Coach Dave Hearts Gay-Killing Pastor

“Coach” Dave Daubenmire loves him some James David Manning. Manning, you may recall, is the Harlem pastor who says that gay people should be put to death like it says in the Bible and that Obama is releasing “homo demons” on the black community. The two of them are getting together for an event to “bury racism” at Gettysburg. And by “bury racism,” I mean claim that the south should have won the Civil War.

We are going to Gettysburg to bury racism.

My friend Pastor James David Manning is a minister in Harlem who happens to have black skin. I had the opportunity to share the podium with Pastor Manning five years ago and immediately felt a kinship with him. My wife and I have visited his church, spoke from his pulpit, and locked arms with him in the battle against darkness.

It is an honor to call him my friend.

Of course it is. Bigots of a feather flock together.

Pastor Manning warned us way back in 2008 that the election of Barack Obama would absolutely destroy this nation. He became an “internet sensation” because of the “outrageous” things he said regarding the direction America was heading. He become a pariah in Harlem, the heart of black America, because of his outright opposition to the election of Barack Obama. He has been pillaged by his “own people,” as the racists love to say. Pastor Manning says Christians are his “own people.”

Nearly a year ago Pastor Manning shared with me his desire to go to Gettysburg and bury racism. He shared with me the vision to join black Americans and white Americans together in a RACIAL RECONCILIATION AND HEALING OF THE RACES. It immediately bore witness with my Spirit as something we needed to do.

Gotta love the scare quotes around “outrageous.” Because it’s not at all outrageous, Daubenmire clearly believes, to say that gay people should be stoned to death. Okay Dave, you own it now.

A study of the war will show that the fight was over states rights more than slavery, and an argument can be made that the wrong side won the war. Government tyranny has exploded since the battle over states’ rights was lost. It has been said that the Gettysburg Address was the most famous speech in American History, but that it would have carried more weight if President Lincoln was referencing the brave Confederate soldiers who were fighting against big-government tyranny. Has there ever been a more Christian general than Robert E. Lee?

*headdesk* Seriously.

"Agreed. The son was probably the most powerful lever they had on him. And Flynn, ..."

Looks Like Flynn Has Flipped on ..."
"If they were smart, they wouldn't be repigfuckers."

Looks Like Flynn Has Flipped on ..."
"You can't be bothered to listen. Done with you."

How to Think Critically About the ..."
"Maybe, maybe not. If Ryan and The Turtle were smart, they'd tell Trump that if ..."

Looks Like Flynn Has Flipped on ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • richardelguru

    Worrabout Joan of Arc?

  • colnago80

    Has there ever been a more Christian general than Robert E. Lee?

    Yes, Thomas Jonathan Jackson, known by his sobriquet of Stonewall.

    By the way, just for the information of Davie boy, Robert E. Lee was, in many respects, one of the most incapable commanding generals in history.

  • JustaTech

    They’d best not be digging any actual holes to “bury racism” at the Gettysburg battlefeild, seeing as how it’s a national park, and the National Park Service does not take kindly to people making a mess of the parks. In fact, in a lot of parks there is a substantial fine ($25,000) and the possibility of jail time.

    As for “Christian” Generals, what about say, all those guys during the crusades? Or King Gustav of Sweden during the 30 year’s war? Or basically every general during all of Western Europe’s wars? (Excluding the Moors in Iberia and the Ottomans in the Balcians.)

    Lee was a good general in the technical sense of good, but that has no bearing on him as a person, his cause or his religion.

  • Synfandel

    He has been pillaged by his “own people,” as the racists love to say.

    Pillaged? Pilloried, maybe?

  • Modusoperandi

    I didn’t even know that one could bury racism in irony.

  • John Pieret

    It immediately bore witness with my Spirit as something we needed to do.

    WTF? Is your “Spirit” something separate and apart from you? Did your “Spirit” have to send you a memo telling you that this was something you should do? And what the heck is “bore witness” anyway?

    Wait a minute! … my Spirit was just born witness that I shouldn’t expect sense from morons!

  • smrnda

    Big government tyranny is apparently telling people that they can’t own other people. These people have no problem with authoritarianism, they just want to make sure that rich white bigots are those in power.

    Bury racism? Check the statistics idiots, racism is alive and well and kicking regrettably.

  • Marcus Ranum

    happens to have black skin.[…] locked arms with him in the battle against darkness.

