That said, conservatives love what they perceive to be her fearlessness, the same quality that no doubt provokes the wrath of liberals who cannot stand to see an attractive woman stand up for what have come to be known as traditional values.

I don't see what her "attractiveness" has to do with anything. But it's a typical "wingnut" evasion of the issue. Rather than defend anything Bachmann actually says, our anonymous wingnut simply makes ad hominem attacks against people who have problems with Bachmann's statements.

No, we don't dislike Bachmann's statements because she's "attractive", or because she stands up for "traditional values". We dislike her statements because they appear to be deranged. This is a person who urges armed resistance to the President's environmental poicies. She fears that national service is going to lead to "re-education camps". She has claimed that Obama has a secret plan to force the US to adopt a (currently non-existent) global currency.

This goes well beyond "traditional values".

Indeed, I find this notion that Bachmann represents "traditional values" at all to be contentious. It seems to me that the only "values" she stands for are the notion that her group of people should be in power, regardless of their failures over the past decade.

I know conservatives love to pretend that their value system is the only "traditional" one out there, but it simply is not true. Your anonymous "wingnut" has defended Bachmann by pretending the offensive nature of Bachmann's statements simply does not exist. It is a strategy of denial.

And the notion that liberals are offended by her "attractiveness" is ludicrous.

America is 50.7% female. Therefore, the US is a female nation.

Your paranoia about Islam would be amusing, if you were the sole nutcase out there.

Mike Allen doesn't know the first thing about journalism, and he proves himself to be the idiot. He says that he was told that he could use the email "on background". That phrase has a precise meaning, and part of that meaning is "do not quote me exactly".

Information given on background to a journalist is only supposed to be used to help the journalist understand the situation. It is not supposed to be passed on in the form of an anonymous quote.

Spitzer worked to fight corruption on Wall Street. We can see how damaging that corruption has been to every American, as the collapse of the financial system has led to record deficits and double-digit unemployment.

On the other hand, he diddled with a prostitute.

I'm sorry, Rebecca, I am not seeing what your issue is here. Maybe it's because I'm not so naive about what the rest of our politicians are up to. Basically any politician can be take down some way if he angers people in power too much.

As for the question of hypocrisy, it comes down to whether you believe in the laws in question or not. Somehow, I never met any Bush supporter who was troubled by his drug usage. The same goes for Clinton and Obama supporters. Rebecca - Obama used drugs in college and yet he is in the position to enforce laws!

A lot of these moral purity laws are grudgingly agreed to by politicians who fear losing the part of the electorate who vote based on the scandal of the week. It really shouldn't be so surprising that many (!a lot more than Spitzer!) don't abide by these laws all the time.

The last two paragraphs of your column make clear that you've already made up your mind here, and are hardly interested in hearing differing opinions. Personally, I think the time is ripe for an Eliot Spitzer to get back into office and kick ass on Wall Street.

Wingnut lost me in the second paragraph when he said

Contrary to what many supporters of gay marriage seem to believe, the opposition to gay marriage is not motivated, as a general rule, in large part or small, by bigotry.

He then went on to demonstrate his own bigotry for all to see.

This part is nonsense:

They're afraid that a change in the civil code will force a change in religious institutions.

So is this:

And in every state that I can think of where the matter has been put to the people as a ballot proposition, the voters have affirmed the idea that the definition of marriage is and should remain something between a man and a woman.

As is this:

I have yet to see a convincing argument that the effort to force gay marriage on the nation is effectively divorced from the effort to force people to change their views on homosexuality.

This bit is precious:

marriage as the best way to establish an enduring relationship between adults to best protect the interests of children and, to some degree, women.

Nobody is "forcing gay marriage on the nation". Nobody is forcing our wingnut to join a gay marriage. This is tortured language: where a person seeking his own liberty is somehow "forcing" somebody else to, heaven forbid!, admit his own right to liberty.

Traditional heterosexual marriage is all about preserving the patriarchy. That's why the mere existence of gay marriage threatens social conservatives so much. It is difficult to maintain the myths of the patriarchal religions when other people make it patently obvious that no, it isn't necessary for everybody to play the roles that social conservatives want them to play.

And therein lies the problem. Liberty is always threatening to the people who make it their business to tell others how to behave.

There are a lot of ways to put perfume on a pig, but this pig still stinks.

Salon, please stop publishing this crap.