We'll call for the swift resignation of the morally-disabled David Vitter, and set up the appointment of his replacement by a Democrat governor...

...if you will call for the resignation of the physically-disabled Tim Johnson, with the Republican Governor of South Dakota naming his replacement...

Deal? No? Okay, we'll throw in a third-round draft pick in 2008, and a politician to be named later, too.

What a hateful worm you are, Conason. You despicable trash-meister.

All I want to say to Conason (and then wash my hands) is McGreevey... Studds... Frank...

You worthless blowhard, Conason. When your party wants to make it part of their platform that gay marriage shall be the law of the land, get back to us. You might just want to check with all of your candidates, particularly Rahm Emanuel's recruitment class of 2006, and see if they agree. Then let's talk about how it goes for you in the next election after the Democrat party becomes the party of absolute societal normalization of homosexuality.

No comment needed. Just a headlined question.

You might know better than me -- wasn't it actually THREE adminsitrations? Whatever. I understood you perfectly. You were right. I just wanted to highlight the fact(s) that you wanted everyone to forget.

As for me, I'd approve a much, much more aggressive FISA, and a far less restricive wall between foreign and domestic intelligence gathering, and I wouldn't care who is in the White House.

(For those who hadn't realized it, the great liberal idol Bobby Kennedy was listening to wiretaps of Dr. King & Co. while he was serving his brother as the United States Attorney General... Good thing that no Democrats ever politicized the office of Attorney General and the DoJ!)

btw, I lost a bet. I had the "Under" at five responses before the first Letter accusing me of being gay. (How did you all know? Was it my light touch on the keyboard?)

Anyway, I am looking forward to all of the new-found support for all the Gay Republicans; John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.

Barbra Streisand; Madonna; Rosie O'Donnell; when can we schedule all of you for our next Gay Republican fundraiser? We'd like the emphasis to be on show tunes, please.

I was getting scandal-fatigue, but with the new depths to which Joe Conason has taken this site, things are getting a lot more amusing.

@ Elephantman....

Why are you defending Craig? Since your party hates gays you should be the first one calling for his severed head (literally). I would think you would want all these nancy boys out of your party so you can feel more comfortable when it comes time to ship all queers off to the death camps.

-- fightthetheocracy

I didn't! I haven't once defended Craig, anywhere. To the contrary. I said, some days ago, that I expected him to resign, and to do it quickly. I said he is damaging the party with every day that he remains. I said we Republicans learned a lesson from the Mark Foley scandal, and that is to cut loose from such problems quickly and efficiently. I hope that Foley and Craig send shock waves through the party; if you have issues, get help for them. You'd better be honest, because there are clearly forces on the left that would like to use these scandals to hurt the Republican party. In fact, it isn't even necessary to blame the left for Craig and Foley, who self-destructed. If anybody thinks that there is something within themselves that is inconsistent with, or anathema to, Republican policies, it would be best for them to not be in the Republican leadership. As for out gays who are comfortable with being Republicans and voting Republican, good. The more, the better. We want to win elections, not conduct purges.

And as to the phony business about the Republican party being the party of homophobes while the Democrat party is the party of caring nurturers -- think about this; how exactly do Virgina's two Senators, Republican John Warner and Democrat Jim Webb, differ on homosexual rights issues?

Democrats and gay marraige

There is an argument that the democrats are also not very supportive of gay marraige and or rights. Fair enough, here's the real poop: the democrats are afraid to admit that they support gay marraige because if they did, the James Dobson zombies would come out of the woodwork in droves to keep them out of office. Probably more then they would to stop terrorists. For some odd reason, this issue has rallied many on the republican right more then any other.

It is not that the democrats don't support it, it's that if they admitted it, they would be out of a job next election. That is not the democratic voters doing that, that is the many republicans who seem to think this issue is more important then anything else.

-- fightthetheocracy

Right. That's what we Republicans keep telling voters; if you are for gay marriage (and more taxes, more lawusits, bigger government, etc.) go ahead and vote Democrat. But if you are opposed to gay marriage, don't believe the Democrat who tells you that his or her party opposes it and won't make it law. Those Democrats are either saying something they don't believe, or can't keep from happening in their own party. Democrats in that regard are as closeted, as ashamed, as duplicitous, as hypocritical as Foley or Craig were.

As for the 'James Dobson zombies', that would account for something like 60% or 70% of the electorate in most states. Gotta whole lotta zombies goin' on! Fight that theocracy! Onward zombie soldiers, marching as to war!

...than on the first Tuesday in November in an even-numbered year.