    I guess calling that “tone deaf” is an ableist critique. But WTF is an appropriate description for someone saying something so fucking thoughtless? It’s not a malapropism, its not a tom swiftie, it’s .. gah… my head is spinning and my mind is thoroughly boggled.

  • Marcus Ranum

    Lee was a good general in the technical sense of good

    Only in context of the other generals in the civil war, who managed to suck worse through dint of rigorous effort.

  • whirligig

    Making people pay taxes to support national infrastructure: tyranny. Controlling every aspect of peoples’ lives and forcing them to work for no pay: not tyranny. Got it.

  • dhall

    Even the states’ rights issue was, at heart, about slavery, which makes that argument disingenuous at best. Just about every area of contention between the north and the south could be traced to the ‘peculiar institution’ from politics to economics to culture. Slavery was the one huge problem that those who issued both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution deliberately chose not to address, and in some cases, they admitted in later writings that they made a big mistake by avoiding that trouble. You could make the case that the unity of the country was more important in the late 18th century than dealing directly with slavery, but as a result, the US was left with ridiculous compromises such as the 3/5ths provision. The US Civil War was the nasty result of that continual avoidance and desperate attempts to compromise over what became impossible to compromise about, and the tensions finally came to a breaking point. And, judging by the writings we have from the 1850s up through the war, from newspaper editorials to letters, to diaries to speech transcripts, it is also clear that the majority of the people then knew what the war was about, whether they gave lip service to other causes or not. Lincoln was anti-slavery, everyone at the time knew it, and when he was elected president, southern states began to secede even before he was inaugurated. Sorry to rant, but as a history professor, I get as riled up about the whole states’ rights argument as scientists do about creationism. It’s another myth.

  • dhall

    #9 Marcus – you’re right. I’ve wondered for a long time why Lee is considered such an incredible military commander. He was sort of mediocre, but he does stand out from the crowd of the even worse ones he had to face. Until Grant and Sherman finally took advantage of the North’s greater resources, including cannon fodder, most of the war reads like a tragic-comedy.

  • Modusoperandi

    dhall “…most of the war reads like a tragic-comedy.”

    Nations learned a lot from that, kept incompetent and/or insane people away from the military (and its civilian oversight) and never did anything incompetent or insane in war ever again.


    War is a lot like comedy, except that nobody laughs and a bunch of people die.

  • John Pieret

    Marcus & dhall:

    You have to remember that the Civil War was fought at the cusp of the change between the Napoleonic style of warfare (where relatively small armies fought for a specific piece of ground for a few days at most) and modern warfare (where armies are intended to destroy the ability of the enemy to wage war). Lee was good at the former because he 1) inspired almost fanatical loyalty in his troops and 2) he was better than his opponents at maneuvering his army to the battle site and during the battle. Grant, on the other hand, understood that, if he fought a set-piece battle with Lee and had 10,000 more casualties than Lee, Grant had won, given the North’s vast superiority in troops and resources. If Lee never learned the lesson, neither did Napoleon, even after his retreat from Russia.

  • dhall

    #14 – you’re right, and I just finished a semester teaching the war, almost blow by blow, with a lot of discussion. Several of the students and I engaged in many discussions about Lee’s inspiration, Bonaparte, who was McClellan’s inspiration too, and who also earned that kind of loyalty from his troops. He was seldom close to the action, however, and while personally brave, he couldn’t do what Grant finally did. For Bonaparte, there came a time when his innovative tactics were no longer so innovative, and his enemies adjusted to them. For Lee, and for most of the US Civil War generals, what they learned at West Point, or in the war with Mexico, did not prepare them for fighting each other. McClellan reportedly observed some of the Crimean War, and saw how technology was changing warfare, and maybe that accounts for some of his hesitancy. Overall, however, few of the US Civil War commanders seemed able to modify their tactics to reduce casualties in the face of new weapons while still winning a battle. But Lee also made a lot of mistakes that aggravated the disadvantages he already had to deal with. Gettysburg was one, and Pickett’s Charge probably the most obvious.

  • Marcus Ranum


    If you had put any of Napoleon’s marshalls in command of either side in the civil war, it would have been over fairly quickly; there was a huge difference in overall competence there. Admittedly, attritional warfare always works out for the side that has better logistics and supplies of cannon-fodder but neither side in the civil war would have stood up to a series of conclusive victories.

