Great timing, Brian, I read something about the scroundels at the Times yesterday and briefly alluded to it in an entry today. Some of us in the blogosophere, particularly, Atrios, Josh Marshall, Dave Niewert, Roger Ailes and myself, have been mining the Times-neo-Confederate connection for a while. That mindset is pretty exclusive. They have 'plans' for gays, among others. Here's a link to what the SPLC has to say about it.

Wow, Matt Drudge is gay? Who knew - oh wait Brian knew. hmmm......

I had never heard Drudge is gay before but then I don't pay much attention to such things. I think "outing" is outrageous behavior, if that's what Signorile sees himself as doing.

I have never doubted that Sullivan is self-serving and willing to put up with most anything as long as he gets to preen and stroke himself in public.

I think Drudge is worthless journalistically and have never paid the slightest attention to him anyway.

If Moon actually said this, he is a dangerous freak and you are right to point it out, denounce him, and call Sullivan on his hypocrisy. I would like to see an actual link to what Moon wrote as opposed to a third-party quote - is it no longer on the web? This should be spread far and wide. Anyone advocating any kind of theocracy should be identified and denounced.

""In early July I spoke in five cities around Korea at rallies held by the Women's Federation for World Peace. There, I declared that my wife, WFWP President Hak Ja Han Moon, and I are the True Parents of all humanity. I declared that we are the Savior, the Lord of the Second Advent, the Messiah."
Rev. Moon
Unification News August 24, 1992"

Who in their right mind takes anything this clown says seriously?

Why stand and argue with the insane?

Brian, Atrios called and wants his blog post back.

I don't think any but his cultists take Moon seriously personally, but if he controls a mainstream media outlet, he needs to be monitored and his influence made explicit. I'd still like to see the link.

"Who in their right mind takes anything this clown says seriously?"

George H.W. Bush took $100,000 from him in 1996 for a speaking engagement, praising the Washington Times as "a paper that in my view brings sanity to Washington, D.C." After Bush called Moon "the man with the vision," the reverend gave him $1 million for his presidential library.

There is a tradition of wealthy individuals (or governments) buying what appear to be just media outlets and using them to promote their perspectives. For example, before the Moonies bought it, Pat Robertson owned United Press Internatonal. The South African government funded the Saturday Evening Post for years to get its message about how apartheid was really a good thing out. The Manchester Union Leader has stayed afloat because there are wealthy John Birchers willing to back it. As Eric said, this is important because it misleads people. Outlets they consider mainstream aren't.

Debbie, the link to the SPLC article I posted above is well-worth reading. The shenanigans at the Times don't have much to do with news really. It and UPI are about promoting an agenda so far out most conservatives would not agree with it.

I didn't know Drudge is gay either. . . though I should have. Ditto on Armstrong Williams until commenters at Roger's blog told me. I think my gaydar is probably pitifully low.

I have heard rumors about Drudge's sexuality for years, but I have yet to see any proof. Then again, I don't give a fig anyway.

Gay conservatives standing by those who hate them is ooooold news. Moon being a kook is old news. That the right wing at its core would rather see queers dead than equal under law is no news flash. Too bad so many people refuse to see those things and cluelessly-cynically-honestly go along with being misled by organs such as the Washington Times, which is about as mainstream -- or fair and balanced -- as Faux News.

And frankly, I see little distinction between gay or het people who support the genocide supporters. It's all tragic, with the queers being somewhat more so. But isn't America all about teaching those considered different to hate themselves? (Massa Dubya is good -- he lets me work in the big house alongside his kinfolk!)

Thanks Brian

Wow. I had no idea Drudge's gayness was not more widely known.

To be clear, Drudge apparently does not like being called gay and is positively Clintonian on the subject.

However, he speaks (in a sideways fashion) of "dating" men.

David Brock wrote this:

Drudge picked me up at a friend's house in the Hollywood Hills in his red Geo Metro, arriving with an impressive bouquet of yellow roses. Jesus, I thought, Drudge thinks we're going on a date. After dinner at the famed West Hollywood restaurant Dan Tana's, he suggested we go bar hopping along the gay strip on Santa Monica Boulevard, which Drudge navigated like a pro. ... (Six months hence, I received the following e-mail message from Drudge, under the subject heading "XXX." Drudge wrote: "Laura [Ingraham] spreading stuff about you and me being fuck buddies. I should only be so lucky. ")

On August 12, 1997, I published in the Drudge Report a story which stated that Sidney Blumenthal had a spousal abuse past that has been effectively covered up. The report quoted an influential, anonymous Republican who stated that there were court records of Blumenthal's violence against his wife.

I now appreciate that the sources who provided me with this information were advancing a political agenda and that there is no information whatsoever to support their accusations. I am not aware of any information whatsoever that Mr. Blumenthal has ever struck his wife, and I was not aware of any such information before I published the statement on the Drudge Report, other than the assertions made by my sources. I acknowledge that no information has emerged since I published the story to substantiate what the sources told me.

I appreciate how the story could have caused Mr. and Mrs. Blumenthal anguish and distress. I sincerely regret it did so.

That sounds pretty convincing. As I said, I have never paid very much attention to him in any regard. Either way, no one associated with the Washington Times should be given a pass on not excoriating this insane call for gay genocide from its messianic owner.

Robertson never owned the UPI. At most he put some money into it while UPI was in bankruptcy in an attempt to buy it, but his bid failed.

In 1991 UPI was back in bankruptcy court. For a time the only one interested in bidding on the assets was Pat Robertson, owner of the Christian Broadcasting Network, but after performing due diligence, his bid dropped from $6 million to $500,000. In the end, a Saudi outfit called the Middle East Broadcast Centre Ltd. of London bought the company.

