Today on Blogcritics
Home » I suppose this makes me a homophobe

I suppose this makes me a homophobe

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It works out like this: If you don’t think the Supreme Court should just make up some “constitutional right” to homosexual behavior, then you are a HOMOPHOBE and unfit for public service. Senator Rick Santorum has discovered this in the last couple of days.

Here’s the main offending Santorum quote from an interview with the Associated Press: “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

Because of this quote, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has called for Santorum to be ousted from his leadership post. Seriously. Of course, Santorum’s perfectly reasonable response that he was talking specifically about the merits of a legal case and was not saying anything about homosexuals one way or another did not mollify the Democrats.

Perhaps some of the problem can be gleaned from this quote attributed by ABC to a “leading gay activist” who says, “Question: can a politician assert that gay sex ought not be ‘elevated’ to the protection of a constitutional right without being considered homophobic? No — the issue is do gay people have the same right to privacy as heterosexual people do.”

The only likely place you could even try to get this out of the actual constitution would be the 9th Amendment, which says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” However, this would go to Santorum’s point. You’d have all kinds of rights. You’d have a right to take drugs, or do all kinds of things. The courts have never been real big on the 9th Amendment, and would certainly be interpreting it in a highly selective way to push a personal political agenda on the part of the judges.

Now, I’m all in favor of homosexuals, and legalizing drugs, and a lot of other things. It’s just not the job of the courts to do those things. They are supposed to be the least powerful branch of the government, as they are the branch least answerable to the people. If you want special protections and favor, then take it to the legislative branches that make the laws.

At about this point, we’re supposed to be walking on eggshells to try to show how tolerant and understanding we are. Mostly this is to avoid even, as they say, the appearance of impropriety. However, stuff such as this quote does not make me more inclined to appeasement or mollification. “It was deeply offensive,” said Mike Mahler, the co-editor of Erie Gay News. “It was plain, flat-out mean. There is just no other word for it. He should step down.” This dishonest political grasping does not make me inclined to some kind of brotherly outreach. No, this makes me inclined to want to slap Mahler so hard that the penis falls out of his mouth.

Yeah, I can already hear the machinery gearing up. They’ll be running ads against Santorum in his next election bid about how he was practically right there on the other side of the country helping to crucify poor Matthew Shepherd.

It’s a damned sad state of affairs that questioning the propriety of legislating from the bench can get you tarred and feathered like this. I don’t like Rick Santorum. Best I can tell, he’s just another sleazy politician. However, this kind of cheap moral intimidation that the Democratic queer nation is pushing rates far worse than anything Santorum has done in life.

It speaks just as badly of the press that these charges are presented as some kind of even arguably reasonable complaint. They do not deserve to have their complaints presented as one side of a reasonable debate. They are transparently nothing of the kind. The complainants deserve nothing but ridicule.

Powered by

About Gadfly

  • mike

    Don’t worry, Al. I don’t think you’re a homophobe. Based on this and other of your rantings on this site, I just think you’re an ignorant right wing piece of shit.

    I don’t have a problem with right wingers. I do have a problem with right wing acts.

    By the way, maybe we could get together for a drink later and then I’ll take you back to my place for some left wing sex.

  • http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/ Brian Flemming

    Al,

    I don’t think you’re a homophobe (nor do I think you are ignorant or a piece of shit, just to be clear). I like that someone on the right can happily say, “I’m all in favor of homosexuals.” I wish there were more of that.

    Santorum:

      And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it’s in the privacy of your own home, this “right to privacy,” then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it’s private, as long as it’s consensual, then don’t be surprised what you get. You’re going to get a lot of things that you’re sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don’t really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don’t be surprised that you get more of it.

    I can’t imagine that you agree with this view of what the government should be regulating in one’s bedroom, do you?

    Pundit/homosexual Andrew Sullivan has some interesting thoughts on this issue.

  • http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/ Brian Flemming

    Man, it gets even worse.

    You gotta read the whole thing:

      And that’s sort of where we are in today’s world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we’re seeing it in our society.

    By this logic the state could outlaw masturbation, or swearing. Oops–not swearing. That’s first ammendent. So, not swearing, but…lewd gestures. The state could outlaw that. Also crossing one’s legs, or squatting, I suppose.

