conservative than George Bush. Another of Sullivan's bizarre opinions.

I wish I could say I was surprised. But Sullivan is, as Ace has often remarked, an hysteric.

I hate to defend Sullivan, but it's really not fair to compare his post yesterday about Dreier to traditional "outings." The tone, and the target(s), were entirely different.

I see, Allah. Sullivan's post is not a "traditional" outing - no, it's an "alternative" outing. Okay, then. I can see why he'd be down with that.

Let's see:

The enlightened left thinks that any gays that want to keep their private life private must be outed immediately.

The right generally is for leaving gays alone, as long as they don't force their lifestyle into schools and marriage laws.

So which side is the tolerant one and the one respecting a person's right to choose?

Oh, I forgot. Choice only applies to terminating your inconvenient offspring.

My problem with it, more or less, is that Dreier has made no mention of his own sexuality and refuses to answer the question or make it an issue.

Sullivan condemns these outings, but hey, now that it's done and the information's useful, might as well use it.

Which I find pretty shitty of someone who's so against outing in the first place.

I understand Sullivan's point. He thinks the GOP leadership backed down when they realized they'd have a gay controversy on their hands.

But he doesn't get to be pissy for Dreier. If the congressman doesn't want to make his sexuality an open issue, Sullivan has no right to score political points by using it himself.

I see the James Dobson boogeyman is getting equal billing with The Rovinator. Who's the real puppetmaster anyway?

You know, LC, I only speak for myself, but I'm a damn conservative gyuy, and I don't even mind a discussion in the schools - as long as it's at the age when human sexuality is appropriately taught, and the school let's me know it's coming (just as they did with sex ed in general, when I was a kid). Marriage I'm even still somewhat agnostic on.

But an individual's sexual privacy should be absolutely inviolate. Sullivan's hypocrisy on this makes me furious. And Allah, sorry about being flip above, but it seems to me you're giving Sullivan a pass on this one simply because Sullivan wasn't as nasty as he could have been and because Drier's that bat in this case instead of the baseball. That makes no sense to me. Please disabuse me of that notion if I misunderstand what you're saying.

I agree with Allah - Sully presumes Dreier is gay (but makes no independent attempt to out him) and uses that presumption to accuse Republican insiders of an anti-homosexual agenda. Dreier's purported homosexuality is incidental and not explicitly stated.

But an individual's sexual privacy should be absolutely inviolate.

No! I would love to see Allah one day in a Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearing being questioned about his interest in tribbing.

Huh. I understood that Dreier was passed over because he wasn't conservative enough.

I bet some people think that the NJ governor scandal was that he was gay as opposed to that he was corrupt.

Allah is gay.

Put me down with the Moon God. I think it's at least a small stretch to say he's actually outing anybody here.

That said, some things are better left unsaid and, due to his previous aversion, he should have left the issue alone.

, but it's really not fair to compare his post yesterday about Dreier to traditional "outings."

Not sure what you mean. He's saying he's gay. That's not an outing?

Yes, he was already outed. But so were the people Sully wrote about a year ago. In that case, Sullivan, still "evolving," slammed the outers for invading the privacy of law-abiding citizens, outing them just because they didn't like their politics.

Now he "merely" builds upon their work.

I see, Allah. Sullivan's post is not a "traditional" outing - no, it's an "alternative" outing.

In the first place, Sullivan didn't out anyone. He didn't assert that Dreier is gay. I took his point to be that the mere suspicion might have been enough to scare off Rove and Dobson. (From what I gather, rumors about Dreier have been circulating for years.)

Which brings me to the larger point. Outings are designed to embarrass the person being outed because he/she isn't as vocal about gay rights as the outer would like. But in Sullivan's case, the object of ire isn't Dreier; it's Rove and Dobson for disqualifying Dreier from a leadership position because of his alleged orientation. Sullivan's not trying to destroy Dreier's career, he's trying to advance it. Big difference from the John Aravosis crowd.

Also, I think Robbie's point only helps Sullivan make his case. Dreier doesn't want to make an issue of his sexuality ... but, given the rumors about him, Rove and Dobson probably do. In that case, why not call them on it? Dreier can't do it because then he's got to answer questions about his orientation. Not so Sullivan.

I would love to see Allah one day in a Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearing being questioned about his interest in tribbing.

I will have you know, sir, that I wear my interest in hot lesbian clamjousting as a badge of pride. And so I say to you: tribadism today, tribadism tomorrow, and tribadism forever!

Ace:

I think Sullivan's point was that Dreier's sexual preferences have already come into the public sphere and have influenced the Majority Leader appointment. He's actually criticizing (obliquely) the compromising of Dreier's sexual privacy.

Dreier doesn't want to make an issue of his sexuality ... but, given the rumors about him, Rove and Dobson probably do.

So, Allah, you're thinking Karl Rove, in consultation with James Dobson, told the House who was/was not going to be the next Majority Leader?

Has anyone else heard that Karl Rove is a furry?

I don't think any edicts were issued, Brew; not even Rove has that power. But do I think the rumors about Dreier mattered to the House GOP leadership? Yeah, probably. Sullivan used "Rove and Dobson" as shorthand for "the powers-that-be" and I don't see any big problem with it.

Anyone care to guess how long before the Sullivan pendulum, now firmly in a leftward-arc upswing, begins to turn back the other way?

I say about six months.

IMO, if sexuality should be private, then it should be kept that way. No more gay pride parades! No more necking in the park! No more really fat, ugly rednecks groping each other in the popcorn line at the theater!

But do I think the rumors about Dreier mattered to the House GOP leadership? Yeah, probably

Unfortunately, you may be right. FWIW, from my 'Religious Right' perspective, James Dobson's influence is way overstated, though. W's Christian world view is substantially different then Dobson's.

Sully's out of line here. Dreier's polite evasions amount to "none of your damn business," which is the only answer questions about sexuality deserve. Job-related hanky panky is a little different. Clinton's sleazefest was disgusting, but the gender of the intern he was playing hide-the-Vienna sausage with was irrelevant.

Incidentally, RCP is now saying that Sully may have libelled SecDef Rumsfeld. Hard to bellieve I once admired his editorial work on a magazine I once thought was worth reading.

huh? People still read AS?

Was it the rumors, or the possible truth behind the rumors?

The Moon God totally discounts the former factor. Baloney.

I will have you know, sir, that I wear my interest in hot lesbian clamjousting as a badge of pride. And so I say to you: tribadism today, tribadism tomorrow, and tribadism forever!

Will they allow a PowerPoint presentation at your hearing?

Might it be that the GOP leadership was concerned what the MSM and activists would do with that info (as with Gannon) and wanted to avoid going there? If so, seems to me they were dead on. It's the gay activists (and other friendly neighborhood lefties) who make life hard on gay conservatives, not other conservatives.

And thats why ANDREW SUKKIVAN and MICHEAL MOORE should both appear in public wearing T-Shirts reading STUPID and IM WITH STUPID

And this should be important to me...why?

I hope the wheels fall off his band wagon and the horse kicks him real hard in his butt with both hooves and leaves two big U marks in his backside

what do you think rove said to dobson to get dobson's support of harriet miers?