Archive for ‘Meghan McCain’

July 16, 2009

"Megan McCain — and you can quote me — is less attractive than Jamie Kirchick"

Yeah, I know Smitty’s already taken a whack at this particular pinata, but it was the New Republic‘s Jamie Kirchick — my favorite gay Jewish writer — who conducted the Out magazine interview, and since she’s kinfolk, I figure I deserve a few whacks of my own.

And, unlike Meghan, Jamie is attractive. This I state as a journalist describing an objective fact since, as a married father of six, my hetero bona fides are beyond reproach. (Ignore that legion of online amateur psychologists shouting “overcompensation!”)

“Does it sound campy to say I love gay men?” says Meghan in typical fag-hag fashion, since this is the only way she has of getting affection from men.

What Meghan does not fully comprehend is the special contempt that exists within gay male culture for such desperate female hangers-on otherwise known as fish. Very simple questions, Meg:

  • If they actually like women, why are they gay?
  • What makes you think you are the exception to the rule?

Lesbian culture is more honest. Lesbians don’t hesitate to identify men as the enemy. Some are more tolerant than others, but there is no analog in lesbian culture for the fag hag. You don’t see straight guys “hanging out” with their lesbian friends. The straight guy who walks into a dyke bar is an unwelcome presence, and may be asked to leave.

Women hanging around the gay disco, however, is a very familar phenomenon. And the belief of some women that they have a special friendship with their gay male friends is a myth.

Let me disabuse you ladies of your naivete: A reasonably attractive young gay man has no problem getting with two or three guys a night. And that’s if he’s really picky. (Read And The Band Played On, by Randy Shilts.) So when some lonely, frustrated woman wants to hang around with gay guys because it’s the only male companionship she can get, she is recognized for the truly pathetic loser she is.

Show of hands: Who thinks Meghan McCain has the slightest inkling of the things her gay “friends” say behind her back?

Uh, I’m guessing Jamie Kirchick didn’t raise his hand. In this, as in everything else, Meghan is clueless. And it is her cluelessness, nearly as much as her bitchy desperation, that makes her so unattractive. Look at this:

“Homophobia is the last socially accepted prejudice,” McCain says, repeating it for emphasis.

It’s not true. It’s just a politically correct slogan, dependent on a dubious pseudoscientific term, “homophobia.” Grant that there are genuinely intolerant people in the world, in what sense does opposition to a political agenda — and her support for same-sex marriage is the chief topic of the interview — constitute a “phobia,” an irrational pathology?

And if homophobia (whatever that means) is so “socially acceptable,” then why did Ann Coulter get raked over the coals for calling John Edwards a “faggot”? Coulter was actually making reference to a celebrity imbroglio involving the cast of Grey’s Anatomy, and defended herself: “I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

Still, even though liberals have spent years calling Coulter a “tranny” — which is “socially acceptable” as a putdown, because they’re liberal and she’s not — even though there is zero evidence that she is actually hostile to homosexuals, merely by saying the word “faggot” out loud, she was deemed worthy of banishment from the CPAC main stage.

Yet Meghan thought her little slogan was so important she repeated it for emphasis, so that the actual meaning was clear: “Like me! Please like me!”

Desperation, see? She’s like one of these ridiculous white liberals who parade around denouncing racism as if the act of denunciation were in itself proof of moral superiority — and proving their moral superiority is the entire purpose of such exercises.

In the end, we can only imagine the ironic thoughts that Kirchick pondered after his interview with Megan. Here he is, denied the right to marry a man. And there is Megan, who has that right — but not a man on earth is interested in marrying her.

What a waste, eh, Jamie?

July 15, 2009

Speaking of Stacy’s cousin…

by Smitty

No sooner did Stacy start throwing out the M’n’Ms:

But why bring Meghan McCain into this?

…than, on cue at the Puffington Host:
Meghan McCain: “Joe the Plumber — You Can Quote Me — Is A Dumbass
also starring, at the page top:
Meghan McCain:I Love Gay Men

Normally, an ad bimbo post isn’t worth the effort, but Meghan writes them all by her own self.

June 28, 2009

Catfight! Meghan McCain’s rackvs. the LOTUS With the Mostest

Given her Rule 5 qualities, the blonde-joke punchline has been defended by some of my commenters. Right-wing guys who covet a top position in her coalition, so to speak, complained about my snarkdown of Cousin Meghan’s twittering about her “5-foot-1 ass in a push up bra.”

