Gay Patriot Header Image

Cheney’s Hunting Mishap & the Ongoing Decline of the MSM

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 7:15 pm - February 14, 2006.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Media Bias

The more I think about the story of the Vice President’s accidental shooting this weekend of a hunting companion, the more I realize how the MSM bypassed a chance to show that it is not out to “get” the Bush Administration. But, so ingrained is their contempt for our man W and his team that they treat every Administration slip-up as a scandal. Indeed, they even find see policy differences (e.g., NSA surveillance of suspected terrorists) and White House staff attempts to discredit dishonest critics as scandalous.

Given the media predilection to find scandal in the White House’s every move, the Vice President’s staff should have realized that the media would have reacted exactly as they did if they delayed in informing them of the hunting accident. (That’s why I called their reaction “clumsy” in my post yesterday.) Despite its delay in reporting the matter to the media, the Vice President’s staff did not delay in contacting the local sheriff. Contrast this with Hillary Clinton’s “30-hour delay” in contacting authorities after then-White House counsel Vince Foster’s suicide note was discovered.

If the Vice President were trying to cover something up, he wouldn’t have gone to the sheriff as soon as he did. Sheriff Ramon Salinas III of Kenedy County told The New York Times, the Vice President’s team “did what they had to according to law.” (via Michelle Malkin). While the Vice President contacted authorities right away, Hillary waited 30 hours, nearly twice as long as it took the Administration to contact the media. (A shorter delay which whipped the MSM into a sustained frenzy.)

And yet, the media remains in a state of high dudgeon. Yesterday on ABC radio, Anne Compton lamented that the “local sheriff was notified, the media was not.” While some reporters were saddened by the Administration’s failure to cater to their self-importance, others were hysterical. Lorie Byrd found NBC’s David Gregory “to be the most disrespectful and theatrical [of White House reporters]. . . . He did not even resemble a real reporter.

The media’s over-the-top reaction will negate any political damage to the Administration from this incident. At National Review Online’s The Corner, Andrew McCarhty though it would either be “a wash or a slight bump up for the administration. . . . Because the media and the most partisan Democrats can always be relied on to turn opportunity into damage.

If anyone is damaged by this, it will be the MSM as it shows (once again) that they are more focused on getting the Administration than in getting the facts. And I think that’s why the MSM’s reaction to the Vice President’s hunting mishap has so amused conservative bloggers. It’s just another sign of the ongoing decline of the MSM.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest):

UPDATE: In her column on the matter, Michelle Malkin notes that she doesn’t “recall the mainstream media melting down over the 30-hour delay — presided over by Hillary Clinton, according to internal records — in releasing the late White House counsel Vincent Foster’s suicide note to authorities and her own husband.

Tony Blankley finds that the coverage of this incident shows that “we have in the White House at the most elite level of American journalism, self-absorbed, self-important men and women who stand on their prerogatives even over marginal and inconsequential matters.

Both quotations via Michelle Malkin.


Posted by Bruce Carroll at 12:01 pm - February 14, 2006.
Filed under: Gays In Military

This afternoon in Washington, DC, a blue ribbon panel, commissioned by the University of California, will release its financial analysis of the cost of the government implementing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for US armed forces. I received an advanced copy last evening to read. It is astounding.

First, let me note that there were two notable members of the panel to me: former Clinton Defense Secretary William Perry — the man who first began implementing DADT, and Dr. Lawrence Korb who served under President Reagan as Asst. Defense Secretary to Casper Weinberger. These two names alone give this exhaustive study the legitimacy it deserves.

The panel’s charge was to determine if the 2005 General Accounting Office’s study (called “Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DOD’s Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated”) was accurate. The Perry-Korb panel says not just no… but Hell, No!

Total cost of implementing DADT found to be $363.8 Million between Fiscal Years 1994 and 2003.
The Commission’s financial determinations were 91 percent higher than 2005 GAO study which determined costs of DADT implementation to be $173.3 Million.

The Commission found several errors in the GAO study.

This is perhaps the first groundbreaking data-driven, not emotional, argument against DADT that will appeal to fiscal conservatives (Republican and Democrat alike) in Congress. In this new season of ending special interest “earmarks” that cost taxpayers billions, there is now a compelling and tax-saving reason to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Though I have no idea who or whether any of these Commission members are gay or lesbian Americans, there is no doubt that they are true heroes to our community. I guess I didn’t have to wait long

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Gays In America: Victims-R-Us, Heroes-R-Empty

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 6:16 am - February 14, 2006.
Filed under: Gay America,Gay PC Silliness,Gay Politics

I’ve been meaning to post on the annual “American Idol-is-homophobic” rant by the gay community. GLAAD started the bandwagon this year.

“Last week we heard and voiced concerns about the Jan. 18 edition of American Idol — specifically, the producers’ decision to turn a contestant’s gender expression into the butt of a joke. We’ve spoken with Fox and have entered into what we hope will be a productive, ongoing conversation about the show’s representation and discussion of sexual orientation and gender expression.” Damon Romine, Entertainment Media Director, on January 23.

And now San Francisco talk radio host “Karel” takes up the pink torch with this scathing Advocate column trashing American Idol.

Of course it’s homophobic when a judge tells a male contestant that he should shave his face and wear a dress, or when the show previews promote how the gender of one contestant is not readily identifiable and then have a judge simply blurt out, “Are you a girl?” Yes, telling male contestants they look and sound like Sylvester Stallone’s younger sister or the Incredible Hulk in a dress is homophobic. What’s worse, it’s downright mean and not even very good television. But these are not the halls of Congress, where far worse things are done to gays and lesbians, but the airwaves of Fox, where snide patter is par for the course—so why is everyone so surprised?