    One of my high school classmates in our wargaming club did a really funny (but serious) series of fake histories entitled “Davout at Chancellorsville” which was a great epic of literal armchair generalship. It’s scary to realize that Hooker was probably less competent than the least competent of the napoleonic set. Wurmser could have out-maneuvered him.

    If you want to think about scary lopsided civil war scenarios, imagine Wellington versus Lee. Ouch.

  • Marcus Ranum

    Why does anyone think Gettysburg was more interesting than a meat-grinder with troops being committed piece-meal all day, with no attempt to maneuver for a decisive blow? If Waterloo was a “close-run thing”* Gettysburg was a “poorly-run thing” that was mostly shambolic.

    (* Wellington was being nice)

  • katzenklavier

    #13 – “War is a lot like comedy, except that nobody laughs and a bunch of people die.”

    How I wish I could agree with both elements of your pithy declaration. I fear, however, that under our New Normal state of permanent warfare, the defense contractors are hysterical with laughter on their way to the bank.

  • Marcus Ranum

    Napoleon, commanding either side in the civil war, would have ended it fairly quickly.

    I always find this kind of speculation to be fascinating because it’s impossible to really extract the essentials of strategic and tactical brilliance from existing history. Though goodness knows many liters of orange and grape soda were consumed by my high school gaming club, as we struggled to figure this out. One observation is that (let’s stick with Gettysburg as an example) if Napoleon had been commanding either side, not only would the battle have not gone down that way, the force-structures deployed that day would never have been close to what they were. So a hypothetical napoleonic Gettysburg would have looked more like one side or the other getting pinned on a ridgeline by infantry and a grand battery, then wiped out when Davout appeared on the flank. The battlefields were bigger but the civil war generals did not understand how to concentrate their forces, resulting jn a war that was characteristically a sequence of meat-grinders with forces being committed by accident (sort of a deranged “march to the guns” model which definitely did not work on larger-scale battlefields) Napoleon would have immediately figured that sort of dynamic out. The fundamentals of napoleonic warfare were not present in the civil war; it’s as if they forgot that combined arms still worked and were searching for as-yet uninvented trench warfare.

    Anyhow. Lee sucked. Any of Napoleon’s marshalls would have used him to floss their teeth. Except Murat. Who would have peed himself with joy over Pickett’s charge except he would have done it with cavalry and made it work.

  • Marcus Ranum

    under our New Normal state of permanent warfare,

    (Puzzled) what do you mean “new”? We have always been at war with Eastasia!

  • pacal

    As for the Confederacy being against government “tyranny”? Well only if you ignore actual history. May I point out that the Confederacy resorted to earlier to forced conscription, and by government legislation converted short term enlistments into for the duration of the war enlistments. I could of course go on with a whole list of the “tyrannical” acts of the Confederate Congress and government.

    The irony of going to war in order to defend and protect the domestic tyranny of slavery under supposed threat by a “tyrannical” government is obvious. And in reality slavery was not under mortal threat what caused all the agony was a dispute over the extension of slavery. Simply preventing the expansion of the institution was perceived as a mortal threat by many Southerners. I further note that many, many Southerners had no problem with the Federal government forcing slavery on people. Hence Kansas and the fugitive slave laws. But before the Civil War many, many Southerners were in favour of states rights when the result was pro-slavery they were against them if the result was anti-slavery.

    Of course if there is no problem with Southerners revolting against Federal authority on grounds of “tyranny” then the people who justify it should have no problem with slaves revolting against their masters. Rather tellingly instead of thinking that both slave insurrections and Confederate succession were justified we are almost always treated to bromides by believers in Confederate succession about how slavery wasn’t all bad and similar nonsense, justifying excusing the institution and denying the legitimacy of opposition to it.

