[RAT Patrol]

I canceled my subscription over it. I can get that kind of junk online for free. I bought the WTimes actually just to support a conservative paper. I'll still read it online. They've got some great stuff. But I feel no obligation any more to buy a subscription. There are many other talented columnists that could have chosen. It's their right to choose Sulli, but it's my right to disagree.

If the Washington Times were not a conservative publication then I would feel they SHOULD carry someone with Sullivan's liberal social views. It's only right to have balance. But this is different.

[gcruse]

The NYT runs Bill Safire. The Washington Post runs George Will. One gets the feeling that some would have this country be a theocracy, given the opportunity.

[laurav]

If the Washington Times were not a conservative publication then I would feel they SHOULD carry someone with Sullivan's liberal social views. It's only right to have balance.

The Washington Times is not aiming to be a conservative publication. They're aiming to be a mainstream newspaper that's balanced, unlike the competition. So they have columnists like Nat Hentoff and Andrew Sullivan. Makes it more interesting to read than reading 15 conservative columnists saying the exact same thing.

[eno_]

It is your absolute right to disagree and cancel your subscription. But maybe you should take the time to see if this is some "endorsement" of a "gay lifestyle" or if Andrew Sullivan is a conservative who has made different life choices from your's. There is a big difference.

[Clint N. Suhks]

I canceled my subscription over it.

I see it like Fox news, fair and balanced, and hold my nose when Alan Colmbs is on. Except Alan isn't mentally ill.