This witch hunt is the Standard Garden variety. Here's how a witch hunt works:

1) You find some teensy flaw in a candidate. In this case, the "flaw" is that someone, we do not know who, invited someone who said something once upon a time that Some Powerful Group does not agree with.

2) You use this to flay the candidate with.

3) Here's the fun part. Once a person is a witch, all who defend them are witches too. Thus, Obama can do nothing to escape the witch frame.

He actually has done something to atone for Marginal and Possible Witchyness. He invited a gay pastor. But GUESS WHAT! that makes him MORE OF A WITCH.

It's amazing. You can be sure of one thing: I won't be contributing, ever again, to any gay-advocacy group. Way too wack for me.

Yes, I agree, the gay activist wacks are isolating themselves and forcing progressives like myself to decide: Do I side with one group of strident nuts who want to dictate process and language in return for 2 % of the vote, or do I side with regular dems who want a fair, reasoned discussion? I am NOT happy with the stridency, the unreasonableness, and the hissy fits thrown around by the gay wacks. They do not contribute that much to the Democratic big tent. And, NO, this is not about rights, or fair treatment, or any ACTUAL issue. This is about a statement that this guy made about himself, and if that bothers the gay wacks, well, I don't give a shit.

"To paraphrase Gloria Gaynor: somehow, I think we will survive."

Well, GOOOOLLLLEEEE, that is simply not the question. The question here is "who is allowed to state acceptable speech and belief". You may believe whatever you want.

In the political context, my interest in listening to you and allowing you to impose speech controls depends on what you bring to the table. The gay wack crowd brings 2 % of the vote to the table, and demands a huge cost in politically correct speech and attitude. I and many other normal, garden-variety progressives are not always willing to pay that huge price and get that tiny tiny return.

And this is not about survival. This is not about gay employment or housing discrimination or any other important issue. This is not about gay civil, religious, moral or actual rights. This is not about gays renting apartments. This is not about ANYTHING important. This is about the Theology of the Gay Truth. I don't buy that shit, so you can just FLUSH it A-WAY.

I will say that the criticism offered in this column seems a bit more appropriate than others. I continue to believe that it is a witch hunt, but I do agree that the Obama camp is not doing itself any favors with this. I had expected a black gay.

"Why shouldn't those on the left (who, by the way, have a truly just cause in fighting for their own constitutional rights) do the same?"

Mother of gawd, save us from the clueless. this has NOTHING to do with rights. There are no rights being contended here. Nope, what's going on here is that the "rights" of the gay wack nutbars to control the speech of others. The gay wacks contend that one statement is OK, and others are not. If you say the wrong thing, you are a witch. That's what this is about.

This is not about employment. This is not about health care, or insurance, or adopting children, or anything real.

It's about the ability of gay wacks to stop other people from saying things.

It's about the ability of the gay wacks to censure and silence others.

So don't give me that crap about rights. This is not about rights.

who wore his uniform to Jesus events?

I generally drink more than I should. So, what do I do? I set rules. I do not drink during the week. I drink on Friday and Saturday nights. I sometimes allow myself to drink more than I should, but not during the week.

Start with one night a week. Drink tea, not wine. Find interesting and pleasant teas to drink. You will find that tea is just as good as alcohol at enticing the taste buds. After one safe night is established, move to two.

I love it! Perhaps they will now form a union?

It's just a wonderful example of the power of the individual against a large corporation which is essentially a monopoly. There is one book publisher that will publish rightwingnut Nazi screeds, and that is Regnery. If you are a rightwingnut Nazi with a book, that's your publisher. So, it is using the monopoly power of its position to the max.

I just love it!!!

Someone with time on their hands should get these clowns to form a union. It wouldn't be called a union. It would be called an "author's working group" or "author's club". It would have dues only upon publication, and the club would have a "leader" who would talk to Regnery. The club would have secret documents which indicated that it was a union, but not in name.

Once it was up and running, the cover would be pulled off. Meetings would be taped, and various "dog-whistle" union statements would be uttered by the union "leader". Since these clowns are totally clueless, they would not recognize the union statements, but everyone would be encouraged to endorse them.

Sounds like a book to me.

"Presumably these authors signed a book contract, and they agreed to the terms. If they didn't want to accept the contract, no one was forcing them to. This is just basic contract law."

I agree. However, what Regnery apparently does is act in bad faith, not against the contract. There probably is nothing in the contract about giving away books (IANAL). Thus, instead of making $5/book, they make $.05/book, and did not expect that.