The past of Cpl Sanchez

posted at 10:48 pm on March 7, 2007 by Bryan

If you haven’t heard the story, here’s the gist. Marine Cpl Matt Sanchez, recent winner of the Jeanne Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award at CPAC, was once a gay porn, erm, actor and escort. But apparently he isn’t anymore.

The left is making this revelation a Jeff Gannon redux.

What they’re actually showing is that, once again, the left loves the sin but hates the sinner (if the sinner is a Republican). Because you won’t find many if any denunciations of what Sanchez did on its own merits; they’ll just slam him for “hypocrisy” for being a Republican with a past.

But what about his present? Take a minute to read a letter from a Columbia student (that’s where Sanchez has risen to fame as a student taking on the anti-war thugs on campus) posted at Michelle’s blog.

I’m a freshman at Columbia and I enrolled in the USMC PLC officer training program as soon as I got here. After Matt discovered that I was involved with the program he made it his personal mission to ensure that he closed some of the gaps between my (hopefully) future as a Marine officer and the lack of support offered by the fools here in Columbia’s administration. He has been in the gym with me, often three to four times a week, despite taking classes and working full time, offered his advice as a current Marine and opened up considerable opportunities for myself, including two appearance on FOX News. Simply put, he’s a great guy who goes the distance for anyone that asks and never asks for anything in return.

Do yourself a favor and read the whole thing, and the whole post. Sanchez would have done well to inform CPAC of his past and let them decide whether or not to honor him with the award, but he didn’t and it’s not difficult to understand why. Who wants to bring up something like that, once a group of distinguished people have decided that you’re honorable?

For our friends on the left who will tar the entire conservative movement over the past of one man, you’d do well to consider something that GayPatriotWest reminded me of — at the heart of the Christian story is a prostitute, Mary Magdalene. At the heart of the New Testament is a book called Corinthians, in which Paul describes some of the early Christians thus:

Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

“…and such were some of you…” He’s talking to some of the first Christians. Those people had histories. But change is possible. Based on his actions at Columbia and in joining the Marines, I’d say that change has happened.

That’s not to excuse or defend anything, just to put it into perspective.

Update: Sanchez speaks:

Porn reduces the mind and flattens the soul. I don’t like it. That’s not hypocrisy talking; that’s just experience. I sometimes think of myself, ironically, as a progressive: I started off as a liberal but I progressed to conservatism. Part of that transformation is due to my time in the industry. How does a conservative trace his roots to such distasteful beginnings? I didn’t like porn’s liberalism. In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is magnified.

Being in the adult entertainment industry was sort of like being in a cult, and like all followers of a cult, I have a difficult time figuring out when I stopped believing in the party line. I can tell you, though, that by the time I finished my brief tour of the major studios, I was pretty disgusted with myself. It was an emotional low, and the people who surrounded me were like drug dealers interested only in being with the anesthetized in order not to shake off the stupor of being high.

Why did I become a conservative? Just look at what I left, and look at who is attacking me today.

Read the rest. Good can come from awful things. Every human, somewhere in your life, holds proof of that.

Update: There’s more to being human than just scoring political points.

Update: I’ll be on Kevin McCullough’s show, WMCA 570 & 970 AM in NYC, at 2:30 to talk about Matt Sanchez and who the real hypocrites are. Click the link to listen.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Ann who?

The Ugly American on March 7, 2007 at 10:56 PM

at the heart of the Christian story is a prostitute, Mary Magdalene.

What evidence do we have that she was actually a prostitute? Just curious.

As for Sanchez, has he come out against his past or does he find anything wrong with it? I mean “sins are all equal” and all that, but I’ve always believed that being gay is consciously devoting your life to one specific sin. A false idol if you will. But as always, I don’t even argue against being gay based on Christianity, because as far as I’m concerned any real Christian wouldn’t be gay in the first place. I argue against it on logical grounds. But even that isn’t the point here. It’s the porn thing. He’s been recognized with an award at CPAC, and I have a problem with that if he isn’t disgusted by his “past”. And sure, everyone makes mistakes, but I think living an entire lifestyle rises to a different level than individual mistakes or even a collection of mistakes.

So anyway, back to the question… What has Sanchez said (if anything) about this?

RightWinged on March 7, 2007 at 10:58 PM

I could care less about the guys past.

EnochCain on March 7, 2007 at 10:59 PM

Read the update, RW. Yes, he is disgusted by his past.

Bryan on March 7, 2007 at 11:01 PM

The left is so continually trawling the depths of vile ugliness it’s almost too much to take in.

They judge by identity, their immutable lodestar. That is why race trumps character, ‘sexual orientation’ trumps morality. To them, there is no true freedom to remake who you were fated to be. What a dark, hopeless place to be.

Yes, we do judge a man by his past. But we must also judge him by his present.

a4g on March 7, 2007 at 11:03 PM

Sanchez isn’t gay, by the way. Fwiw.

Bryan on March 7, 2007 at 11:04 PM

I think that Matt Sanchez made a lot of mistakes. He definitely should have told those who gave him the award about his past. Still, if it was my choice, I would have given him that award. Being gay is not incongruent with holding the vast majority of conservative values any more than being an online poker player.

Bill C on March 7, 2007 at 11:11 PM

Were Sanchez and Haggard in the same de-gayifaction program? That place has to be pulling in some serious cash with this sort of celebrity support.

JaHerer22 on March 7, 2007 at 11:11 PM

Sanchez isn’t gay, by the way. Fwiw.

Bryan on March 7, 2007 at 11:04 PM

I’ve got to learn to type faster.

Bill C on March 7, 2007 at 11:12 PM

“Beginning again as if for the first time
New melodies, a changing of season
I want you to know me,
But not as I’ve been
Remember me, not as you see
As I will be, not as I am

Beyond the pale, no fairy tale (dark shadow’s veil)
The lion lies down with the lamb” -Kerry Livgren Michael Gleason AD “Beyond the Pale”

Drtuddle on March 7, 2007 at 11:13 PM

So…does this mean the Left must go to rehab for using the gay word? The p0rn word? They should go somewhere for something.