  • felidae

    Has there ever been a more Christian general than Robert E. Lee?”–I nominate Nathan Bedford Forrest who demonstrated his faithfulness to the bible by being the proprietor of “Negro Mart”, one of the largest slave trading firms in the antebellum South and one of the founders of that Christian organization, the Klu Klux Klan

  • colnago80

    Re dhall

    Actually, the notion that Grant was a butcher who won by attrition is seriously exaggerated. General Fuller, in his book on Lee and Grant showed in an appendix that Lee was the butcher. Grant’s casualty rate was some 50% lower then Lee’s and Sherman’s was 1/2 of Lee’s. In terms of overall strategy, Grant understood, after his call to Washington and in consultations with Lincoln, that the problem with the Northern strategy up to that time was that the commanders in the two theaters, east of the Appalachians and west of the Appalachians fought their battles in watertight compartments. Thus Grant took used the Northern manpower advantage to fight Lee in Virginia and Johnston in Tennessee and Georgia in parallel and in coordination with each other. That way, Lee and Johnston couldn’t reinforce each other during a lull, as was done in the Battle of Chickamauga when Longstreet’s corps was entrained from Lee’s army in Virginia to reinforce Bragg’s army in Tennessee, which resulted in a Confederate victory that the incompetent Bragg frittered away allowing the Union Army led by Thomas to retreat to Chattanooga.

  • rabbitscribe

    “A study of the war will show that the fight was over states rights more than slavery…”

    In all fairness, a lot of people made the mistake of thinking the Civil War was fought over slavery, starting with the framers of the Declarations of Secession.

    If even the people who started the war didn’t realize they were fighting for the abstract principle of state’s rights and repeatedly and unequivocally embraced the misconception that they were fighting to preserve slavery, what chance do the rest of us dumb schmucks have?

  • colnago80

    Re Marcus Ranum @ #19

    If you had put any of Napoleon’s marshals in command of either side in the civil war, it would have been over fairly quickly;

    Actually, Napoleon’s marshals, when left on their own and not under the eye of the emperor were barely competent. Many of them faced Wellington in Spain and Portugal and were manifestly unsuccessful. They were too much dependent on Napoleon’s direction and were unable to act on their own.

    Both Lee and Grant, as General Fuller puts in, failed to recognize the power of the bullet as fired from rifled muskets which tripled the effective range of those weapons. However, as he also points out in their defense, the generals in WW1 also failed to recognize the power of the bullet as fired from machine guns. Joffre and Haig were just as clueless in that regard as were Lee and Grant with less justification.

  • imthegenieicandoanything

    No African-American will lose money (during my lifetime, anyway) by going neo-Tom. It’s the anti-Global Warming scientists, pro-tobacco medical researcher gig of the moment.

    All the money and attention you want, just for promoting lies and hatred. Because money is the only important element in life.

  • lorn

    dhall @ 11:

    Amen to that. A careful tracking of what states rights the south felt were not given their due:

    Pro-slavery states objected to any nearby state being non-slave because it gave the slaves a place to dream about and run to. The mere presence of a non-slave state, with black people living free and productive lives, and what that meant, was a particularly galling and persistent insult. The newly admitted territories being free was a decisive blow to the goal of expanding slavery to help preserve it in the south.

    Pro-slave states objected to non-slave state’s lack of enthusiasm in stopping the transport of and returning their stolen property, the slaves who absconded with themselves, playing the part of both thief and stolen property.

    Slave states objected to the 3/5 Dredd Scott decision that said that black men only counted for 3/5 of a man when calculating how many congressional seats a state would hold. The slave states had previously gotten full credit as citizens for their slaves. Slave states had more congressmen and more power on the national stage than a count of free citizens would otherwise allow.

    There are more issues but in every case what was characterized as a states rights issue was always, at its root, a simple objection over the non-slave states unwillingness to treat African-Americans as slaves, and to become more like slave states. In essence the civil war wasn’t partly about slavery, even though Lincoln and others would take a long time to figure it out, it was entirely about slavery.

    We are still suffering the echoes of the fight over slavery. The term “well regulated militia” were added by southern states where what was called the militia was white males who patrolled the roads and byways for escaped slaves and served to suppress any slave uprising. It was largely white welfare. Otherwise unemployed white youths would spend the night wandering the roads for the express purpose of harassing any non-whites they found. By some accounts they were often abusive to poor whites in addition to blacks, frequently drunk, and prone to random and unjustified violence.

  • Chris Adam-Connor

    Since if there’s one thing colnago80 has shown competence in (there isn’t) It’s a firm grasp of history.

  • colnago80

    Actually, Lee’s biggest failing as a commanding general was in strategy. The Gettysburg Campaign is a textbook example. Lee sold it to Jefferson Davis, himself an incompetent war leader, by telling him that if he undertook another invasion of the North, Lincoln would be so terrified at the threat to Washington that he would recall troops from Grants army which was busily investing Vicksburg. As they say, nothing is more devastating to an opinion then a number. When Grant crossed the Mississippi below Vicksburg he had 39,000 troops under his command. When Vicksburg surrendered, he had 70,000 troops under his command. So much for wishful thinking.