Frankly, Karel the observations made are NOT homophobic. They are mean, as you say, but they are knee-jerk emotional reactions. In fact, the same type of mean, knee-jerk emotional reactions that most gay men make on a Saturday night when an 60-year old man starts hitting on a 24-year old. After all, “catty” thy home is Gay America. The guy DID look like a female Incredible Hulk, duh!

And of course, it wouldn’t be a gay-themed column without bringing in the Leftist Talking Points Memo.

Never before in our history has it been more chic to be mean, or have the politics of character assassination been more prevalent (on both sides of the political aisles, thank you very much). Nor has propriety ever been at such a low point. In a time when war heroes can be called cowards and spin is accepted for news, anything is possible.

Crushing people has once again become a spectator sport, just as it was in ancient Rome. Except this time the participants are willing. It’s no longer good enough to be better than someone; being better means destroying the competition, not just competing.

Once again this is proof that liberals, especially Gay Lefties, abhor democracy and free enterprise. They want to coddle everyone in a protective bubble — and anything that nicks that bubble is “homophobic.”

Karel — get a grip. Life is tough. Life is especially tough in a cutthroat show business career. That is what American Idol is all about. The problem is Karel takes a defeatist attitude — typical of the American Left. If once we don’t succeed, we have to give up.

America is about second chances, rising beyond expectations, and finding your dreams. One road with obstacles is not the path to victimization and doom. It is but an obstacle leading you to your true dreams and destiny’s path. Our community has got to get a backbone and join reality. The Whoa Is Me/Everyone Hates Me attitude has got to stop.

But just as the Democratic Party needs a hero, so too does Gay America. We don’t need role models who abuse their Congressional seat and run prostitution rings out of their DC townhomes, closeted Governors who pay off their lovers with a high-level state job in charge of security, national gay leaders who praise socialism and deplore free elections, and gutter politics of destruction by the Gay Left looking into the personal lives of each other in order to destroy them.

Folks, those are the heroes that the “mainstream” of Gay America has told us to follow, salute, and honor. Not in my name, sorry!

But we definitely need a hero and good gay American role models. Where art thou?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Valentine’s Day Open Thread — Advice for the Lovelorn

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:05 am - February 14, 2006.
Filed under: General

Given that we have moved to WordPress since my last year’s Valentine’s Day Open Thread, we have lost the comments to that post where I asked readers to let us know how they met their schweeties. Schweetie is my term for significant other.

This year, you’re welcome to chime in and share the story of how you met your schweetie, but also, I ask that you offer advice for the lovelorn. It is not easy to meet other gay men who seek long-term monogamous relationships. So, I’ll repeat the question I asked last year: What can those single ones of us do so that we will not be celebrating Valentine’s Day alone again next year?

As I eagerly await your comments, I wish you all the happiest of Valentine’s Days.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest):

Andrew Sullivan–Appeasing those Who Once Reviled Him?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:43 am - February 14, 2006.
Filed under: Blogging,Gay Politics,Liberals,New Media

After Jonah Goldberg first wondered on National Review Online’s the Corner about a quote that Andrew Sullivan featured as the “quote of the day” on his blog, he and Ramesh Ponnuru have had an interesting exchange on Andrew’s political identity and attitude. The quote from Glenn Greenwald includes this line:

Now, in order to be considered a “liberal,” only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a “liberal,” regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based.

Jonah defies either of them (Greenwald or Sullivan) “to attempt to demonstrate this assertion factually.” By this standard, I’m a liberal since I think the president was wrong to back the FMA, has not done enough to hold the line on federal spending and has failed to follow the Gipper’s vision of federalism. This quote is thus a silly assertion. Every conservative blogs and editorial page I read regularly has criticized the president at least once, most having done so on numerous occasions.

Despite such criticisms, Jonah observes that no one of “any substance or prominence on the Right” has labeled such conservative voices liberal. Indeed, Jonah finds that the opposite to Greenwald’s claim is “far closer to the truth. So long as you hate Bush or attack him, you’re basically ok in the eyes of liberals.” Jonah offers more thoughts here while Ramesh questions Andrew’s conservative credentials in the 1990s. Jonah then notes “the perplexing drift of [Andrew’s] rhetoric and his thinking over the last few years, at least as evidenced in his blog.” Ramesh contends Andrews “tries to have it every which way” and offers additional thoughts here. Finally, Ramesh notes that Andrew took issue with him, with the latter claiming to have “risked something for my conservative ideals–friends and some colleagues, estrangement from the gay establishment, and even my job. . ..”

Andrew does raise a valid point. We gay conservatives know all too well the consequences of coming out politically to our gay peers. We have lost dates, not been invited to parties and often insulted to our faces. Perhaps Andrew grew tired of the “shunning” that occurs when a gay man identifies himself as conservative. And given what he experienced in the 1990s, he would have good reason. Just search the gay media from the early 1990s until 2004 for references to Andrew Sullivan and you’ll find an extremely large number to be negative, with some screeds anticipating the kind of unhinged rhetoric the angry left today spews forth regularly (and which Michelle Malkin highlights in her book). That’s just what he’s endured in print. I’ve heard stories of things he experienced in person, the least of which is having drinks thrown on him.

It seems, however, that since 02/24/04 (the day the president announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment) Andrew has been bending over backwards to appease those who once reviled him. Even though I agree with Andrew that the president was wrong to support that bill, I resumed supporting him (after writing in Rudy Giuliani for President in the California primary) because John Kerry never impressed me as being capable of leading the War on Terror — while straying even farther than President Bush from the vision of Ronald Reagan.