Disturbing mental image, eh? Undisturbed, but perhaps in some sense mental, one buxom right-winger jumps on Meghan and twists her Tweets:

Clearly, Meghan McCain is at the forefront of the tit-tering movement. This is because her rack probably is her greatest contribution to the GOP.
Unfortunately for them, everyone knows that I’ve already declared myself to be the titular head of the conservative movement. Now if I could just master The Other McCain’s Rule 5, more people would know it.

Trust me, fellows. If more than a mouthful’s wasted, LOTUS is more wasteful than a banker with a billion bailout bucks. So if you want to stay abreast of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, she’s the LOTUS with the mostest. Read all her posts, because her conservative principles are real and they’re spectacular.

June 27, 2009

More Crazy Cousin Misadventures!

Naming this blog “The Other McCain” was intended as clarification: I’ve never sponsored an amnesty bill, voted for a bailout, or ran a campaign so disastrously wrongheaded as to result in the election of Barack Obama. And then there’s Crazy Cousin John’s Twitter-happy idiot daughter:

I love people that tell me “I’m doing damage to the GOP”, yeah cause Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Sen. Ensign, Gov Sanford and the entire Bush administration have nothing to do with the GOP’s problems, no…it’s my 5″1 ass in a pushup bra thats the real problem with the GOP…

Your writing ability is nearly as bad as your judgment, Cuz.

Want to discuss the history of the Republican Party, Megan? Let’s go back to 1997, when your father decided to position himself to run as a centrist for the 2000 presidential campaign.

Maverick moved rightward in 1994-96 (his ACU rating averaging 94 those three years) as he evidently believed that might make him more appealing as a GOP vice-presidential contender. Alas, the Republican Party apparently felt that by nominating the worthless sellout Bob Dole, they had filled their necessary quota of crabby old war heroes.

Like David Brooks, however, McCain seems to have taken away from the Dole’s doomed ’96 campaign was that being a worthless sellout was the ticket to success in the GOP. Thus, Maverick’s ACU rating fell to an average 76.5 for 1997-2000.

It was the transparently unprincipled “centrism” of McCain that made it so easy for Karl Rove to position George W. Bush as the Real Conservative in the 2000 GOP primaries. And McCain’s petulant response to the predictable failure of his own idiotic strategy should have permanently ended his presidential aspirations.

After his campaign went virtually bankrupt in mid-2007, it seemed the Maverick had squandered his last opportunity. His campaign was revived, however, with the assistance of MSM liberals who knew John McCain far better than some of his own clueless supporters knew him. Trust me, Meghan, your father’s habit of “privately” disparaging grassroots GOP voters is no secret in the press corps.

Republican “leaders” whose only principle is their contempt for Republican voters? Yeah, we know the type. We also now why that type of Republican is so beloved by Eleanor Clift, James Fallows, Tina Brown, Graydon Carter and Pinch Sulzberger.

Let’s take a close look at those folks you name-checked, shall we, Cuz? When Donald Rumsfeld was nominated as Secretary of Defense, he enjoyed your father’s enthusiastic (public) support and, if your father ever questioned the rationale of the Iraq invasion, I don’t remember him ever mentioning his doubts in 2002-03. Say what you will about Karl Rove, Meghan, but your liberal friends spend several months last year accusing your father of “Rovian” tactics. Maybe your liberal friends are wrong, but . . . well, when did you ever criticize a liberal?

Ensign and Sanford? Let’s not go there, sugar.

You and Chris Buckley enjoy yourselves the next time Tina Brown throws a party for The Republicans Who Really Matter. Ask the bartender to fix you a special drink called the STFU Cocktail.

You need it. Bad. And be sure to buy one for Gail Gitcho, who worked for your father’s campaign and, sources say, spent Election Night 2008 partying as if she hadn’t a care in the world. The professional architects of defeat get paid to produce these disasters.
May 8, 2009

As Tony Fontaine said to Scarlett . . .

“My God, Scarlett O’Hara!” said Tony peevishly. “When I start out to cut somebody up, you don’t think I’ll be satisfied with scratching him with the blunt side of my knife, do you? No, by God, I cut him to ribbons.”
Gone With The Wind

Dear Matthew Yglesias:
You have lately accosted my friends in a most unjust manner. That you linked me in the course of attacking Glenn Beck is of no import. I’ve never met Mr. Beck and owe him nothing, and you were at least tolerably civil toward me, which is more than I could reasonably expect, given the current norms of political discourse.