    What should Lee and Davis have done. The same thing that they did later in the year, put the Army of Northern Virginia on the defensive and use the South’s interior lines to entrain Longstreet’s corps to Jackson, MS to reinforce Johnston’s army there. With Johnston’s 15,000, Longstreet’s 12,000 and the 30,000 in Vicksburg under Pemberton, Grant’s army would have been heavily outnumbered and he would have been in deadly danger of losing a battle so he would probably have had to retreat. The assembled forces would have been in a position to attack him before reinforcements could arrive. That would have been the end of Grant as a commander.

  • colnago80

    Re chris @ #28


  • Pen

    They’re going to bury racism in their opposition to gay people. There’s nothing like a common enemy. Given that they’re both a couple of inconsequential nutcases, it’s sort of sweet that they’re friends. I wonder, how does Manning still have a congregation, anyway?

  • D Carter

    Coach Dave is not gay-killing. A bigot etc etc, but (if actual, you know, reality matters to you) no more a gay-killer than you are.

    You don’t have to make stuff up to add to the real and terrible stuff. Doing so just hands the bigots ammunition.

  • busterggi

    Well Christians do consider self-deprecation to be a virtue.

  • http://dontlinkmebro F [i’m not here, i’m gone]

    Help, help, I’m being pillaged.

  • lorn

    IMHO Lee had his good points, he was inventive and willing to take risks. In doing so it helped that he was also lucky. I suspect that at some level he understood that the weapons had changed and that even slightly planned and prepared defense was much favored by over offense. Most of the battle Lee won were with him on defense. Confederate forces went to a lot of trouble to get out ahead of Union forces and persuade them to attack.

    Attacks where the men maintain formation, marched up to the opposition, delivered a few volleys, and followed up with a bayonet charge made some limited sense when muskets were smooth-bore and took a lot of time to reload. With rifled muskets, accurate out to several hundred yard, and deadly out past 3/5ths of a mile, and much more quickly loaded, such tactics were near-suicidal.

    The Union kept losing battles. In part due to incompetence and bad luck, but mainly because they were continually attacking prepared positions.

    Then … out of frustration I suspect, Lee ignored his own advice and attacked prepared Union positions at the battle of Gettysburg … and lost.

  • otrame

    I had a history teacher a long time ago who specialized in the Civil War. He insisted that if Lee had studied Washington and Houston he would have won that war. But in fact he was taught Jomini’s ideas–especially that you win wars by winning battles. Clausewitz knew better but he was out of fashion at West Point when Lee attended.

    It should be noted that he tried to do it right at first. He spent the earliest part of the war trying to make Richmond and St. Petersberg impregnable. He was called the “King of Spades” and was treated very poorly in both the press and in the upper echelons of the army. The general idea was that it was beneath a Southern Gentleman’s dignity to have a single defensive notion in their heads. He was badly scalded by that and insisted concentrating on offense from then on.

    And the truth is that he even if had paid attention to the behavior of the two generals in American history to the date that had won wars against massively larger armies with massively more resources–that is, that in those situations, your army is your country and you shouldn’t waste it– he would probably have been kicked out because running around, avoiding big battles, making the enemy follow you farther and farther into very unfriendly territory would have been called cowardice. Mostly by people who never heard a shot fired in anger until Grant and Sherman came south.

  • markmckee

    There is a bigger hole in the theory that the war was about states rights then the posts above have shown. And that is an analysis of the Confederate Constitution itself.

    The Con Constitution is pretty much a re-write of the US Constitution except in 2 key sections. One is the role of the central government vis a vis the states. In the Confederacy, the central government was MORE POWERFUL versus the states and not less. And the second difference was that in the Confederacy, states were banned from banning slavery. Thus making the states LESS FREE and thus having weaker states rights.

    Google it.

  • democommie

    “By some accounts they were often abusive to poor whites in addition to blacks, frequently drunk, and prone to random and unjustified violence.”

    And yet some people say that today’s southern youth do not value their heritage.

  • democommie
  • colnago80

    Re otrame

    This is called a Fabian strategy, after the Roman general Fabius Maximus. Fabius, after Hannibal won the battle of Cannae, invoked a strategy of avoiding battle and forcing Hannibal to wear out his army by chasing Fabian’s troops all over Italy. This was also the strategy invoked by Nathanial Greene in North Carolina during the Revolutionary War.

