Gay Patriot Header Image

Arnold Schwarzenegger–California’s Comeback Kid

Just after the 1994 election when Republicans recaptured both Houses of Congress for the first time in forty years, people were not only speculating that then-President Clinton would be defeated for reelection, but also wondering whether he would survive a challenge for his own party’s nomination. Well, Clinton avoided such a challenge in 1996 and won reelection by a comfortable margin, even if he failed to win a majority of the popular vote.

Bill Clinton’s comeback that year is one of the great political stories of the 1990s. Under the guidance of political consultant Dick Morris, he turned the tables on his political opponents and convinced the American people he had their interests at heart. Under his strategy of “triangulation,” Morris had Clinton move to the center, compromising with the new Republican Congress on key issues, notably welfare reform, and so crafting an agenda somewhere between that of the Republicans and the Democrats.

This year, ten years since Clinton’s comeback, we are seeing a similar comeback in the Golden State. A year ago, most pundits (but not this blogger) wrote ogg our great Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as a political has-been. That Republican has invested a lot of time and energy into putting four proposals for reform on the ball last fall and lost all of them. His approval ratings plummeted.

A year later, not only have his numbers climbed, but every poll shows him leading his Democratic opponent — in a state where Democrats far outnumber Republicans — by double-digit margins. Governor Schwarzenegger has done this by moving to the center on a few issues and by running a brilliant campaign.

A registered Republican, I have received regular mailings (and phone calls) highlighting the conservative aspects of his record, opposing tax increases, pushing through pro-business reforms, supporting Jessica’s law. Meanwhile, his campaign has highlighted some of his policies which appeal to voters who tend to be left-of-center. Impressed with his environmental record, the PatriotSisterWest, a registered Democrat who lives in San Francisco, is considering voting for the incumbent Republican.

It seems that the Governator has adopted Dick Morris’ triangulation to the politics of the Golden State.


Of Macacas, Unsubstantiated Allegations, Jim Webb’s Novel & Other Insignificant Issues

If this had not been the year where the Democrats — and their allies in the MSM — whipped themselves into high dudgeon over a Republican Congressman’s inappropriate Instant Messages with underage male pages — or where The Washington Post thought a Republican Senator’s one-time use of the odd word “macaca” to describe an operative of his political opponent, I would agree with Glenn Reynolds that the dirty passages in that Senator’s Democratic opponent’s was “not that big a deal.” After all, as Glenn puts it “they’re novels.

When I wrote my own novel, I chose not to include any sex scenes, largely because I thought I could better tell my story without them. Many times, when I read a novel, I found the sex scenes gratuitous, distracting from rather than enhancing the storytelling. After reading an excerpt from Jim Webb’s (the Democrat in question) novel, I don’t think that bland prose could do much to enhance any book (or story) — unless the rest of his writing was even worse.

Under normal circumstances, a candidate’s bad prose (in a novel written well before the campaign) should not be an issue in a Senate campaign. Yet, this year, the MSM has seen fit to make an issue of unsubstantiated allegations that Senator Allen used the “N” word well over thirty years ago. And The Washington Post‘s own ombudsman acknowledged that “when you put it all together,” her paper’s coverage of Allen’s use of the word, “macaca,” “looked like piling on.

To be sure, it was a news story, but not one meriting story after story for day after day while the paper downplayed (or downright ignored) the Senator’s stands on the issues. If the the media focuses on one odd statement made by a candidate — as well as alleged statements he made in his youth — is it not then appropriate to bring up actual passages that his opponent wrote in a book?

I wonder now if Democrats — and the MSM — wish they hadn’t spent so much time on Foleygate. For that focus effectively requires them to address Webb’s prose.


If Vice President Cheney is Darth Vader . . .

. . . does that make Mary Princess Leia?

Thoughts on Hugh Hewitt’s Interview with Andrew Sullivan

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:49 pm - October 27, 2006.
Filed under: Blogging,Civil Discourse,Ex-Conservatives

I have hesitated to discuss Andrew Sullivan’s recent interview with Hugh Hewitt for two reasons, first, that everyone on the blogosphere (particularly its right side) seems well aware of it and second, given my past admiration for the writer/blogger, I find it somewhat embarrassing. Andrew, who has proven himself, an agile debater with anti-gay social conservatives was defensive and combative with Hugh, a social conservative who is certainly not anti-gay.

Last week, on Larry King, Andrew looked good, confident and quick on his feet. If he had had time, he certainly would have trounced the social conservatives he was up against, but the segment was far too short for a serious debate. Yet, given more time on Hugh’s program, he seemed to do anything but showcase his debating skills. It was as if he couldn’t believe that anyone would criticize him — or even ask him tough questions — because he shouldn’t have to face such questioning.

Yeah, Hugh asked tough questions, but I’ve seen Andrew handle tougher — from truly mean-spirited individuals. Hugh may have his faults, being he is clearly not mean-spirited.