Thank God for that.

Correction: Robertson invested millions of dollars in UPI, though sole ownership did not occur. Read about it here.

Regardlessly, the Right Wing chain of of ownership never failed. The other investors in UPI, including the Arabs, continued to hire far Right editors and reporters. Today, it, along with its sister, the Times, employs a roster of persons involved in the neo-Confederate movement, anti-immigration groups and/or 'scientific' racism. Read the citation to my entry in Comment 1 for more information.

I was hoping Dawn would post a response after reading the comments. I believe the fact Con Girl is being criticized mainly in her official role is really significant.

Her time is constrained right now - I'm sure she will get back to it.

The Unification Church, better known as The Moonies have a long history combining a cult (of personality), Korean fascism, and political and corporate corruption in Korea and the United States. The movie "Tickets to Heaven" was largely based on the recruiting tactics of the Moonies.

As for who is furnishing Drudge's closet, I suspect the teevee networks. They don't want to spoil the ratings success of "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy", "Will and Grace" and so on, if 'murrica discovered that dorks like Drudge were gay, and were the more typical example, ie badly dressed mouth-breathers like most of the network teevee audience.

Jim's onto something. If Matt Drudge, Andy Sullivan and Armstrong Williams get their own reality TV show, gay men's claim to being cool with be hopelessly compromised.

Hey, I'm no romantic, but the thought of Drudge wooing David Brock with flowers brings a smile to my lips.

One would hope Brock had better taste.

I think the whole spoof on "Con Girl" was entirely disrespectful of her title and her accomplishments as a person.

And if they were merely making fun of her without bringing her race into it, then maybe I could agree with Mac.

Let's face it, there is just some serious duplicity going on regarding racial insults depending on which side of the political fence you are on.

I agree with Dawn's last statement - it really does seem to come down to fence-placement regarding the appropriateness of ox-goring.

And on Drudge, my opinion has always been: stupid, ugly, ridiculously dressed turd. Now he is a stupid, ugly, ridiculously dressed, gay turd - not all that much difference.

Whatever your opinion of Matt Drudge, he showed the way for normal people to harness the power of the Net and make a difference.

Chris, very true, and he has reaped the benefits to an absurd degree ever since. I am jealous, I admit.

I'm thinking the issues in the Condi poster controversy can be bifurcated -- like ruling one way on some claims in a lawsuit and the other on different claims. So, the attacks on her in her foreign policy advisor role are acceptable. However, one can argue, as Dawn does, that bringing her race into it is not acceptable. The problem is that Condi's race has so much to do with her prominence. But, for the paucity of black Republicans who can be elevated into the spotlight, we would not be discussing Ms. Rice. (And, a Rent-a-Tom like Clarence Thomas would not be on the Supreme Court.) So, as I believe Hesiod might say, her race is, from that perspective, fair game.

Her bio indicates she's got a little more going on than just being a Black Republican.

That's an impressive list, no matter your race or political affiliation.

But, would being a fast track academic in a crowded field have gotten Rice the attention it has, if she were not:

A. A woman in a 'man's field.'

B. An African-American and woman echoing views usually supported by conservative white men?

That is the question.

One could say Jean Kilpatrick paved the way. But, her bona fides were must more established than Rice's.

MD, would you feel any different about her if she were a liberal in a Democratic administration?

I have never heard Ms. Rice speak on domestic issues, so I have no idea if she is "echoing" conservative white men.

When I have heard her speak, it's been on National Security issues as befits her job and her background. Now, you may have legitimate issues with her views on foreign policy, and I know a lot of people who do.

Those are the grounds to go after her on, not whether she is a black woman who happens to be Republican.

Now, as to the point at being a woman in a man's field . . . ummm . . . haven't we gotten past that? Sure, there are pockets of resistance, for instance on Cal Pundits site the other day some commenters in response to the Doctor Dean story in the NYT's took it upon themselves to make fun of Laura Bush for having been a librarian. And, the Of Counsels at some of the larger law firms. But, to paraphrase some churchgoers who I grew up with, what this country needs is a few good deaths.

I don't feel any particular animosity toward Condi Rice. She strikes me as just another person who wants to 'get paid.' She found a way to do that.

As for comparisons, I don't care much for Carol Mosely Braun. She strikes me as just as self-centered and opportunistic as Rice, perhaps more. On the other hand, I like Lani Guinier. I believe she has some good ideas about improving the electoral process. Too bad a Democratic president dissed her to curry favor with white voters. Barbara Jordan was also wonderful, but limited in what she could do by her poor health and secret homosexuality.

The most revealing portrait of Rice I've read was written by my former colleague, Dale Russakoff, for the WaPo. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in Rice beyond the headlines.

Chris, I have no idea why you think I meant domestic issues above. Fremd.

My beefs with CR are her policies, her hawkishness, and her fealty to terrorists (of which she is one, it could be argued). She is a fine musician, I hear.

Oh, Natalie, don't you understand--a terrorist is an Arab who uses violence to achieve political ends.

Powerful Western folks (black or white) who have huge armies at their disposal cannot be terrorists, no matter what they do with those armies. It's impossible.

Keep it up, Flemming, and I'll end up having a crush on you too. :)

Uh, uh, uh. That's my blond, Nat-:).

LOL!

I'll have to be satisfied with Hugh Jackman, Melissa Etheridge, and Viggo Mortensen then.

Why hasn't Drudge commented on the latest Texas rumor, regarding the love birds Gov. Perry and Sec. of State Geoffrey Collins? Austin pol hacks claim it's been goin on for long time.