PattyAnn on March 7, 2007 at 11:14 PM

Sanchez isn’t gay, by the way. Fwiw.

Bryan on March 7, 2007 at 11:04 PM

iw a lot as far as I’m concerned, because I (as I would assume you are, but probably can’t speak to here) am a long way off from ever accepting “homosexuality” (a legitimizing term I don’t even like to use.) Knowing that he’s not gay, and taking him at his word that this is 15 year old past of his that he’s ashamed of, I can look at it as a troubled time in his life he overcame (like addiction, petty crime, etc.) Again, this is just personally my opinion. If he were gay, it doesn’t necessarily devalue other things he’s done in his life, but I personally would have a much bigger problem with him.

Anyway, out of curiousity, and I don’t doubt you by the way Bryan, but how do we know that he’s not gay? (Guess I missed it if it was in the Salon piece)

RightWinged on March 7, 2007 at 11:18 PM

He said so in an interview on another web site.

Bryan on March 7, 2007 at 11:22 PM

How dare he try to become a better person!

/liberal

- The Cat

MirCat on March 7, 2007 at 11:24 PM

He said so in an interview on another web site.

Bryan on March 7, 2007 at 11:22 PM

Gotcha, just wanted to know it came from the horse’s mouth.

RightWinged on March 7, 2007 at 11:25 PM

If hypocrisy and double-standards would hurt, the Left would be shouting incessantly.

Oh, wait, they are, and they don’t even feel the pain. Also, if they could stop for just a moment to reflect upon their own past…

Entelechy on March 7, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Sanchez’s repentance is powerful. It is just the thing that makes liberals skin crawl. They attack him to soothe thier own conscious. I almost pity them.

Theworldisnotenough on March 7, 2007 at 11:50 PM

I am sooooo glad that we led this guy to conservatism by the example we set. It couldn’t be the inate disgust that liberalisms has on the soul.

csdeven on March 7, 2007 at 11:53 PM

uh.. So conservatives are supposed to denounce a guy that hit rock bottom in his life and turned himself into a better person? Excuse me while I go make fun of recovered meth fiends.

Ripclawe on March 8, 2007 at 12:10 AM

Why did I become a conservative? Just look at what I left, and look at who is attacking me today.

That says it all.

Rick on March 8, 2007 at 12:12 AM

Ok, I’m pissed at the fact that Salon entitled the article “Porn Free”. I’m trying to email it to people and now it’s totally going to end up in people’s spam folders…

Verbal Abuse on March 8, 2007 at 12:25 AM

Remeber Calls:

Pornstar – Good
Ex-pornstar – Bad

Jihadi – Good
Ex-jihadi – Bad

Prostitute – Worlds oldest and honored profession
Ex-prostitute – Not a real journalist

- The Cat

MirCat on March 8, 2007 at 12:26 AM

the left loves the sin but hates the sinner

i think this is absolutely correct.

jummy on March 8, 2007 at 12:27 AM

I’m happy he found liberty from a destructive lifestyle, but I also feel sorry for him for what he’ll have to endure to get past it – if he ever can in this life. His past could be a consequence others will force him to explain from now on. I guess it could be a great witness story.

thedecider on March 8, 2007 at 12:30 AM

Yet, the new Obamamessiah can admit he did drugs and they deify him?
Let them keep talking, the hole they dig will be ready for them as they fall.

bbz123 on March 8, 2007 at 12:35 AM

Its not for me to judge anyone’s moral past just the now

EricPWJohnson on March 8, 2007 at 12:40 AM

Dude, straight male pr0n stars don’t get paid at all, so as far as I’m concerned this guy did 1/2 of what most guys dream of: getting paid to have sex.

Now he ruined it with the other 1/2 of the dream by choosing to go yodelling at the backdoor, but other than that…

Whatever. He’s turned his life around and I don’t begrudge him.

ScottMcC on March 8, 2007 at 12:40 AM

Was this the guy from which the infamous “Dirty Sanchez” derived?

x95b10 on March 8, 2007 at 12:40 AM

JaHerer22 the troll asks: “Were Sanchez and Haggard in the same de-gayifaction program?”

Why do you ask? Do you want him to write a letter of referral for you to enter it?

georgej on March 8, 2007 at 12:40 AM

About one in a thousand Marines might be gay and about one out a 5 million Marines might be a gay porno thinger.

It’s not an accidental coincidence that this particular Marine ended up at CPAC anymore than it’s an accidental coincidence that about the only apparent conservative to get White House press credentials was Gannon.

Perchant on March 8, 2007 at 12:51 AM

Rule Number One: Never say ‘thinger’ when talking about gay pron.

- The Cat

MirCat on March 8, 2007 at 12:57 AM

Bryan, I tip my hat to you-the Corinthians quote is exactly right-I guess I see scripture misquoted more often than not, so I appreciate your noting the verse, and the fact that we are all sinners, saved by Grace; just like those early Christians we all have pasts which we are ashamed of. Matt Sanchez’s past defines what he was, not who he is now.

Good job.

Doug on March 8, 2007 at 1:01 AM

Well, I was going to use the word “star” or “actor” but…do they have stars and do they act? Nevermind, I don’t wanna know.

Perchant on March 8, 2007 at 1:02 AM

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow …
Isaiah 1:18 KJV

Ali-Bubba on March 8, 2007 at 1:05 AM

Sanchez isn’t gay, by the way. Fwiw.

Bryan on March 7, 2007 at 11:04 PM

uhh, is he like, “ex-gay”. you know, that sort of scam where the “ex-gay” churches get the testimonials out of ‘em quick before they inevitably become ex-ex-gays?