    Not that anyone would…

    Oh, wait. I just read Santorum’s quote above again. I think as long as there are people like him (THIRD-RANKING SENATOR!), we’d better assume that they won’t stop with outlawing homosexual behavior. There is a long list of things that one could say are a “threat” to the institution of “family.”

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    I suppose I should defend this guy, being a right-wing piece of crap and all, but I trend libertarian, so I think Santorum is ridiculous. Brian, your quote in #3 is the clincher for me. I don’t want anyone in office anywhere that thinks it is any government’s business to limit individuals’ private matters. As it happens, I’m morally opposed to homosexuality, but I’m morally opposed to most of the behaviors that go on on this world, including plenty of my own, so I don’t make it a point to single out homosexuals and ignore, um, everybody else (including me).

    I don’t see why the government has the authority to outlaw anything that doesn’t obviously negatively affect other people.

    Of course, he’s got the right to say whatever ignorant thing he believes, and I hope that the people in his district vote his sorry butt out come election time.

  • http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/ Brian Flemming

    Phillip,

    I think the Republicans of Pennsylvania knew who this guy was when they elected him. He’s never hidden his feelings on these moral issues. When first elected, he carried every Republican and Republican-leaning county in Pennsylvania. Liberals and moderates both preferred his Democratic opponent, interim Senator Harris Wofford, but conservatives turned out in huge numbers and voted overwhelmingly for Santorum.

    I wouldn’t count on the electoral process to take care of him. Pennsylvania conservatives like him. The Christian right is crazy for him. His position of power is not a fluke.

    As far as I’m concerned, Santorum’s remarks offer one more piece of evidence that fundamentalist Christianity is a threat here in the U.S. I don’t know what else to call a man who possesses both these noxious anti-freedom views and considerable power.

    With any luck, this press storm will get us talking about it, and get this very important question converted from off-limits to fair game: Is fundamentalist Christianity a danger to the United States?

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    As you know, I’ve already addressed your concerns about “fundamentalist” Christianity repeatedly. I’ll summarize them again here:

    Firstly, it would be nice if everybody would make an effort to appreciate the difference between “fundamentalist” Christians and “extremist” Christians. Extremists of any stripe are dangerous when in power, be they Christian, or communist, or humanist.

    Secondly, true fundamentalism must begin with the fundamentals. Mark 12:28-31 gives but one example of Jesus spelling these out: “Then one of the scribes came, and…asked Him, “Which is the first commandment of all?”
    Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: “Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. 30And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

    People who don’t recognize this as the fundamental basis for Christianity are simply acting out of turn and are likely to descend into extremism.

    On this specific issue, this guy is hardly in a position of considerable power as I understand it. He is a Senator, sure, but one of 100, and if nothing else, this brouhaha will likely force him to either repudiate his beliefs or drop out of the race next term. Certainly he won’t be in any positions of authority within the Senate, unless I miss my guess.
    Lately at least, the Republicans have done a considerably better job of self-policing than the Democrats. I hope it continues to do so.

    Finally, I wouldn’t be so sure that voters realized the full extent of his ignorant beliefs. For example, I know many Christians with whom I generally agree (at least on more issues than I agree with you on 8^)) but that doesn’t translate into support. I might even vote for them without ever considering that they might be fixated on others private lives like this. I certainly wouldn’t expect anybody claiming to be a Republican arguing that the US government should have the right to heavily regulate private behavior.

    Now as it happens, Santorum was speaking off-the-cuff and raising what is actually a valid legal question: At what point does a right to privacy supercede the protections of others? That he sees private sexual behavior as an example of this is just stupid, and reveals much about his ignorance. A better example might be the “right” of someone to traipse around nude in public versus the “right” of children not to be exposed to people traipsing around nude in public. But what takes place inside a home between consenting adults, well, in my view homosexuality is just one of a long list of things that aren’t necessarily wonderful, but certainly shouldn’t be legislatable.

    As it is, you get concerned about people saying things like this (as do I), while my ire is raised most of all by those in D.C. who think they know better than I do how to spend my money. Heck, I’ve got a long list of beliefs that I think should render a person unfit for office, but roughly 435 or so of the people in Congress right now hit at least one point on my list, so what can we do?

    Peace out.

