Andrew Sullivan has joined the ranks of crackpots in giving credence to the "gay Lincoln" theory, first championed by UMass-Boston's Charley Shively and now celebrated in Clarence Tripp's posthumously released book, The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln. This week Sullivan attacked the Weekly Standard for its negative review of Tripp's preposterous book and for failing to reveal the "conflict of interest" of its reviewer, Philip Nobile. "He had his own book in the works on the subject," Sullivan writes. "Tripp beat him to the punch--and is now dead so cannot challenge Nobile's account of the editorial process. Isn't this a conflict of interest that the Standard should have disclosed?"

Did Andrew Sullivan read the Standard piece, or did he merely do a blog read of the Standard piece?

The seventh paragraph of Nobile's lengthy review states: "Tripp and I intended to be coauthors of the book, laboring together on the project from 1995 to 2000--when our partnership, already fissured by dueling manuscripts, came to a bitter end." Elsewhere in the piece, Nobile discusses clashing with Tripp's attorney over his attempt to publish his own work on Lincoln that he alleges Tripp purloined and used as chapter one of The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln. Sullivan's protestations to the contrary, Nobile's article is rather upfront about its author's competing work on the subject. What is it about "dueling manuscripts" and "unresolved legal dispute" that Andrew Sullivan doesn't understand?

There is, however, a conflict of interest that Sullivan might want to highlight next time he posts on this matter. Clarence Tripp, like Sullivan and earlier gay-Lincoln proponent Charley Shively, engaged in sex with other men during his life and actively fought to normalize homosexuality. In other words, Tripp, Shively, and Sullivan all have an interest in depicting one of America's most admired historical figures as a homosexual. Author Tripp, an acolyte of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, was not an historian but rather an enthusiast of bestiality who bragged about having sexual relations with dogs. Before his death, Tripp proclaimed: "Pedophilia is an almost non-existent kind of crime.... child molestation? What is that? Nobody knows. Abuse of children? Are they talking about bollixing them against the ear or hitting them with a stovepipe, or are they talking about tickling them a little." Just as Tripp's own sex life led him to disturbing opinions regarding pedophilia and bestiality, it led him to this factually unsupported position on Lincoln. One senses that this same causal relationship between private behavior and public pronouncements is at work with Sullivan's writings on this issue, too.

Have you ever seen any group so obsessed with people being ‘gay’ than ‘Gays’ themselves? They would like the hetero population to leave them be and not treat them any differently based on their sexual orientation but the only reason we know more than we want to know about their preferences is that they are constantly advertising their sexuality.

Is it really important to research or make newsworthy whether or not Lincoln was Gay?

WGAF.

These nitwits are clearly sick and obsessed with trying to ligitimize an unhealthy lifestyle. C.A. Tripp was and is a complete Fraud.

It just goes to show that if you have a preconceived notion about anything, you can always find "evidence" to back it up.

Hmm, yes. The term "child molestation" is so ambiguous. I'd hate to tickle my niece for fear of being immediately reported to the police.

"...one of America's most admired historical figures...."

A shocking statement from a Sobran disciple.

I guess claiming that Lincoln fostered illegitimate children with slaves would have been passe. What's next, arguing that Madison had a thing for sheep? I've never understood the Left's need to slander our forefathers. Is the point to show that history has never known a good man? Or is it an attempt to normalize deviant behavior: "Well if Lincoln was gay...."? Either way, it seems to me a silly way to defend depravity.

This is clearly an attempt to normalize deviant behavior. If Lincoln did it and he was such a great statesman and respected President, then it can’t be that bad. Can it?
Hey, if you convince people that everybody does a certain thing, the appearance is made that it’s normal. Emperor’s new clothes with a sick twist.

Hey now Brad,

Dan is surely being accurate in calling Lincoln "one of America's most admired historical figures" that statement implies nothing as regards Dan's own views on Lincoln. FDR is also one of America's most admired historical figures . . . just not by conservatives (of course neocons adore FDR, talk about "conservative" bona fides).

The idea that one has to be homosexual to see evidence Lincoln may have had homosexual feelings is absurd. Nobile is straight. But like Tripp, he, too, believes there is more evidence in support of a bisexual Lincoln than a 100% heterosexual Lincoln. He has said that repeatedly (just this week, for example on Bill O'Reilly's TV program). And he tried to get Oxford University Press interested in a book of his own arguing that the evidence suggests Lincoln was bisexual.

Tripp is obviously messed up in the head... the stuff about bestiality is absolutely sick