I am a long way off from ever accepting “homosexuality” (a legitimizing term I don’t even like to use.)

RightWinged on March 7, 2007 at 11:18 PM

it’s a clinical term. many gays loathe it because it connotates that their sexual identity is some kind of medical condition.

if it was my choice, I would have given him that award. Being gay is not incongruent with holding the vast majority of conservative values any more than being an online poker player.

Bill C on March 7, 2007 at 11:11 PM

me too.

jummy on March 8, 2007 at 1:15 AM

RightWinged on March 7, 2007 at 10:58 PM

so… no gays allowed whatsoever. it’s not simply about marriage. a gay republican who opposes gay marriage has no place next to you in any political effort and you gain something by excluding him?

jummy on March 8, 2007 at 1:20 AM

Redemption. Not in the mall-baby sphere of reality. It would mean that mall-babies would have to admit they are wrong and wish to make it right. That is impossible in the mall-baby brain. Mall-babies are never wrong. Only you are wrong. Mall-babies learned in civics class that mall-babies can think what I want. Redemption indeed. Balderdash. Redemption is for non-mall-babies. Mall-babies know what is best. Mall-babies rule.

Limerick on March 8, 2007 at 1:24 AM

As a heterosexual male (who, typically, can’t understand what is in the mind of gay guys), and a non-practicing Christian (i.e. I don’t attend church, but think positively, in general, of religion (that doesn’t involve blowing people up, mutilating them, or subjugating them) I offer two points:
Redemption, a big thing in religion, is possible.
Evolution, or perhaps personal growth, is a big thing in human-kind.

What, the guy did this stuff in the past, so now, according to some, he should just drop dead???

Again, I consider myself a deist, but all know the old standard: “Let he among us who is without sin cast the first stone.”

RedCrow on March 8, 2007 at 1:25 AM

What evidence do we have that she was actually a prostitute? Just curious.

if you need evidence for that, you probably need evidence to prove that Jesus existed. The idea of that she was prostitute might be irrelevant to the argument. I believe that Bryan wanted to show Jesus did not disregard somebody with a bad past. Homosexuality is ok as long you don’t have sex with your fellow sex whatever. This also applies to heterosexuals. Having sex before marriage is fornication. You can’t have it both ways.

Ouabam on March 8, 2007 at 2:11 AM

Homosexuality is ok as long you don’t have sex with your fellow sex whatever. This also applies to heterosexuals. Having sex before marriage is fornication. You can’t have it both ways.

Ouabam on March 8, 2007 at 2:11 AM

that’s fine. whatever. but, is the conservative movement the political wing of the christian movement?

like, why should the bible and it’s edicts factor at all in this?

jummy on March 8, 2007 at 2:15 AM

I’m going to chalk this up as a tempest in a teapot. This whole thing is a non-story.

Vic on March 8, 2007 at 2:30 AM

The bible is not a factor. Most people derieve their moral values from the bible. You don’t have to read the bible to know certain things are bad such as man slaughter. I believe the idea that homosexuality is a problem emanated from the fact that it deviated from the norm.It is a like a woman wearing pants in the 1930s. However, it is not necessarily bad that we run to the bible everytime we need defence. The bible is an authority on most issues. To be scientific, if we are all homosexuals, our species might die off. I avoid such arguments because it seems too absolute. Science is either yes or no.

Ouabam on March 8, 2007 at 2:35 AM

Oh, to the devil with this! He has sinned, repented, and by his fruits we shall know whether he is sincere or no. I, for one, am willing to give a fellow Devil Dog the benefit of the doubt. I just hope the Corps doesn’t try to punt him for this (they could, I believe. Lord, what a mess this could make for his unit, much less his career). Something about a tangled web and deception comes to mind, but also a story about a certain prodigal son…

Militant Bibliophile on March 8, 2007 at 3:07 AM

How dare he try to become a better person!

/liberal

- The Cat

MirCat on March 7, 2007 at 11:24 PM

Liberals think that they’re the pinnacle of human achievement, so naturally they hate anybody who stops being liberal. They can’t conceive of anything better than they are, so to them Sanchez is not only an apostate who left their cult, he also threatens their belief in their own perfection and infallibility. To top it all off, he became a member of the military they despise, a Marine even, so it’s pretty hard to imagine them hating him any more than they do right now. But f— them. Conservatism is a big tent, and Matt Sanchez is welcome in it.

ReubenJCogburn on March 8, 2007 at 3:10 AM

Cpl. Matt Sanchez appeared recently on with O’Reilly and Hannity & Colmes.

Hannity & Colmes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jy6CJvEmCs

O’Reilly Factor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFYSmjIUrY0

olympian2008 on March 8, 2007 at 3:59 AM

The liberal left has used this tactic for as long as I can remember, and probably as far back as written history extends. This tactic is; the left makes the argument that the standards by which we Christian conservatives attempt to live our lives are obviously flawed because so many of us fail to live up to those standards.

What the left dare not permit is the idea that the standards are not discredited when someone fails to live up to them, it is the failure of the individual to adhere to the standard.

rockhauler on March 8, 2007 at 4:02 AM

Am I missing something here………

Who thet f*$k cares?

Rock on, Rr. Matt Sanchez, as long as you are killing the bad guys……………. (terrorists)!

PinkyBigglesworth on March 8, 2007 at 4:47 AM

Corinthians, exactly right Bryan. Forgive and forget.

Zorro on March 8, 2007 at 6:35 AM

I BLOGGED THIS LAST NIGHT BEFORE THE KEITH OLBERMANN SHOW WAS WRAPPED.

Liberals are intelectually dishonest . Two sites that I was VERY CIVIL to ask why they were outing him in such a cruel way ERASED MY COMMENTS.

TYPICAL.

