More on the latest Sully vs. Putz catfight.

Yesterday we mentioned this brief post by Sully, but didn't notice this much longer, much more stinging rebuke, and subsequent pathetic response by Putz. Grab some popcorn!

Says Andrew:

It doesn't exactly take a genius, however, to note that homophobia in general is far more widespread among Republicans than among Democrats, and almost a staple of the far right. Karl Rove uses it knowingly, cynically and deftly to win elections (and Reynolds has never criticized Rove or Bush for it)...

Glenn Reynolds' citation of this issue as one of two defining reasons he voted for Corker over Ford is, well ... absurd bordering on unhinged. In fact, Glenn's post about how he voted is one of the lamest pieces of rationalization I've read in a very long time. Here you have a "libertarian" who patently couldn't care less about habeas corpus, torture, and massive government spending and borrowing, but who takes a stand for the Republicans on the question of gay dignity! It would be funny if it weren't so bloody sad.

"Sad" is a good word to describe Putz. Putz's response is even lamer than his original post.

ANDREW SULLIVAN CRITICIZES ME for not voting for Harold Ford, Jr., saying that a libertarian would have supported him.

Right off the bat, he's lying. He's totally mischaracterized Sullivan's argument. I suppose he's hoping his readers are lazy and don't read Sullivan's post, because they'll see immediately that Sullivan's central point, as anyone who passed the PSAT can discern, is that it's absurd to vote Republican in protest of how homophobic and bigoted Democrats are towards gays.

Go on, Putz.

But Ford voted for the detainee military commissions bill...And he took a hard-line stance on immigration...Ford also supports public display of the ten commandments, a ban on flag burning, and says he's closer to Bush than McCain on military interrogations.

All stinky fat red herrings. Sullivan only mentioned these issues in passing, to point out that Putz's charade as a libertarian is about as convincing as Divine was in drag. He never claims that Ford was the more libertarian candidate. The more libertarian candidate would probably be the libertarian. So why did Putz vote for Corker? Because Democrats are so mean to gays.

But this is the Putziest of all.

As for the "outing" business, I'll admit that Republicans run on opposition to gay marriage, etc. -- but so do Democrats (see John Kerry and Ford, above). And deliberately targeting individuals' sex lives as a form of political blackmail seems to me to be nastier than policy positions with which, alas, most Americans agree.

He'll admit that Republicans "run on opposition to gay marriage." Wow! Huge concession there! And note also that he lies about John Kerry's position, just like he did with Howard Dean's, which is pro-civil unions. To claim that Kerry's position is the same as Bush's is stupid, lazy and dishonest. And it wasn't Democrats who got anti-gay marriage initiatives in those battleground states in 2004, it was the GOP and Rove.

Now why would they do that?

Let me make this easy for you, Putz. When Democrats start applauding speakers for bashing "faggots" at one of their Values Voters summits, let us know. Until then, you might wanna just leave this issue alone.

Finally, Putz ends with this pathetic string of whiny ad hominem.

Unlike Andrew, I've actually paid attention to this race, instead of merely forming phantoms of my own imagining. Which is why I voted as I did. In the meantime, I'll view his comments on politics with increased skepticism, given the ignorance and inattention on display here.

Mean, mean, delusional, ignorant Sully! He's probably just jealous, right Putz?