  • http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/ Brian Flemming

    Phillip,

    You wrote:

      On this specific issue, this guy is hardly in a position of considerable power as I understand it.

    The idea that Santorum lacks “considerable power” is ridiculous. He’s the third-highest ranking member of the majority party in the Senate. How powerful does he have to be to be called “powerful”–king of the world?

    Santorum’s views on religion and government were hardly secret, especially among those Senate Republicans who MADE him their third-highest-ranking member (this doesn’t happen by accident). You’re right–his only mistake was in publicly stating so bluntly his views, which are of course shared by a great many (though not all) Republicans.

    You wrote:

      I certainly wouldn’t expect anybody claiming to be a Republican arguing that the US government should have the right to heavily regulate private behavior.

    Have you heard of the Christian right? Are you really denying that organizations such as the Southern Baptist Convention and the Christian Coalition, to name just two of the most powerful, do not both share Santorum’s noxious views and have enormous sway over the President and other Republicans? It would be insane to assert that they do not have considerable power and seek more:

      “The mission of the Christian Coalition is simple,” says Pat Robertson. It is “to mobilize Christians — one precinct at a time, one community at a time — until once again we are the head and not the tail, and at the top rather than the bottom of our political system.”

    The evidence that the Christian right is a powerful force in Republican politics is legion. I’m not sure any reasonable observer of American politics, right or left, would deny it. If you deny this assertion, I’ll be happy to provide some of the wealth of evidence you have apparently missed.

    And it is obvious that the Christian right supports Santorum’s views:

      …conservative groups stepped up their own efforts to praise the Pennsylvania Republican for his views. One group, the Family Research Council, faulted Republicans for displaying “timid” support for one of their own.

      Most Republicans — including the White House — have avoided saying anything at all on the subject, which has touched a nerve with gay rights advocates and many Democrats.

      “It is clear that many top GOP leaders cannot bring themselves to offer a spirited defense of marriage for fear of being accused of bigotry by Democrats and their allies among homosexual activists,” said a statement from Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council.

    Do you disagree that it is safe to assume that the Christian Coalition and the Southern Baptist Convention agree with Santorum, too? Do you anticipate a firm repudiation of Santorum’s comments to be issued by Pat Robertson?

    You’re right about “fundamentalist” not being a precise enough word. Alsdo, I think it is more the influence of the Christian right in the GOP that is worrisome, as it has little impact among Democrats or independents. Therefore, I’ll rephrase:

      Is the Christian right’s influence in the Republican party a danger to the United States?

    I think the answer is clear: yes. The Christian right believes things that are anathema to most Americans, yet it has enormous influence on politicians, especially the current President. The skittishness of the press to openly discuss what the Christian right wants and how it is getting it means that for the most part voters are not informed about what is going on.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    Cute chart. Meaningless, but cute. :)

    To your revised question, I would again say “No.” If anything, it could be a danger to the Republican party, but the United States is surely strong enough to withstand an assault on it from any group as amazingly disorganized as the “Christian right.”

    As far as the “Christian right” goes, I’ve definitely heard of it. Most people who know me personally undoubtedly would call me a member of same. Those who know me really closely would probably consider me an apostate member of same, but still. I am intimately familiar with the workings of the Christian Coalition, the Moral Majority, and various other organizations. And with the benefit of all of that familiarity, I can tell you that your concerns are understandable but overblown. The Christian Coalition is foundering, just as the Moral Majority did, and the SBC is too busy fighting internal squabbles to exert any real influence over its members.

    I get the stuff in the mail. I pitch it out. Most people I know do the same, and they’re also members of the much-feared “Christian right.” Keep in mind that despite the best effort of the “Christian right” for years and years and years, they’ve still never managed to register a blip on the Christian African-American population. They’ve obviously made no inroads among the Jewish population. They’ve certainly not managed to hold much sway among Christian union members, who tend to follow their union instead of their church. All in all I think that the “Christian right” is much like various Libertarian think tanks – they’re given far more press than one might expect given their actual effectiveness in delivering votes.

    Not that I don’t appreciate those Libertarian think tanks – don’t get me wrong – but I’ve never understood how any program which gave any time to Cato, for example, could be considered to have a liberal bias.