Welcome Cpl.Sanchez.

seejanemom on March 8, 2007 at 7:41 AM

The liberals can’t stand that we are more accepting than they are. The true racists and bigots are the ones that do not allow for mistakes and redemption.

Look at the liberals sites, all of you liberal bloggers, and look at the people you align yourselves with…the hateful, vengeful, bigoted, racist party, unforgiving; the DNC.

right2bright on March 8, 2007 at 8:04 AM

Hypocrisy would be that he’s still living the lifestyle while preaching against it. Since he isn’t, it’s called Learning.

Liberals don’t understand that concept, because in order to be one, you have to suspend the ability to learn and mature.

TexasRainmaker on March 8, 2007 at 8:28 AM

IT is becoming clearer why they are so loathe to deride the Islamofascists.
Their tactics bear a similar root.

bbz123 on March 8, 2007 at 9:02 AM

Yet, the new Obamamessiah can admit he did drugs and they deify him?
Let them keep talking, the hole they dig will be ready for them as they fall.

Not as long as the MSM keeps filling up the hole for Dems, while throwing dynamite into the hole for Republicans.

fogw on March 8, 2007 at 9:14 AM

1) Perhaps the people who bestow the Jeanne Kirkpatrick award could be a bit more zealous in vetting awardees.
2) “Rod Majors”, as porn star names go, kinda uninspired.
3) Sean Hannity interviews this guy, calls him a “great patriot” and ends with “semper fi”. Well anything that makes Hannity look stupid is generally ok by me, but since when have non-Marines started using this phrase?
4) The disingenuousness of some of the comments on this thread are mind-boggling. This guy was feted at CPAC–you remember them, the people who gave Annie C a podium and applauded her throwing the invective “faggot” at Edwards. He then poses with Annie C. Sweet mother of God, how blatantly ironic does something have to be?

honora on March 8, 2007 at 9:17 AM

My past is shameful too.
It’s the present that matters.

unamused on March 8, 2007 at 9:21 AM

I started off as a liberal but I progressed to conservatism.

Amen, brother.

That’s the kind of progressive I am.

saint kansas on March 8, 2007 at 9:22 AM

What, the guy did this stuff in the past, so now, according to some, he should just drop dead???

Again, I consider myself a deist, but all know the old standard: “Let he among us who is without sin cast the first stone.”

RedCrow on March 8, 2007 at 1:25 AM

Why do the folks in the RW have such a hard times with the idea of degrees? So by you the choices are Sanchez should drop dead or the slate should be completely wiped clean?

I hate to be one of those nasty nuanced Democrats, but try this on for size: repent of your past sins, turn your life around, and oh yeah, don’t put yourself front and center in the shall we say less than gay friendly conservative movement–with all the attendent publicity–without advising the good people who are feting you of your past.

It’s this last part that is the rub–this guy is either a con man or monumentally stupid. Either way, trying to view this as a matter of forgiveness versus non-forgiveness is nonsense.

honora on March 8, 2007 at 9:26 AM

GOOD POINT, Verbal Abuse. By calling it “PORN Free”, Salon canned it to the spam file. NIIIIICE trick.

seejanemom on March 8, 2007 at 9:28 AM

The left has spoken, if you have a past you are not proud of…stay out of the limelight or you are considered a con man or stupid. There is no redemption…except if you are a leftist who steals documents and hides them under trailers, or who is caught dealing with the ABSCAM sting, or caught dealing in suspect land deals in Vegas, or suspect stock deals, and the list goes on.

The same thing they started with Bork. Bring up the past, and nail him for that.

But ask about a present leftest view, ala Edwards and his filth spewing bloggers, and it is all ok.

Disgusting left, and the poor girls and boys that support them.

right2bright on March 8, 2007 at 9:33 AM

The money quote:
In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is magnified.
Swap porn for Leftism

I hate to be one of those nasty nuanced Democrats, but try this on for size: repent of your past sins, turn your life around, and oh yeah, don’t put yourself front and center in the shall we say less than gay friendly conservative movement–with all the attendent publicity–without advising the good people who are feting you of your past.honora on March 8, 2007 at 9:26 am

Oh, we all need permission now from our betters? The man tried it and said it made him feel worthless. He’s not allowed to go out and find what does make him happy? Isn’t that the essence of “finding oneself?” I guess you don’t hate being one of those nasty nuanced Democrats enough to change your ways.

naliaka on March 8, 2007 at 9:35 AM

Honora, how puritanical of you! Must be nice to live such a perfect life. To take your points…

1. I don’t see how his activities in the past should affect his status as a Kirkpatrick Award winner. He won that award for his activities supporting veterans’ rights at that bastion of free thought, the University of Columbia, not for a youthful indiscretion that he has shown regret for and that has nothing whatsoever to do with his current activities.

2. And this is important why?

3. This is germane to the discussion, why? In any event, while Semper Fi is the Marine motto, it’s translation, Always Faithful, is a good rule to live by. Hannity, knowing that Sanchez is a Marine, just wanted to end the interview on a positive note–beats Dan Rather’s ‘Courage’.

4. From what I’ve seen of the videos, the applause Ms. Coulter received was rather scattered and light, not overwhelming. The impression I’ve received is that most of the individuals there were profoundly embarrassed by Ms. Coulter’s remarks. Methinks you are painting with a rather large brush here–how ‘progressive’ of you. Should Ms. Coulter have been given a podium? If I were drawing up the speaker list, I probably would not have invited her to speak, because she does toss verbal grenades with alacrity and she is a loose cannon and you don’t want someone like that speaking at an event such as CPAC in which individuals such as yourself are waiting with bated breath for the slightest faux pas.

In any event, Corporal Sanchez’s experience has reinforced one thing in my mind: We are all human beings and if you look closely enough, you’ll find skeletons in all our closets. It’s a shame that his skeletons had to come out as they did because of a few meanspirited individuals.