What troubled me, sir, was your description of my friend William Jacobson as “humorless” because he objected to your use of the term “breeders” to describe traditionalists.

Thank you, however, for the intimate revelation that you are a “hetero-American.” This is a startling admission to hear from a Harvard graduate. Apparently, the regime of compulsory homosexuality at Cambridge still hasn’t reached its Stalinist stage, and some few furtive Trotskyite heretics are still permitted in the Yard. (This is no place to discuss the Pol Pots of Penn or the Castros of Cornell.)

Neverthless, you should know that last night I prepared to eviscerate you today. Like an experienced butcher, however, I began by properly whetting my blade. And then I checked my SiteMeter, which was your salvation.

For I discovered that I had been linked by Conservative Grapevine, which also had a link to a column by Matt Lewis: “Top 10 Most Annoying Republicans.” Given the nature of my morning’s work, this beckoned my attention, where I was stunned to discover Mr. Lewis citing a most unexpected authority:

“To the best of my knowledge we’re talking about a young woman who’s never accomplished anything or held a job.”
Matthew Yglesias, April 20, 2008

Let all the congregation say, “Amen!” Therefore, I hope my good friend Professor Jacobson will forgive me if I not only sheath my knife, but extend to you a congratulatory handshake. No man who detests Meghan McCain can be all bad, and if you’ll go at her another time or two — which sources say is more than even the most devoted hetero-American fellows can generally manage — perhaps I’ll even buy you a beer sometime soon.

By grace are men saved, and not by their own merit. Pray you never lack a guardian angel like Matt Lewis.

Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers. Is the professor . . . overcompensating? Kind of like Cynthia Yockey with the big wiener? Also: The mighty Paco-lanche!

May 8, 2009

Army officer admits: ‘The mere idea ofsex with Meghan McCain repulses me’

In a strange development, Lt. Dan Choi was so horrified by the possibility of having sex with the pathetic loser that he decided to become gay, so that Obama was forced to kick him out of the Army:

BTW, you know how I knew the Republican Party was totally screwed in 2008? It apparently never occurred to any of the geniuses at GOP-HQ, “Hey, why don’t we pay that guy not to blog about the McCain campaign?”

Now you know why they call it The Stupid Party.

That’s something the Mitt Romney brain trust should bear in mind. It was your man who quit after Super Tuesday, thereby letting Captain Queeg get the nomination with a mere 47% of the Republican primary vote.

Having nominated John the Loser in 2008, now the GOP will nominate Mitt the Quitter in 2012. That makes sense. I can blog about that every day, y’know. Because I’ve got ethics!

* * * * *

Permit me to address a comment the anonymous “Phil” left on an earlier post:

Woo, tough guy! Takes a real man to knock around a 25-year-old girl! Who’d you warm up on, Dakota Fanning?. . . . Use your formidable powers on someone your own size. For real. Gray hair professional journo bashing a chick who couldn’t get into a bar too long ago — very unbecoming.

“Unbecoming”? Chastising a spoiled brat, it would seem to me, is exactly what I ought to be doing.

What Phil evidently means to say is that Meghan McCain, at age 25, should be permitted to (pretend to) speak for the Republican Party, and that Robert Stacy McCain, at age 49, should be silent. That is to say, according to Phil, that experience should defer to youth. By the same principle, knowledge should defer to ignorance.

This inversion of values, this notion that the young and ignorant should tutor the experienced and knowledegable, is a most striking aspect of our contemporary culture. It is the antithesis of conservatism. But, hey, what else are we to expect from someone who defends Meghan McCain?

Double Standards, Squared
Ah, but our friend Phil is quite the traditionalist in one aspect: “He’s picking on a girl!” Well, after all, it is National Offend A Feminist WeekAnn Coulter is among those commemorating the occasion — and this is an excellent example of why I detest feminism.

On the one hand, feminists tell us, a woman is absolutely equal to a man. On the other hand, feminists declare, if a man dares criticize a woman, he is not only a patriarchal sexist oppressor (as all men are, according to feminist “logic”) but he is furthermore accused of being unmanly.

Wait a minute! How on earth do feminists, who derogate traditional sex roles and stridently insist that men and women must be treated as if they were identical, get away with invoking the ancient code that requires men to treat women with deference and courtesy?

A woman must be treated exactly like a man, until that moment when the egalitarian harridan suddenly decides she wants to be treated like a woman, at which point I’m denounced for failing to embody the chivalrous virtues of a character from a Sir Walter Scott novel!