    Anyway, the “Christian right” didn’t managed to stop President Clinton from being elected, and couldn’t even deliver a popular vote victory to President Bush. They’re not as powerful as most outsiders seem to think, they’re just good at making themselves look that way.

    So I think that they pose the biggest danger to the Republican party. That is, if they manage to make the Republican party platform their own, they’ll drive many people out of the party, ensuring Democratic leaders for the next X years.

    The Union can withstand fiercer onslaughts than that brought on by Pat Robertson, I assure you. Remember the brouhaha after Mr. Robertson’s and Mr. Falwell’s crass 9/11 comments? A lot of that came from members of the so-called Christian right, and many people (like me) were even further disillusioned by the obviously increasingly tenuous grasp on reality that those two clowns displayed.

    I’d worry more about the danger to the Union posed by statists. There are plenty of those in both parties.

    I didn’t realize Santorum was so high-ranking within the Senate, my apologies. Given that you’re now arguing one of the key points of his controversial statement in another post, I’m mildly amused by the whole thing, but generally still apalled that anyone in the Senate believes that they have the right to micromanage my private life in any aspect. He’s an idiot.

  • SlackMFer

    the reason most republicans would disagree with his statement is that in its essence, rupublicanism is about LESS government intervention in our lives. a smaller, less-intrusive government would not be expected to make laws about consentual sexual behavior, and therefor it IS decidedly un-republican to make the comments Santorum made.

  • http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/ Brian Flemming

    Phillip,

      To your revised question, I would again say “No.” If anything, it could be a danger to the Republican party, but the United States is surely strong enough to withstand an assault on it from any group as amazingly disorganized as the “Christian right.”

    If they are ineffectual and disorganized, I don’t know why Bush fears them so much. I guess he’s been fooled just like me.

      Remember the brouhaha after Mr. Robertson’s and Mr. Falwell’s crass 9/11 comments?

    You mean the comments that Bush has yet to distance himself from directly? President Bush was afraid even to NAME these guys. He said through a spokesman that the remarks were “inappropriate” and later offered a very indirect criticism. Is that the great “policing” job you were referring to earlier? Bush is so afraid of offending this important part of his base that he won’t even say, “What Robertson and Falwell said was disgusting, and I disagree with it completely. I hope they will apologize for these foul remarks.”

    He only said, indirectly, that the remarks were “inappropriate,” which clearly leaves open the possibility that he AGREES with those remarks. I can’t say I’m certain he doesn’t. How certain are you that he doesn’t?

    As far as I know, you are pretty much alone in downplaying the power and influence of the Christian Right. I’d like to believe you.

    In any case, I assume you wouldn’t object to an examination of the following questions in the mainstream media:

    –Who are the most influential figures in the Christian Right?

    –How do they exercise their influence? How much influence do they have?

    –What are their core religious beliefs, especially their beliefs about those who are not Christian?

    –How do they want their religious beliefs to be manifested in U.S. laws and policy?

    –Specifically, how much influence do any leaders of the Christian Right have with President Bush, what are Bush’s core religious beliefs, and how much does he think religion and the federal government should overlap?

    –We know there have been private meetings between Bush and leaders of the Christian Right. What transpired in those meetings? Has he made promises or statements of belief to them that he has not made in public? What were these promises or statements? Are they in line with the beliefs of average Americans? Do they contradict any of his publicly stated positions?

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    This is nothing but inflammatory innuendo. I fail to see the distinction between your constant harping on President Bush and AM radio’s constant harping on President Clinton during the last two terms. If you start with the basic assumption that the President is Evil and refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary that isn’t personally addressed to you in a number 10 envelope with DNA evidence inside, you’re going to have as miserable a time as Rush’s fans did during Clinton’s eight years.

    Bush fears the Christian right? Only in a fantasy world where conspiracy lurks behind every corner. My wife listens to Christian radio, and I read various Christian magazines, so I get the news from the so-called Christian right, and I assure you that they spend more time talking about the latest thing Bush has done to annoy them than anything else. He is “our boy” only in the sense that he professes an active belief in Christ, and nothing else. He has a reputation among the “Christian right” as someone who says and does what he feels is right, even when that runs contrary to the “accepted” Christian right position. Making up stories about how Bush fears the mysterious “Christian right” smacks of blaming all of life’s woes on a secret cabal of industrialists (including the Vatican and Colenol Sanders before he dies…).