Matt Helm on March 8, 2007 at 9:38 AM

Matt Sanchez can (and does by virtue of being a Marine) guard my “wall” any day. Like him, I was once a [gasp] liberal. And like him, I look at those ideals and wonder “What was I thinking?” The answer of course is I wasn’t thinking. I can’t read those liberal blogs much without the bile rising in my throat from disgust. The hate and hypocrisy are palatable.
Finally, Cpl. Sanchez gets my respect more than anyone on the left deserves for his making the tough choices in his life to protect our freedoms, especially those of his fellow comrades-in-arms.

Keep up the great work Marine….

JohnnyD on March 8, 2007 at 9:38 AM

Oh, we all need permission now from our betters? The man tried it and said it made him feel worthless. He’s not allowed to go out and find what does make him happy? Isn’t that the essence of “finding oneself?” I guess you don’t hate being one of those nasty nuanced Democrats enough to change your ways.

naliaka on March 8, 2007 at 9:35 AM

So by you, it was completely honorable for this guy not to advise the CPAC people and others of his background?

Wow.

honora on March 8, 2007 at 9:45 AM

In any event, Corporal Sanchez’s experience has reinforced one thing in my mind: We are all human beings and if you look closely enough, you’ll find skeletons in all our closets. It’s a shame that his skeletons had to come out as they did because of a few meanspirited individuals.

Matt Helm on March 8, 2007 at 9:38 AM

No, it’s a shame his skeletons had to come out because he elected not to be up front about it.

Where is that famous RW dedication to taking responsibility for one’s actions?

What a world we live in. The question to the RW is not, did this guy do something wrong; the question is, he’s a conservative, ipso facto he can’t have done anything wrong, therefore how can we misconstrue anything he did to be the fault of the left, the MSM etc ad nauseum. It must be exhausting.

honora on March 8, 2007 at 9:49 AM

I am not only proud that Sanchez is a conservative today who has shown that he has class and confidence in the way he handled himself at Columbia, but I am proud that there are people like Bryan Preston who calls himself a conservative and has the guts to write this post.

gatewaypundit on March 8, 2007 at 9:55 AM

Answering for myself and not for naliaka, I would say that he has every right not to advise CPAC and others of his background. His private life is just that–his private life. He’s not running for public office, his award was given by CPAC, not by the US government, and did not involve his past activities. It might come as a surprise to you and others, but I don’t want to know every detail of someone’s life and don’t have to approve of every aspect of someone’s life to respect accomplishments that they might have made. JFK was most definitely not the most morally upright of individuals where it involved his marriage, but I respect him as a leader; Alexander the Great was a moral dissolute, but he was also a military and political genius; Thomas Jefferson had his moral flaws and is one of my personal heroes, as are Voltaire and Diderot. Olympe de Gouges had some serious personal issues, and yet I admire her courage as I admire few others.

Corporal Sanchez made a youthful error in judgment a long time ago. To me, his positive contributions as a human being have since then have more than made up for that error.

Matt Helm on March 8, 2007 at 9:55 AM

Answering for myself and not for naliaka, I would say that he has every right not to advise CPAC and others of his background. His private life is just that–his private life. He’s not running for public office, his award was given by CPAC, not by the US government, and did not involve his past activities. It might come as a surprise to you and others, but I don’t want to know every detail of someone’s life and don’t have to approve of every aspect of someone’s life to respect accomplishments that they might have made. JFK was most definitely not the most morally upright of individuals where it involved his marriage, but I respect him as a leader; Alexander the Great was a moral dissolute, but he was also a military and political genius; Thomas Jefferson had his moral flaws and is one of my personal heroes, as are Voltaire and Diderot. Olympe de Gouges had some serious personal issues, and yet I admire her courage as I admire few others.

Corporal Sanchez made a youthful error in judgment a long time ago. To me, his positive contributions as a human being have since then have more than made up for that error.

Matt Helm on March 8, 2007 at 9:55 AM

I agree with everything you say.

Now let me add: “wake up and smell the goddamn coffee!!” We live in a world where nothing, I repeat nothing, is private. You have this kind of past, you change your life around, good for you, you are to be admired. BUT thinking that your past would not come back to bite you in the butt once you put yourself in the limelight–sorry, like I said, a con or real stupidity.

honora on March 8, 2007 at 10:08 AM

Maybe I’m a dinosaur then, in which case I’m happy living in my dinosaur world. But as far as I’m concerned it’s neither a con or stupidity–but rather a man who thinks that his private life is just that, private. Maybe it’s just that I have a more optimistic view of human beings–but then, my philosophers of choice have always been figures such as Christ, St. Thomas Aquinas, Jefferson, Samuel Johnson, Edmund Burke, men who, while realizing that we all stumble, also know that one’s mistakes does not make the man, but rather how he rises above those mistakes.

Maybe it’s just that I’m willing to see a man as a man…and to judge him on what he does now.

Matt Helm on March 8, 2007 at 10:20 AM

honora on March 8, 2007 at 9:49 AM

You self rightness fool. You stick your head out and enter a thread when you think you have some moral high ground. You never appear to defend what you so find endearing. When the people you so admire call for Cheney’s and others death, when your people are caught in scams and illegal scams, when your people deface our monuments, or hurl filthy words at our soldiers. Those and many others are ok by your standards, ok by ommision. You won’t condemn them, but you will take the DNC talking points and cut and paste them into “your” little blogs.
You poor girl, who can’t get her stories straight, now you are telling someone else how to expose their life.

Listen carefully, when some has redeemed their life, when the life they led in another time is over and they have moved on…we (conservatives) will accept them for who they are now. Not like you leftist who are so quick to judge, and slow to forgive (Condi, born in poverty, is not black enough, doesn’t have children so can’t be, you know the story)…except when they are yours, then anything goes, stealing govt. docs, raping women, stealing money, racial bigotry, calling for our leaders deaths.