Feminists expect to get away with this ludicrous incoherence — and I point out merely one of the inherent contradictions of feminism, which are legion — because feminism is a virus bred in academia, a pathologically decadent subculture notoriously populated by neurasthenic wimps. At Harvard, even a liberal in good standing like Larry Summers could not be permitted the mildest skepticism toward the feminist dogma which interprets every inequality between men and women as the product of misogynistic discrimination.

If this is the case with the president of Harvard University, just imagine the terroristic fury that would be unleashed upon some untenured faculty member who questioned whether the existence of a Women’s Studies department was justified by anything other than the fact that, after all, varsity women athletes must major in something.

Narcissus Transfixed
Cozened during her collegiate experience, where the faculty is too frightened — and the undergraduates too ignorant — to debunk the myriad fallacies of feminist cant, the young feminist emerges into society to discover that the real world doesn’t operate by the rules she has been taught. Rather than causing her to rethink her premises, however, this experience merely reinforces the belief into which she has been rigorously indoctrinated: Woman is born free, yet is everywhere in chains!

And “the personal is political,” as the feminists say, so that every anecdote about her encounters with the unfairness of the world is pluralized as data.

Hence, Megan McCain’s complaint that because she was expected to refrain from any word or deed that might embarrass her Republican father, “The Republican Party Doesn’t Understand Sex.”

Like other manifestations of The Vision of the Anointed, Megan McCain’s complaint about the conservative defense of moral tradition is essentially narcissistic: It’s all about me!

Yeah? Well, it’s about me, too, you ignorant slut.

Man, they hate that word, don’t they? The precious darlings of liberalism — and let’s make no mistake, Tina Brown only publishes the precious darlings of liberalism — are permitted to make transvestite jokes about Ann Coulter and make “ping pong” jokes about Michelle Malkin, but no conservative can ever turn the enemy’s weapons against the enemy. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (speaking of precious darlings) can hide out in Pakistan plotting the deaths of thousands, yet liberals will sue if the CIA doesn’t treat precious Khalid with kid gloves.

This is a very old tradition among liberals, who defended the arch-traitor Alger Hiss and defamed the patriot Joe McCarthy, who hated Ronald Reagan yet consider Che Guevara a hero deserving of celebration in adulatory biopics. (Remember, kids: You can’t spell “liberal” without L-I-E.)

The Monopoly of Discourse
Wonkette complains that Meghan McCain deceitfully promoted her latest column as her “most revealing so far.” Rule 5C: Sex sells. So the Republican heiress titilates her Tweeps with hints of sexual revelation, but no one who disagrees with her can engage her on the terrain of her own choosing.

What part of “fuck you” do liberals not understand?

I will not be repeatedly insulted in the most personal terms — I “do not understand sex”? — and acquiesce in cowardly silence. You will not deceitfully malign me, impugn my beliefs and dishonor my heroes, and then demand that I treat you as if you deserved my respect.

“Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.”
The Outlaw Josey Wales

Perceptive readers (as opposed to the idiots among you) now begin to perceive what Jeff Goldstein has been trying to tell us about “the fool’s game” of allowing one’s antagonists to dictate the terms of rhetorical conflict.

Liberals are like the British redcoats complaining that the colonial riflemen at Concord Bridge dared hide behind trees and stone walls, rather than coming out into the open to be slaughtered by volleys of massed musketry.

From the mighty platform of The Daily Beast, wealthy celebrity Meghan McCain tells us that we “do not understand sex,” yet heaven forbid some obscure blogger should reply that at least he understands Meghan McCain well enough to bet she’s an easy mark after four margaritas. (And a fool like her never stops at three.)

Friedrich Hayek would understand what is going on here. Just as established businesses seek to protect their interests by getting government to erect barriers to entry that disadvantage potential competitors, so too does the liberal attempt to erect barriers to entry into the competition of ideas.

A neurosthenic wimp like David Brooks is acceptable as a columnist for the New York Times, but not Michelle Malkin, David Limbaugh, Mark Steyn or anyone else who might effectively challenge the worldview at 620 Eighth Avenue. And only certain McCains get published by Tina Brown.

This is how the game is played, and any conservative who dares to point it out is accused of whining. Like ad hominem insults, whining is another field of endeavor that liberals wish to monopolize, and if you consent to play by their rules, you will soon discover that you are playing a loser’s game.

