i'm beginning to see how sullivan is going to let the gay issue pass by so he can still validate a vote for bush...he's saying cheney has got it right.

The Cheney position remains the smartest one: let the states decide. Let them come up with a variety of means to recognize gay couples; let's see which ones make most sense; leave Massachusetts alone to resolve its own public policy without clumsy federal intervention. I thought that was what conservatism was supposed to be about.

like, i know this was the cheney position a year or two ago, before the whole hullabahoo over gay marriage started. but has cheney actually restated this position recently? not to mention it's not like it's The Cheney Position. exclusively his, or anything. tons of people think that's the way it should be, and i don't think dick was the first one to come up with that solution. so i don't see why andrew sullivan would go around calling it The Cheney Position unless he's convinced himself that someone in his administration still cares about him and so it'll be okay to vote for them. but i'm just b.s.-ing here.

instapundit just makes me laugh sometimes. like in this post:

HERE'S A REPORT that the Socialists in Spain were ahead even before the 3/11 attacks. Hmm. I'd like to believe that.

i just don't get why he'd 'like to believe it.' i mean...it's not like a magical story that you can choose to believe or not. it was the results of a couple of polls. i don't see the room for interpretation there. and it's not like he offers any proof to the contrary.

my friend dellis seems to be launching an all-out war against matt yglesias in the comments:

on this post:

What's wrong with Safire, you ugly Harvard snob? You are both civil libertarians - does that make you "odious" too? Or is only part of you "odious"?

Are all of your intellectual opponents "odious"?

Perhaps you haven't arrived at Platonic truth or Hegelian syntheses yet, and your ideological views will change throughout your life. Does this make the future Matthew "odious"?

I for one think your face is odious.

then on this post:

You have the intelligence of an ugly Harvard snob, but the wisdom of my left testicle. Freedom-loving nations have spent a half century building credibility that terrorism won't work. Why all else do you think Israel always responds to terror with force?

The Spanish public has destroyed this credibility and have revealed the frightening truth that murdering hundreds of innocents WORKS. For you not to acknowledge that the new truth that terrorism works won't lead to more terrorist actions reveals a disgusting orthodoxy to your bizarre "terrorist model". You really think that for the rest of time there are a fixed number of terrorist attacks, and whether terrorism leads to tangible benefits or not is somehow an endogenous variable?

This is just like the Iraqi war for you. You opposed the Iraqi war and you're happy the terrorists drove our Aznar, and now you're coming up with more and more abstract rationalizations for your pathetic
belief system.

I pity you.

having known dellis for about 12 years, i can only say: i take everything he does with a grain of salt. he's weird! and i even went to homecoming with him one year. hear that, dellis? you're weird. but i kind of enjoy your bizarre harrassment.

your sporadic source of italian news!

-only in italy: Priest installed by police raid

-big surprise: berlusconi owns EVERYTHING in italy, and finances many italian filmmakers, even those who hate his government. is it affecting the venice film festival?

-yay! islamic cells may be planning italy attack! i'm not freaked out at all!

-speaking of freaking out, rome does a little of that about the 'yellow peril' and cracks down on its chinatown.

this morning, they had a rather long segment on an apparent trend that's sweeping the nation -- that of the american public desiring positive, wholesome, uplifting messages instead of negative, crass ones. their proof? the success of "the passion" and the fact that more people watch leno than letterman.

yeah.

then, as experts on this subject, they trotted out advertising 'guru' donny deutsch and peggy noonan. who proceeded to practically have it out right there; deustch wanted to make the point that a trend toward "wholesomeness" could eventually result in a threat to our first amendment rights by overzealous fcc-like people; noonan...well, i basically had no idea what she was saying. as usual, she made no sense. but she's had a LOT of plastic surgery.

i love the today show!