    The problem with the Confederacy invoking a Fabian strategy was that it would have required allowing the Union Army of the Potomac to invade and occupy most of the State of Virginia, which was an anathema to native Virginian Robert E. Lee. In addition, Jefferson Davis was adamant that every square inch of the Confederacy must be defended and held at all costs. The incompetent Davis didn’t recognize what was important and what was not until the fall of Vicksburg.

  • Al Dente

    otrame @36

    But in fact he was taught Jomini’s ideas–especially that you win wars by winning battles. Clausewitz knew better but he was out of fashion at West Point when Lee attended.

    The West Point instructor of strategy and tactics was Dennis Mahan* who was a follower of Jomini. Baron Antoine-Henri Jomini had been a staff officer on Ney’s and Napoleon’s staffs. After the Moscow retreat Jomini left French service and entered the Russian army (this was not technically desertion because Jomini was a Swiss citizen). He established the Russian military academy and was an instructor there for several years.

    After the Napoleonic wars, Jomini wrote several books on strategy and tactics. He noted that Napoleon would capture important cities to deny the enemy logistic and political resources. So Jomini felt that capturing enemy cities and otherwise denying control of the countryside to the enemy was the ne plus ultra of a successful commander. What Jomini failed to realize was that Napoleon would defeat the enemy’s army before capturing cities. The French victories at Jena and Auerstedt gave Napoleon access to Berlin and the Battle of Borodino allowed Napoleon to enter Moscow.

    Prior to the Civil War, Jomini’s books were the only works on military strategy taught at West Point. His ideas shaped the basic military thinking of the graduates. It must be remembered that West Point provided all of the professional officers for both sides of the Civil War. So most of the generals were Jominians. John Keegan argues that the peculiarities of American geography forced Grant and Sherman to move beyond Jomini’s geographical conventions and find other strategic solutions to the problems which confronted them.

    *The father of Alfred Thayer Mahan. A case where the son was greater than the father.

  • marym

    Daubenmire is a local yokel in my neck of the woods so I know him better than is probably healthy for me. Over the years, he has gotten more and more addicted to media attention. In February he was all over local news because of his stirring up a small town over his candidacy for the town’s public high school football coach job. The school board wisely voted against him (he was fired from his last coaching position, and resigned in a huff after butting heads with the school administration at two previous schools) but Daubenmire gave interviews left and right while bragging that his news story “led the local 11pm news tonight!”. After he milked that debacle for every drop, he quickly moved on to protesting a billboard ad sponsored by a Muslim group. Although 99.99% of persons passing the billboard just gave it a quizzical glance (“Jesus is a Muslim”?), Daubenmire staged a silly little “protest” consisting of about 30 – 40 poor souls standing in a cold rain. I think he got one news article out of it.

    This “Bury Racism” event that he’s staging is merely an opportunity for a couple of stout greybeards to strut around feeling important while giving speeches and holding conferences. It will accomplish nothing. Daubenmire has involved himself in a number of such “take back our country for Jesus” events. Lotta big talk always resulting in failed expectations. Manning claims that he needs $350,000 for Jumbotrons, buses to transport his congregation, etc. I don’t know if Manning can raise that kind of money, but Daubenmire can’t even raise $350. His one-man ministry has only ever had a handful of followers and has always been supported by Daubenmire’s wife’s job (with lots of financial help from her daddy).

    It’s entertaining to watch Daubenmire’s antics. He tends to shot himself in the foot every time he opens his mouth. He makes REALLY poor decisions when it comes to public relations. He just loves to spew a steady stream of opinions and commentary while complaining that Christians are losing their rights to free speech.

    He’s like a little kid who craves attention so badly that even negative attention is better than no attention at all.

    Fortunately nearly everyone quickly identifies him as rightwing nutcase. Even among rightwing fundamentalists he doesn’t get much notice or respect. So he has to troll the bottoms to find “brothers in the Lord” like James Manning who became infamous for calling Obama “a long-legged mack daddy”, and anti-gay activists James Hartline and Peter LaBarbera. He’s buddies with Flip Benham too. And then there’s Dave’s scummiest friend and former Republican candidate Neal (My First Girlfriend was a Mule) Horsely. Bottomfeeders all.