Just ask Meghan’s dad about the loser’s game. He spent a full decade sucking up to liberals, and what did it get him? Forty-seven percent of the Republican primary vote and 46% on November 5. And after the GOP nominated every liberal’s favorite stereotype of a Republican — short, grumpy, old and bald — what did the David Brookses and the Kathleen Parkers shout from the rooftops: BLAME CONSERVATIVES!

And what did I tell you on Election Day? You Did Not Lose. Conservatives are presented with a choice: Continue listening to those who advised them to take the path that led down to destruction, or heed the call of the prophets who warned them against their folly.

Behold: The Philistine giant stands boasting in the plain, and your mighty men hide in terror. Will you join the cowards, or will you be An Army Of Davids?

Fortune favors the bold, and two years ago I’d never even heard of Kathy Shaidle. But look how she stands defiantly against the Canadian Goliath! To borrow a phrase from T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII, I like the cut of her jib.

“One of the basic principles of military strategy is to reinforce success. If you see a man who fights and wins, give him reinforcements, and bid others to emulate his success.”


(And in case you’re wondering, this is just my morning workout. I’m warming up for a few things I have to say to a certain liberal later today. Did you know that the annual tuition at the prestigious Dalton School is $33,100?)

UPDATE: Daley Gator:

Of course, Meghan brings this type of smackdown on herself by constantly bashing Conservatives. So, Meghan, before you whine about being called a “dirty Moderate” remember that if you dish it out, you best be ready to take it.

Bingo. When you talk about me behind my back, when you insult me, when you pretend to be my friend just so you can get close enough to sucker-punch me and then kick me when I’m down, don’t complain when I come back on you like Sonny Corleone on Carlo.

And if you are going to offer yourself as the exemplar of young Republican womanhood, presuming to tell us that conservatives “don’t understand sex,” you have (a) invited me to point out that my Republican sources describe you as an alcoholic slut, and (b) forfeited any claim to the defense of chivalry by claiming to speak on behalf of women who, unlike yourself, are decent and honorable.

UPDATE II: I’ve deleted a few very sharp remarks directed at commenter Phil, who e-mailed to inform me of his identity, and with whom I had previously had friendly communication. My e-mail reply to Phil:

Just approved your latest comment, but for obvious reasons did not approve the one in which you gave your phone number. I do not shout idiocies — “Muslim!” “Terrorist!” — at campaign rallies, and am not responsible for those who do.
Even if you are among those who blame Sarah Palin for such outbursts (and I do not), the fact is that Steve Schmidt counseled McCain to choose Palin for the simple reason that, without the kind of surge of pro-life conservative enthusiasm she generated, he never stood at chance. Had I been consulted as to how to handle Palin’s media, and if McCain hadn’t heeded the idiotic Holtz-Eakin’s advice to support the bailout, perhaps it might even have been close on Nov. 5.
These are mere hypotheticals, however. If any Republican had ever listened to me, Mitt never would have dropped out in February, no conservative would ever have supported Mike Huckabee, and the Bush White House wouldn’t have gone within a country mile of the McCain-Kennedy “shamnesty” bill. My advice has never been sought by any influential Republican, and when I volunteer advice, I am ignored.
All of which is to say, Phil, that if you are seeking some forum in which to discuss the tone and content of the GOP message, there’s no point trying to argue it out in my comment fields, because no one of any significance will ever see it there. If I had realized it was you commenting as anonymous “Phil,” I’d have told you this directly, rather than taking it to you on the blog. I already have more Republican enemies than even Obama might ever hope for, and I certainly don’t want to make an enemy of you.
Am I “mean-spirited”? You might be mean-spirited, too, if you ever tried to walk a mile in my shoes. But please pay attention to my choice of targets, and remember what I’ve told others: Just because you don’t know what I’m doing, don’t assume that I don’t know what I’m doing.
Your friend,
Robert Stacy McCain

My apologies for the previous error. I can be quick to anger, but am never slow to forgive, as Matthew Yglesias may have been surprised to learn.

May 8, 2009

Dear Meghan

As if your father hadn’t already done enough to associate the family name with the word LOSER, it seems you’re determined to finish the job:

There’s an especially unhealthy attitude among conservatives. Daughters of Republican politicians aren’t expected to have sex, let alone enjoy it — as if there were some strange chastity belt automatically attached to us female offspring.

No, that expectation is only for you, Meghan, because no one could stand the mental image of you naked. That’s why — and you might have noticed this — your “romantic” encounters tend to begin with a guy saying, “Wow, last call already?”

