Jamie's been the recipient of all manner of double-digit IQ spillover as a result of his debate-ending article on Ron Paul. 1,600 commenters have left their two cents (in gold, precious gold!) as to why Jamie is a fascist hater, a bitter queer, a socialist, a charlatan, crank and hypocrite. Pay close attention to that last noun. A openly gay Paul supporter called Berin has "called out" Jamie on his hypocrisy, and the following email has been making the rounds in cyberspace as evidence of a murky journalistic agenda (which, you'll note, does nothing to mitigate the evidence against Paul). Andrew Sullivan, predictably, linked to this as proof that Jamie doesn't really believe Paul is a bigot, just that he has some explaining to do. Behold:
I first met Jamie at a holiday party held by the venerable libertarian magazine Reason just a few weeks ago. When Jamie saw my "Ron Paul 2008" button, he snickered and said, "Oh, Ron Paul… I've been reading up on him. Have you read the stuff that guy's written? Nasty stuff! Racist, anti-semitic, homophobic!"
I emailed Jamie the next day to engage him further and to ask just what he found so offensive. His response:
Hi Berin,
Thanks for writing; and I’m glad you enjoyed by [sic] piece in the Boston Globe. I’ll try and make the [DC Log Cabin Republicans] party tonight, though [LCR President] Patrick Sammon isn’t particularly happy with me after I wrote this piece [attacking LCR for not endorsing Giuliani, whom Kirchick calls "the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in history"] http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid50709.asp
Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch! [Emphasis added.]
Best, Jamie
Let's see now. Jamie opens this letter by pointing out that he thinks rather highly of Giuliani's pro-gay policies and has been critical of the gay community for not endorsing the candidate because of them. He then closes by saying that he'd gladly call any Giuliani supporter a fascist. Which of these two contradictory statements do you suppose was written in irony, to take the piss out of a slightly antagonistic correspondent who seemed immune to persuasion?
As always, literal-mindedness and political stupidity are joined in holy matrimony (or civil union, as the case may be). We in Welfaria clap our barbarian trotters.