Look in the mirror, and you see a poor girl lost in leftist land, looking for a way out. You stay around because you want to be like us, well we don’t want you, your kind corrupts, you simply are not conservative material…you don’t have the heart, mind, or soul to be a conservative. You only look for the bad in things. You poor girl…you can never be what you so want to be, you are a leftist.

right2bright on March 8, 2007 at 10:26 AM

honora – Admit it; you just cannot stand that we don’t care about his past and that we forgive him. It breaks every simplistic stereotype you want to believe about us. And stupid is having to always call someone stupid for disagreeing with you. It takes cajones – not stupidity – to put yourself in the limelight the way he did knowing that the libs would take him apart in their usual, predictable way. But hey – if you substitute “stupid” for “brave” (like you Democrats always do,) then you don’t have to ever do anything that requires sacrifice or honor. You’ve built an entire platform on being cowardly. You would sacrifice the safety of Americans and American sovereignty so you could “fit in” with Europe – or at least that’s always the argument that you people give for never standing up for your own country. To you “brave” = “stupid” in nearly every case, (see botched Kerry joke.)

foxforce91 on March 8, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Okay so Sanchez doesn’t want to be gay anymore and he has renounaced his porn star past. That’s great and I’m glad to hear it, I’m sure he’s much healthier and happier now.

But you guys are missing the real point here with all of your forgiveness rhetoric and liberal bashing rants: this is pure comedy gold. You want irony? You couldn’t script it any better. And Sanchez isn’t just your run-of-the-mill reformed-gay…he’s a reformed gay porn star. I don’t care what you think of guy, that’s hilarious even to type. Combine that with other high profile reformed-gay-Republican-pastor-child-predator-Congressman syndrome that’s be going around lately and things just couldn’t be more amusing. Maybe the reason the Daily Show is so much better than THHNH is because of the material; I mean you can’t make stuff like this up.

JaHerer22 on March 8, 2007 at 10:32 AM

No, it’s a shame his skeletons had to come out because he elected not to be up front about it. honora

Oh, they just tumbled out on their accord. No, gleefully, a number of Lefties outed him. In the name of … ah … ah… tolerance? Or in the name of spite?

Where is that famous RW dedication to taking responsibility for one’s actions?
Honora

What are you saying, honora? He’s been working on his life for the past ten years, making something of himself that he feels he can be proud of — that’s the definition of responsibility.
Has Sanchez misled anyone as to his life right now? If he is living the way he presents himself today, he’s an honest man. In fact, I’m impressed. He’s disciplined, thoughtful, articulate and not everyone makes the cut to be a Marine. So, Sanchez is an unusually disciplined man.
honora, you’re the one displaying all the characteristics of intolerance and religious condemnation. You want to wreck him. Why? What’d he do to you? Ya know what the problem is? The Left wants to cram us all into little boxes, their self-made sterotypes. I like diversity – the real kind. Sanchez delights me. He makes me smile when I listen to him speak. He busts every phony assumption in the book.

naliaka on March 8, 2007 at 10:34 AM

honora – Admit it; you just cannot stand that we don’t care about his past and that we forgive him. It breaks every simplistic stereotype you want to believe about us. And stupid is having to always call someone stupid for disagreeing with you. It takes cajones – not stupidity – to put yourself in the limelight the way he did knowing that the libs would take him apart in their usual, predictable way. But hey – if you substitute “stupid” for “brave” (like you Democrats always do,) then you don’t have to ever do anything that requires sacrifice or honor. You’ve built an entire platform on being cowardly. You would sacrifice the safety of Americans and American sovereignty so you could “fit in” with Europe – or at least that’s always the argument that you people give for never standing up for your own country. To you “brave” = “stupid” in nearly every case, (see botched Kerry joke.)

foxforce91 on March 8, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Let me quote myself:

The question to the RW is not, did this guy do something wrong; the question is, he’s a conservative, ipso facto he can’t have done anything wrong, therefore how can we misconstrue anything he did to be the fault of the left, the MSM etc ad nauseum

Any of this sounding familiar? LOL. I’ll save you the trouble: I am a traitor; I love OBL; oh and it’s all Clinton’s fault and what about Teddy and that poor girl on the Vineyard.

honora on March 8, 2007 at 10:37 AM

Now let me add: “wake up and smell the goddamn coffee!!” We live in a world where nothing, I repeat nothing, is private. You have this kind of past, you change your life around, good for you, you are to be admired. BUT thinking that your past would not come back to bite you in the butt once you put yourself in the limelight–sorry, like I said, a con or real stupidity.

honora on March 8, 2007 at 10:08 AM

Or maybe it’s just wishful thinking. Again, he was just receiving an award. Since when do we explore the pasts of those who receive a stupid award?

I’d agree with your point, honora, if he was running for office, any office. But I’ve never heard of bringing out the skeletons of an award-winner.

What does an award have to do with someone’s past, whether bad or good? I could see the point if it was a lifetime acheivement award, but it wasn’t.

And unless I’m thinking of the wrong person, the namesake of this award is a person who the RW would NEVER have given this award if judging a person’s past were the criteria for receiving the award. For much of her life, she opposed the party.

This is a pathetic attempt by pathetic liberals to ruin a man the Right decided to honor, not for his past but for his present.

Christianity not only has prostitutes and Corinth sinners. We also have the “Chief of Sinners,” the man who killed Christians before becoming one himself. He’s one of our founders.

Maybe the Right Wing appears to be an unforgiveable “sinless” group, but if it is truely sinless, then it’s greatest virtue would be forgiveness.

Esthier on March 8, 2007 at 10:38 AM

But you guys are missing the real point here with all of your forgiveness rhetoric and liberal bashing rants: this is pure comedy gold. You want irony? You couldn’t script it any better. And Sanchez isn’t just your run-of-the-mill reformed-gay…he’s a reformed gay porn star. I don’t care what you think of guy, that’s hilarious even to type. Combine that with other high profile reformed-gay-Republican-pastor-child-predator-Congressman syndrome that’s be going around lately and things just couldn’t be more amusing. Maybe the reason the Daily Show is so much better than THHNH is because of the material; I mean you can’t make stuff like this up.

