I do.

But why? There's a good chance that Bloomberg is to the left of Freddy.

The left-wing Republican or the left-wing Democrat? Um...

(This is why I still vote in NJ. We have conservatives. They do not win often, but we have them.)

Nice to see Karol taking shots at the NY GOP. This is a bad time for the GOP in the state. Nobody to stop Hillary. Little chance to stop Spitzer. Long time vet Republcian operatives now working for Democratic mayoral candidates (at least he is not offering cliched advice ending with "stay tuned"). One of the leading Republican consultants in the Empire State now "married" to another man. Two possible presidential candidates who will have a hard time making it past NH.

It's time to rebuild and this time in tune with the national party. Sure you'll get clobbered in the short term but you're gtting clobbered already. Time to rebuild with a strong grassroots and conservative ideals.

The defeat of Bloomberg would send two signals to the NYC and NYS political machines:

--RINOs will henceforth be exposed as such.

--The devil you know is always preferable to the devil you don't.

There's a good chance that Bloomberg is to the left of Freddy.

Really? That seems a bit over-stated. On what issue? I mean, obvs. Bloomberg is, literally, a RINO (actually he's one of the few people who actually deserve that label), but Ferrer is a pretty lefty Democrat.

One of the leading Republican consultants in the Empire State now "married" to another man.

Is the point that this is bad in and of itself or that this will play poorly politically. I thought he was doing the right thing, i.e. not making a fuss about getting a real state-sanctioned marriage, but staying in a committed marriage and not being promiscuous. What is the proper role for gay Republicans then? Non-existent?

I'm not asking these questions facetiously. If you just dislike gay people then I applaud your being open about it like John Derbyshire as opposed to dressing it up in pseudo-sociology like Stanley Kurtz or Maggie Gallagher, but I'm honestly confused as to whether this is what your remark means.

First, thanks for the kind words on your website. I'm sorry I was not able to meet you when I was in New York.

My major point is that the consultant's decision is outside the Republican mainstream and would have the political baggage that would accompany this. While I'm not a fan of said consultant, that is for tactical reasons. I think his entire gameplan is to yell liberal liberal liberal at the Democrat and that did not work well for Mr. Vasso or Sen. D'Amato in 1998.

My position on civil unions is fairly simple. If the state of New York wants them and the state of Kansas does not, that's fine with me in both cases. That might be fairly coldbolded but my federalism generally outweighs almost everything else for me. I'm opposed to the FMA for that reason just as I would be opposed to an admendment forcing same sex marriages on all the states.

To be blunt, I seem to spend more time in American politics of 100 years ago then todays and I do not know what to make of homosexuality. Neither apparently did Benjamin Harrison or Calvin Cooloidge. On a lot of levels it baffles me though I would not say I am hostile towards it. I suspect a few decades ago, I would have been one of those could care less about it as long as it remains in the closet types. Well obviously it hasn't remained in the closet and it has gone public. The doctrines of my faith are coming into conflict with my "government should leave us alone" mentality. When that happens, I usually lean to my anti-state views and I suspect would do so here.

As for gay Republicans, they should say what they want, though I suspect they know they are on the losing side of a lot of interparty battles.

Sorry for a wishy washy answer but its where I am. I suspect a lot of people are probably more tolerant about homosexuality the more they are exposed to it through society as well as individuals they know. I think yours truly, and a lot of us, are in the middle between John Derbyshire and Andrew Sullivan, getting closer to that Tory in P-Town as the decades progress.

I care only in so much as I will sob like a bitch if that god-awful Bloomberg wins again.

Von Bek:

Thanks for your response. I see what you meant now and it wasn't what I thought you might have meant. I actually agree with you entirely on federalism and the lack of a need for the FMA. I would think it's a fine outcome if some states have same sex marriage or same sex civil unions and some states don't have them, or even have laws explicitly banning them.