Hat-tip: Laura. And dibs on the “Meghan McCain naked” Google-bomb. (Hey, Allah hates me. A guy’s got to do something to gin up traffic. Dibs on “Meghan McCain gin,” too.)

April 21, 2009

McCain on Palin sex video?

No, I mean, Meghan McCain:

The latest Tweet from McCain: “I used to have the hugest crush on Eminem when I was in high school and he still looks hot in his new music video!!”
This would be, presumably, the music video in which Eminem depicts himself having sex with Sarah Palin.

Allahpundit is worried that the negative attention to Meghan’s Twitter blatherings will cause her to stop Tweeting. BTW, here’s the Eminem video:

April 19, 2009

Go, Freeburg!

by Smitty

In reply to The Migraine McCain:
Whatever your vision on the same-sex-marriage issue — if you are not insane, you are at least open to, and would hopefully recognize, the solution is the recognition of the sovereign authority of the states. Yeah, states-rights. De-stigmatize that, cherish that, embrace that, learn to love it. It’s not a white-supremacist’s battle cry, it is the heritage of our nation.
Concise, eloquent, Freeburg. Plus some Rule 5 action.

April 14, 2009

Meghan loves her some Log Cabin!

Via Hot Air, and as promoted yesterday via Twitter, here’s Meghan McCain’s magnum opus:

So why are gay issues so important to me? At the most basic level, sexual orientation should not be a factor in how you are treated. If the Republican Party has any hope of gaining substantial support from a wider, younger base, we need to get past our anti-gay rhetoric. . . . A dear friend of mine who’s both gay and Republican told me, “I find myself constantly being asked how I can reconcile who I am as a person with a party that lately has had such a gay-unfriendly message. Where I stand politically doesn’t begin and end with my sexuality.”

Meghan’s “sexuality,” BTW, is slut . . or so one hears. But who am I to repeat mere gossip? Of course, even if it were true that she puts out like Pez dispenser, that sort of ad hominem attack is invalid as logic and has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of Meghan’s argument for . . .

Wait a minute. What, exactly, is she arguing for? And what is her argument? Let’s see: She has a “dear friend” who is gay, and she is concerned about “anti-gay rhetoric” and a “gay-unfriendly message.”

Free markets, low taxes, limited government, traditional values and a strong defense — if you’re for that, you’re a conservative Republican same as anybody else. Nobody cares whether you’re hanging out in gay bars or, in Meghan’s case, pulling a train at the Teke house. (I don’t personally believe those rumors, but I’m just saying that this is politically irrevelant.)

So whether you’re gay or straight, married, divorced or single, monogamously chaste or promiscuously Meghanesque — well, these sorts of personal sexuality issues should be no deterrent to voting Republican. What really matters is solid conservative principles, like not pissing in the cornflakes of all those evangelicals and Catholics who make up the hard-core party base in the Red States.

Meghan’s argument is not to be taken lightly because it was ghost-written by someone else, or because she’s said to be a pushover for any guy who can afford the price of three vodka tonics. In fact, Meghan doesn’t really have an argument in any forensic sense.

Which is to say: Megan, you ignorant slut.

UPDATE: Donald Douglas at American Power:

Much of the meme on the left (alleging conservative bigotry) is in fact progressive totalitarianism and intolerance toward the traditional culture. That’s why so many regular folks get turned off by the debate: They are hesitant to wade into the culture wars for fear of being attacked and browbeaten as homophobic when they are anything but.

Stogie at Saberpoint links with an unfortunate headline: “Meghan McCain on Gay Republicans.” (Gay Republicans: “Help! Get that fat cow off us!”)

Stogie’s argument, alas, falls into the problematic tendency of, “Look, here is a gay person who is an admirable citizen.” And therefore . . .?

This does not address the issue of same-sex marriage. The question under consideration is not whether gay people are admirable citizens, either as individuals or, in comparison to heterosexuals, on average, whether gay people are better or worse citizens. There is a matter of law and policy at stake, and one’s position on that matter does not necessarily reflect a value judgment on any given person affected by the policy.

Such arguments are reminiscent of those who, when you try to debate immigration policy, will immediately say, “Oh, my grandfather came over from Ireland!” or “I know a nice Mexican man!” And therefore . . .?

Have you read Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed or Friedrich Hayek’s The Mirage of Social Justice? I’m trying to think of some other books that argue against this kind of thinking. Reader suggestions are welcome.