    Did I say that Bush specifically repudiated Tweedledee and Tweedledum? No, I said “A lot of that came from members of the so-called Christian right, and many people (like me) were even further disillusioned by the obviously increasingly tenuous grasp on reality that those two clowns displayed.” That is true. I had given Falwell some credit for putting aside his general animosity and taking the time to meet with various homosexual groups to talk with them. That he then went on to preach at them afterwards, well, that’s just him. Representative of those groups at the time were pleasantly surprised as well. It’s amazing how that uniform Christian right allowed such a prominent member to step out of lock-step! Anyway, I think it’s hilarious that you quote CT on Bush’s behavior at the time.

    He’s the freaking President of the United States! A large part of that job is avoiding speaking directly against people within the country. I remember him speaking similarly indirectly (and through Ari Fleischer) about Daschle’s various shenanigans, or any one of a number of other negative events. The fact that he didn’t mention the Tweedles by name is simply a reflection of his general policy of speaking no ill of people within the borders. He spoke far more clearly about those clowns than he did about any one of a number of other idiots who mouthed off after 9/11. Where were his general or specific statements against people like Harry Browne or Noam Chomsky or any one of the dozens of other who said essentially the same thing as the Tweedles (“It’s America’s fault…”), though not wrapped up in poor Christian exegesis? That’s right, the only statement he bothered to counter was this one.

    How certain you are of anything related to President Bush isn’t my problem. It seems you’re more likely to believe that Bush spend every Saturday night in bed with Franklin Graham than to believe that he might possibly be committing one single action out of anything but a black-hearted desire to rule the world with an iron fist. I could be wrong, but the evidence so far suggests otherwise. After all, it appears that you’re so afraid of someone out there that you won’t come right out and say that, “President Bush and I simply look at the same issue from different perspectives, and while I disagree with him completely, I don’t think he’s trying to undo the Constitution and set himself up as world Emperor.”

    Amusingly, the CT article to which you link raises an important point. For such a sterling example of the “Christian right,” President Bush sure has spent a lot of time sticking up for Islam at a time when a single world would likely have been all it would have taken to start a true holy war.

    Again, from the perspective of an insider, I can tell you that there are a lot of people who are quite ready to kick all Moslems out of this country today. I work with someone who voted for Clinton twice but Bush this last time, and I constantly have to defend Islam against his (admittedly drunken) attacks. He’s not a member of the Christian right, or a Christian at all, but I am. I believe that pattern is repeated all over America, with Christians defending Islam. I’ve taken a beating on a public group weblog as well as receiving nasty emails about my own personal weblog for articles I’ve written questioning America’s war in Iraq or the tendency of some to judge Islam based on its vocal extremists, and I’ll do the same to you and your tendency to judge Christianity based on its vocal extremists.

    I’ve also spent a lot of time defending France, and taken heat from that. Not from Christians, who generally realize that any law we pass while we’re in power can be used next term against us when we’re not. From normal average everyday people who refuse to buy French clothes in Italy or French yogurt here at home.

    Anyway, I know I won’t convince you. Repeatedly observation has shown me that the only thing that will eventually convince you that President Bush will not undo more than 200 years of American history will be either the 2004 or 2008 election when someone else gets into office and we all still have the right to vote and so on. Then again, considering how many times I’ve responded to anti-Clinton emails with “Back off, the guy’s gone, get over it!” in the last year or two, maybe that won’t convince you either. Oh well.

  • http://www.robertprather.us/ Robert Prather

    Al,

    I rarely agree with how the Supreme Court gets around to making their decisions even when I agree with them.

    Nonetheless, the anti-sodomy statutes should be stricken as they are an affront to a free society. It isn’t necessary to “invent” a right to privacy because the Constitution — the text, not the BoR — protects private property. Implicit in the concept of private property is a right to privacy confined to that property.

    Performing a lewd act in public is already illegal and rightly so. The issue is what can consenting adults do in their own home. That’s why the anti-sodomy are unconstitutional: they violate a right to privacy that proceeds from the right to private property.

  • Eric Olsen

    Robert, totally with you on this – barring strong extenuating circumstances (age, coersion, etc) the government has no place in the bedroom. What millennium is this?

