I believe Greenwald's condemnation of various republican politicians or media is premature. After all, we haven't heard their side of the story. Have any of them been given an opportunity to explain their logic for why Vitter's case is different from Craig's, and how either might differ from Foley? All are sexual incidents, but these are apparently being graded on some sort of curve. And how do all of these stack-up when compared to Scooter Libbey's written fansasies involving the rape of little girls by caged bears?

There are any number of contextual facts surrounding all of these issues, events, and prominent Republican leaders. Who can blame their peers and colleagues in treating each of these cases quite differently. For example, Craig's alleged behavior occurred in a public restroom at an airport. Perhaps there are issues of national security here, airports being an international port of entry.

Vitter, on the other hand, was apparently wearing diapers.

[pause]

I can't see how that might possibly be relevant, but the point is that until the politicians and pundits making these statements are asked, we just can't know what their reasoning is. We can't understand the calculus. It's as if the entire subject is shameful, embarassing, and taboo.

While banging my head elsewhere against why the Republican party continues to advance the wedge issue of being anti-gay, someone pointed to a Newsweek column written by Anna Quindlen. In it she speculates that Giuliani's poll numbers among Republicans might reflect Republicans' willingness to, in her words,

Maybe Republicans are finally ready to be members of a political party again, the kind Barry Goldwater could embrace, one that knows the difference between a podium and a pulpit.

If interested, a link you can copy and paste to that column: http://tinyurl.com/2578ox

Although Glenn’s post does a typically admirable job of pointing out contradictions in movement-conservative attitudes, it includes a misguided, subtle concession to social conservatism. The research and argumentation of pro-marriage outfits like the Institute for American Values, to which Glenn links favorably, have been subject to significant and thoughtful progressive criticism. Studies purporting to demonstrate that children, in the aggregate, are profoundly harmed by divorce, such as those of Judith Wallerstein, have been widely debunked by feminist critics. Indeed, some social conservative activsits, of course, want to restrict divorce rights through arrangements like covenant marriage. It’s important not to dismiss the importance of freedom cavalierly in the face of dubious empirical claims, even in order to criticize the hypocrisy of the powerful. Such compromise undercuts the moral authority of calls for equality among people of different sexual orientations and encourages further regulation of people’s private lives by a state ill-equipped to make these inherently personal and emotional decisions.

Be a little judicious with the 'Old T = GOP' (as the Old T is essentially Judaism). Ditto with "Homosexuality is one of the greatest taboos in the Bible." My limited browsing shows only a line or two about 'men laying with men' in a really big book written in small type. Far, far more is written about the evils of adultery and divorce (also, nary a word about abortion). Ignoring adultery/divorce in favor of homosexuality/abortion doesn't seem to be a preference for Old T vs. New T., but simply hypocrisy and political expediency.

Although Glenn’s post does a typically admirable job of pointing out contradictions in movement-conservative attitudes, it includes a misguided, subtle concession to social conservatism. The research and argumentation of pro-marriage outfits like the Institute for American Values, to which Glenn links favorably, have been subject to significant and thoughtful progressive criticism.

No. To apply someone's claimed standards to their own behavior, or to test it for consistency, is not remotely to imply acceptance, "subtle" or otherwise, of that standard.

Well, it was nice to see Joan Walsh pounce on one of the blubbering apologists for the Republicans - Pat Buchannan.

I've had mixed feelings about these "outings" hitting the radar.

Of course, all of these two-faced, lying, holier than thou sorts need to bite the dust.

This knuckleheaded gay bashing gets to me, though. And at times like these, it's everywhere.

The Buchannnans and Coulters who slither out of the woodwork to defend their kind are particularly laughable, all the same. Coulter thought Limbaugh should get a fine and rehab (whereas she otherwise had claimed rehab was a joke), and Buchannan now claims Craig is a family values guy, he's just in need of treatment for an OC disorder.

Jesus help them.

Doesn't it make sense that the GOP Senators would try to purge a clear transgressor of the party line? After all, we're trying to purge Bush Dogs and Blue Dogs and Joe Lieberman and other nonconforming animals. I mean, the GOP is against adultery but it's really against being gay, and really, really against gay trysts in public mens' rooms.

It's true that they're being sort of hypocritical. But that's only because their platform never made explicit the relative badness of adultery and homosexuality. They said, "sex out of marriage is bad," and we outsiders are now saying, "What hypocrites! They're opportunistically drawing a line between heterosexual adultery and homosexual adultery." C'mon. We all knew that's how they'd call it if the situation arose.

Worse, we're adapting a Right-Wing tactic. This reasoning puts us into bed (yuk) with the Michelle Malkins of the world, who frequently apply the algorithm: 1) Concoct an unrealistic interpretation of the liberal ethos; 2) Mock us for not hewing to their interpretation of how we think we should behave.

I think neutrals will discount Glenn's and similar commentary with Captain Renault whispering in their ear: "Those Lefties are shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that the Republicans think gay adultery is worse than straight adultery."

Shrill sermons merely undermine our cause. Just sit back and watch the show. As Lee Atwater liked to say, "If your opponent is making a fool of himself, don't interrupt."

The blatant exercise of selectivity on “Family Values” is amazing in the consistency of its practice by the GOP.

I think Glenn may be giving a bit of a free pass to Mitt Romney based on the fact that his family is relatively “traditional” with respect to the other top tier Republican candidates.

Romney had the colossal nerve to basically exempt his five eligible sons from participation in the Iraq war. This is what he said about it: “One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president.” His personal political ambition trumps his otherwise seemingly unqualified support for the war.

His sons are reported to be between 25 and 37 years old.

This war has been going on since March of 2003, which would have made ALL of his sons eligible for duty while Mr. Romney was governor of Massachusetts and well before Mr. Romney announced his candidacy for the Presidency. Did not ONE of them feel inspired to serve in the war that their father has embraced so fervently? Were they planning even then for his campaign during that period? And while it is clearly an individual decision for his sons to make, didn’t the Romneys see the obvious parallel to Dubya’s dubious involvement in a political campaign in Alabama while AWOL from his cozy National Guard assignment during Viet Nam? These are the kind of follow-up questions that never seem to occur to stupid empty suits like Motor Mouth Matthews.

It seems that what Romney truly values are his family and his political ambitions. And not necessarily in that order. Glenn has made a compelling case that this is what Family Values truly means to the GOP.

This is the party whose president, at the very least, winked at cynical political manipulation of the family members of others (Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, et al) who chose to serve and incurred losses. This administration continues to manipulate them today. Glenn’s exposure of Ari Fleischer’s attempt, in the form of an “Astroturf Roots Movement” using wounded veterans and their family members, to intimidate wavering GOP congressmen into continued support for this war is just more evidence of the empty rhetoric that this “commitment to Family Values” really is.

Romney’s chief rival, Benito Giuliani, has even come up with a classic response to questions about the obvious duplicity and hypocrisy that Glenn has exposed here:

“Leave my family alone, just like I'll leave your family alone."

I define the response as “classic” to the extent that it’s typical of their ability to compartmentalize and apply relativism to everything that challenges their definition of “good vs. evil” or “black vs. white”.

Coin a sound bite employing specious reasoning and maybe the question will go away. Perhaps it will be especially effective if it carries a thinly veiled threat (I’ll leave your family alone).

The problem is that once you look under what is said, you see the worms. Will they really “leave your family alone”? Ask most of the families of the 3700 plus dead. Ask the family of Pat Tillman.