JaHerer22 on March 8, 2007 at 10:32 AM

This only seems funny to you because of the perceived notion of conservatives and their relation to homosexuals.

Esthier on March 8, 2007 at 10:39 AM

Maybe the reason the Daily Show is so much better than THHNH is because of the material; I mean you can’t make stuff like this up.

JaHerer22 on March 8, 2007 at 10:32 AM

On Countdown last night: “Some days the show just writes itself”.

honora on March 8, 2007 at 10:41 AM

Sanchez isn’t gay, by the way. Fwiw.

Bryan on March 7, 2007 at 11:04 PM

Apparently, men (gay or straight) make more money in gay porn than straight porn. (thanks, HBO) In straight porn, we are only secondary…bit(s) players, if you will. When will the Left jump on that hot button (no pun intended) issue? Equal pay for men in straight porn!!!

ej_pez on March 8, 2007 at 10:42 AM

Any of this sounding familiar? LOL. I’ll save you the trouble: I am a traitor; I love OBL; oh and it’s all Clinton’s fault and what about Teddy and that poor girl on the Vineyard.
honora on March 8, 2007 at 10:37 AM

Oh! So you’re turning over a new leaf?

naliaka on March 8, 2007 at 10:45 AM

Or maybe it’s just wishful thinking. Again, he was just receiving an award. Since when do we explore the pasts of those who receive a stupid award?

I’d agree with your point, honora, if he was running for office, any office. But I’ve never heard of bringing out the skeletons of an award-winner.

Esthier on March 8, 2007 at 10:38 AM

1) You cannot be serious! You don’t have to be famous, the obscure are making it onto YouTube daily. Come on.
2) Having this sort of past and making appearances on news programs and appearing at CPAC–hey, I’m not defending it, but how could this guy not think being uncovered (no pun intended) was a very real possibility?
3) I don’t know what the protocol is, but I’ll bet that from now on, the protocol will be a thorough check on any awardees!!!

honora on March 8, 2007 at 10:47 AM

Okay so Sanchez doesn’t want to be gay anymore and he has renounaced his porn star past. That’s great and I’m glad to hear it, I’m sure he’s much healthier and happier now.

JaHerer22 on March 8, 2007 at 10:32 AM

That’s an interesting perspective coming from a lib troll. So, you automatically find better health when you’re not gay? What are you suggesting, being gay is unhealthy? And he’s happier too, leaving the gay lifestyle.

People like you make me sick. A man turns his life around, serves his country and you call it pure comedy gold. You know what’s laughable Jaherer? Your thought process.

fogw on March 8, 2007 at 10:48 AM

The Left wants to cram us all into little boxes, their self-made sterotypes. I like diversity – the real kind. Sanchez delights me. He makes me smile when I listen to him speak. He busts every phony assumption in the book.

Therein lies the rub: The Left has their little stereotypes of the typical conservative and it rubs them raw when those stereotypes are challenged. Sorry to inform you on the Left of this fact, but conservatives come in both genders, all colors, all religions, all sorts of different backgrounds. And just like any other group of people, we all have our own idiosyncrasies. Some of us are more forgiving than others; some of us are people of faith while others are not; some of us came to conservatism fairly late in life while others were conservative from young ages; some of us can be more abrasive than others; all of us have made mistakes. But I think we can all agree on one thing: that what counts is what you do after realizing that you have made that mistake.

Matt Helm on March 8, 2007 at 10:48 AM

Honora, JaHerer–

I’ll make you a deal. Admit that this reception of Cpl. Sanchez’s past was more civil than you anticipated, and I’ll grant you that “Rod Majors” is pretty damn funny.

There’s another detail I’ve seen on a few blogs and comment threads about Cpl. Sanchez’s particular… fitness for his past career, one that probably does not deserve our commentary here, other than to point out that with Dick Cheney and Jeff Gannon, it does suggest a correlation between conservatism and…

You see where I’m going with this.

see-dubya on March 8, 2007 at 10:51 AM

What is SUPREMELY hypocritical honora is that you lefties seem to care so much about who’s gay and who isn’t yet you re-elect people like Barney Frank – you know – the guy who ran a BROTHEL out of his apartment. He’s not the head of some movement – HE’S A CONGRESSMAN!!!!!!! And remember Gerry Studds? He was re-elected 8 TIMES and received a standing Ovation by your party after he actually had sex with a male intern. Talk about stupid.

foxforce91 on March 8, 2007 at 10:52 AM

On Countdown last night: “Some days the show just writes itself”.

honora on March 8, 2007 at 10:41 AM

Do you drool over Chrissy Matthews too?

fogw on March 8, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Quoth honora:

he’s a conservative, ipso facto he can’t have done anything wrong

Riiiiight. That’s why we’ve been so supportive of a far more famous conservative recently. Because we think conservatives can do no wrong.

You do actually read what you write, honora? And you read this site? You’re reading one or the other or neither, but not both.

Bryan on March 8, 2007 at 10:53 AM

By “we can all agree”, from what I’m reading here, I’m thinking that should have been reworded to what “we all conservatives can agree…” as I’m a remarkable amount of self-righteousness and puritanism coming from our spokespeople from the Left. Not very ‘progressive’ are they?

Matt Helm on March 8, 2007 at 10:53 AM

Honora, JaHerer–

I’ll make you a deal. Admit that this reception of Cpl. Sanchez’s past was more civil than you anticipated, and I’ll grant you that “Rod Majors” is pretty damn funny.