  • http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/ Brian Flemming

    Phillip,

    You wrote:

      This is nothing but inflammatory innuendo.

    When you offer a blanket statement like this, without telling what you are referring to, I can’t really respond. “This”? I can’t tell what “this” is. “This”? How about a quote?

      If you start with the basic assumption that the President is Evil and refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary that isn’t personally addressed to you in a number 10 envelope with DNA evidence inside, you’re going to have as miserable a time as Rush’s fans did during Clinton’s eight years.

    Sorry, Phillip. Giving me unsolicited advice (there you go again) is not the same thing as addressing the facts I presented.

    I don’t start from the assumption that Bush is evil. I have never used that term for him (although plenty of Clinton haters used that term a lot). I endeavor to be far more precise in my descriptions of Bush, and to back them up with facts.

      Bush fears the Christian right? Only in a fantasy world where conspiracy lurks behind every corner. My wife listens to Christian radio, and I read various Christian magazines, so I get the news from the so-called Christian right, and I assure you that they spend more time talking about the latest thing Bush has done to annoy them than anything else.

    This is hardly proof that Bush does not fear the Christian right.

    Here’s some evidence that he and the Republican party do fear the Christian Right:

    –Bush refused to meet with the Log Cabin Republicans. McCain did, Bush didn’t. Why? I would suggest he was afraid of alienating his base–specifically the Christian Right. Of course, this is also what every observer also sees–because it is so obvious. That Bush was afraid to be aligned with gays especially during the South Carolina primary is hardly a secret.

    –RNC head Marc Racicot had to meet very very quietly with a gay-rights group. Word got out anyway. Do you really doubt why Racicot did not make the meeting public knowledge himself, the way he does with other meetings with groups?

    –Bush refused to condemn Robertson’s and Falwell’s remarks directly, or characterize them as anything but “inappropriate,” even though those remarks received far more publicity than Chomsky’s or others. It was a top news story–and everyone was wondering how Bush, who counts these two men as supporters, felt about their comments. Unfortunately, we still have to wonder.

    –Only a tiny handful of Republican politicians have risked speaking out against Santorum in any way. Do you really doubt why?

    Bill Clinton, Slick Willie himself, provided a good model for Bush to follow when he was first campaigning for President. He chose to condemn–specifically, and in no uncertain terms–an offensive remark from the fringes of his base. Bush failed to do anything like this.

    In any case, you are once again just about alone in believing that Bush is not afraid of offending his base, including the Christian Right. I doubt you could find a political analyst who would deny such an obvious fact. What you think it outrageous is generally accepted as true.

    Not that that is a reason to believe it. Clearly the evidence makes the case. But you seem to have a position for which few others see any evidence. I certainly haven’t seen you present any.

      Did I say that Bush specifically repudiated Tweedledee and Tweedledum?

    No. I neither stated nor implied that you did. I brought it up myself–a new subject relevant to the one we are discussing.

      Making up stories about how Bush fears the mysterious “Christian right” smacks of blaming all of life’s woes on a secret cabal of industrialists…

    I didn’t make up any stories. Name one.

    The allegations are these:

    1. The Christian Right is a vital part of Bush’s political base.

    2. Bush naturally fears losing the support of this base.

    3. Therefore, Bush makes certain statements, and forms certain policies, to appeal to this group.

    4. The Christian Right has dangerous ideas about how government and religion should mix.

    5. Bush is not open about just how his relationship with the Christian Right affects his policy decisions.

    This is not a conspiracy theory. Every one of these statements is backed up by solid facts, not just opinion–in fact, with the exception of #4, I don’t think they are even controversial. And my proposal that set you off so much merely said, How about we ask QUESTIONS about the influences on our President. I didn’t say he killed Vince Foster. I said questions about the influence of the Christian Right on President Bush are fair and necessary.

    You have made an extremely poor case that such a discussion is unfair or unnecessary. Your entire case depends on the notion that the Christian Right has no significant power. This notion has no evidence to support it and a wealth of evidence to contradict it.

    You have tried to pretend I was making a different case (Bush is evil, there’s a cabal, blah blah blah…), but the case I am making still exists and it still stands untouched by any of your insults:

    A discussion of the influence of the Christian Right on George W. Bush is both fair and necessary.