There’s another detail I’ve seen on a few blogs and comment threads about Cpl. Sanchez’s particular… fitness for his past career, one that probably does not deserve our commentary here, other than to point out that with Dick Cheney and Jeff Gannon, it does suggest a correlation between conservatism and…

You see where I’m going with this.

see-dubya on March 8, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Are you telling me that Dick Cheney was a porn star and male escort???? Great googily moogily!!! I’ve always been suspicious of those all-male hunting trips. It’s all starting to make sense now…..

honora on March 8, 2007 at 10:56 AM

Harry Whittington? Lover’s quarrel.

No, that’s not quite what I meant…

see-dubya on March 8, 2007 at 10:57 AM

Do you drool over Chrissy Matthews too?

fogw on March 8, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Well I stopped drooling years ago, in my twenties…..

honora on March 8, 2007 at 10:57 AM

Riiiiight. That’s why we’ve been so supportive of a far more famous conservative recently. Because we think conservatives can do no wrong.

You do actually read what you write, honora? And you read this site? You’re reading one or the other or neither, but not both.

Bryan on March 8, 2007 at 10:53 AM

Oh you’re still (and by you I mean the RW in general) far too supportive of him, at least according to the polls. And why don’t you read the site: the big insult hurled at Bush? He’s not a real conservative. Clever in a sort of way.

honora on March 8, 2007 at 11:01 AM

Lifted from Michelle’s site today: Sanchez’s letter:

I learned a lot at the CPAC, mostly that I’m not as right-wing among the true believers as I feel in a place like New York, where people glibly promote diversity unless you don’t agree with them.
I am embarrassed to say, I thought my fellow conservative friends would distance themselves when this news came out, and I’m touched that the opposite has happened … and most people have gone out of their way to give me their vote of confidence and avoid a rush to judgment.

Well, those RW are a complicated bunch all right! It’s the Left that is screeching that CPAC had no right to honor Sanchez, despite all his hard work. It’s the Left that is trying to make the argument that CPAC was embarrassed and should take the honor away from him.
CPAC ought get used to this – the Left trying to bully it around – and stand up and fight back, with wit, and principles. The correct answer for the Ann Coulter nothing should have been Reaganesque, delivered with a big goofy shrug, “Oh, there goes Ann again.” Next subject. The correct CPAC response for Sanchez should be cheerful support, not weak-knees. It’s a golden opportunity to show the country what the Left really is made of. CPAC doesn’t seem to realize that these two “events” have put CPAC on the national radar – thanks to free publicity of the MSM which otherwise would have completely ignored it.

naliaka on March 8, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Not to mention, Bryan that we are the ones who ran David Duke out of the party, (he now hangs out with Jimmuh Carter,) and they re-elect the KKK Kleagle, Byrd. Mark Foley dropped out of his race, yet they stick up for and re-elect Barney Frank. Point being – We’re the ones who DEMAND accountability from our own people. The left are doing nothing about real criminals like William Jefferson and Sandy Burglar. So one guy with a sketchy past gets a conservative award? Big deal. He redeemed himself and he deserved it. I’m proud that we are big enough to see beyond someone’s past. I used to be a Moonbat until recently. Do any of you hold that against me?

foxforce91 on March 8, 2007 at 11:03 AM

They got Sanchez. Not Sanchez! (Who’s Sanchez?)

Jim Treacher on March 8, 2007 at 11:06 AM

Not to mention, Bryan that we are the ones who ran David Duke out of the party, (he now hangs out with Jimmuh Carter,) and they re-elect the KKK Kleagle, Byrd. Mark Foley dropped out of his race, yet they stick up for and re-elect Barney Frank. Point being – We’re the ones who DEMAND accountability from our own people. The left are doing nothing about real criminals like William Jefferson and Sandy Burglar. So one guy with a sketchy past gets a conservative award? Big deal. He redeemed himself and he deserved it. I’m proud that we are big enough to see beyond someone’s past. I used to be a Moonbat until recently. Do any of you hold that against me?

foxforce91 on March 8, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Just a suggestion–you may want to steer clear of the threads discussing the Libby verdict. Unless by accountability you mean pardon…

honora on March 8, 2007 at 11:06 AM

so… no gays allowed whatsoever. it’s not simply about marriage. a gay republican who opposes gay marriage has no place next to you in any political effort and you gain something by excluding him?

jummy on March 8, 2007 at 1:20 AM

They can go whereever they want, but I personally choose not to be anything more than cordial with gays because I’m not going to give the impression that I’m okay with the choices they’ve made. I’ve never argued or had any personal issues with any gays I’ve met or worked with, because it’s not my place to get in their face and say “you’re not really gay”. Your side of this thing always has to act like people like myself are “oppressing” gays and being a bigot because I don’t accept them for who they are, but it is your side who is being bigoted for not accepting my position. Admittedly, that may be further than you would actually go, but that is generally the reaction I get even from conservatives here.

As I’ve always said, the day two gays get together and produce a child naturally, we can talk. I just happen to think it’s more than coincidence that we have male and female genders. That the two genders have uniquely designed (woops I mean “evolved”) sexual parts that just happen to go together and create offspring. What a lucky coincidence that is huh? The act of sex leading to offspring. What a craaaaaazy mad scientist Mother Nature and Charles Darwin are huh?

Anyway, show me gays naturally producing children together or find the “gay gene”, or I’m even open to the possibility of a disorder. Until then I personally have no reason to “accept gays for who they are”. And don’t give me that “leave them alone, they don’t bother anybody”, because I’m not bothering them (unless you think me stating my opinion here is bothering them, in which case you would only be for free speech when it agrees with your side of the debate)

(again jummy, not sure how far you’d go on this thing, but this is sort of a preemptive strike on other common arguments I hear, and may not pertain to you… there are a few other predictable ones, but I’ll just wait and see if they are pulled out or not)

RightWinged on March 8, 2007 at 11:10 AM

Comment pages: 1 2