Hardly the Andrew Sullivan I had seen (and admired) on many a television program — and in person. I recommend you check out Hugh’s post on the encounter with references to other bloggers as well as his own thoughts. His co-blogger, Dean Barnett offers his two cents here.

I have long said that my problem with Andrew’s shift to the left over the past 2 years, 8 months and 3 days is not so much his ideas as his tone. This interview provides a perfect example of what I mean. Hugh asks him if he’s a Christian and instead of responding yes or no, shoots back “What kind of question is that?” Hardly the confident tone of the man who nine years ago on Nightline made the woman whose group was behind the ex-gay ads look like a blithering idiot.

The Andrew on that show — whom I briefly glimpsed last week on Larry King — is not to be found in the transcript of Hugh’s interview earlier this week. And for this one-time reader of Andrew’s blog, that absence is truly sad.

Camille Paglia Slams Democrats Over Foley Politics,HRC Employee Worked in Democrat Senate Office

Yet another important voice (and someone I rarely agree with) who is channeling GayPatriot this morning…..

The way the Democratic leadership was in clear collusion with the major media to push this story in the month before the midterm election seems to me to have been a big fat gift to Ann Coulter and the other conservative commentators who say the mainstream media are simply the lapdogs of the Democrats. Every time I turned on the news it was “Foley, Foley, Foley!” — and in suspiciously similar language and repetitive talking points.

After three or four days of it, as soon as I heard Foley’s name, I turned the sound off or switched channels. It was gargantuan overkill, and I felt the Democrats were shooting themselves in the foot. I was especially repulsed by the manipulative use of a gay issue for political purposes by my own party. I think it was not only poor judgment but positively evil. Whatever short-term political gain there is, it can only have a negative impact on gay men. When a moralistic, buttoned-up Republican like Foley is revealed to have a secret, seamy gay life, it simply casts all gay men under a shadow and makes people distrust them. Why don’t the Democratic strategists see this? These tactics are extremely foolish.

Not only has the public image of gay men been tarnished by the over-promotion of the Foley scandal, but they have actually been put into physical danger. It’s already starting with news items about teenage boys using online sites to lure gay men on dates to attack and rob them. What in the world are the Democrats thinking? We saw the beginning of this in that grotesque moment in the last presidential debates when John Kerry came out with that clearly prefab line identifying Mary Cheney as a lesbian. Since when does the Democratic Party use any gay issue in this coldblooded way as a token on the chessboard? You’d expect this stuff from right-wing ideologues, not progressives.

Because the Democrats don’t care about gay people unless they are getting homo campaign contributions or they can throw our community under the bus for political gain.


To that point, it is becoming quite clear that the Democrats were intimately involved in the suppression of potential criminal emails for the sole purpose of political gain.  RadarOnline is reporting that the fired Human Rights Campaign employee who started the Foley scandal is Lane Hudson.  Mr. Hudson was a one-time Democratic Senate staffer and was hired by HRC for field work shortly before the phony “StopSexPredators” blog appeared. 


Lane Hudson – Democrat Activist & HRC Employee
Who Suppressed Emails Of A Potential Child Predator

And here is Mr. Hudson’s Friendster profile.  Matt has more on Mr. Hudson’s long history of being a Democrat activist in the comments below. 

My question is this:  What did Mr. Hudson do from the time Sen. Hollings left the Senate in January 2005 until the HRC hired him this fall? 

I certainly hope that Joe Solmonese has reached out to the FBI to cooperate with their investigation.  If he hasn’t, he damn well better.  I’m sure there are a lot of interesting emails on the HRC computers.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Wall St. Journal Channels GayPatriot on Marriage/Civil Unions

Dan… ya gotta love it when James Taranto sounds a lot like us!

The history of this issue is a striking example of the power of the judiciary to shape American politics and culture. In 1999, when the Vermont Supreme Court issued a similar decision, it seemed revolutionary. Gov. Howard Dean, confronted at town meetings by angry traditionalists, defensively said that the ruling didn’t redefine marriage, which remains a union between a man and a woman. Dean nonetheless said he favored civil unions, and he signed the bill the court had ordered the Legislature to pass.

Five years later, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court mandated same-sex marriage, in name as well as in effect. And just over two years after that, the Vermont approach is the “conservative” one, or at least the “moderate” one, at least in New Jersey. Yesterday’s vote among the justices in Lewis v. Harris was 4-3, with the dissenters asserting, à la Massachusetts, that same-sex couples have the “right to the title of marriage” as well as to its material benefits.

Two years ago the New York Times reported that President Bush–frequently vilified by gay-rights supporters for backing the Federal Marriage Amendment–endorsed the idea of civil unions:

In an interview on Sunday [Oct. 24, 2004] with Charles Gibson, an anchor of “Good Morning America” on ABC, Mr. Bush said, “I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so.” . . .

According to an ABC transcript, Mr. Gibson then noted to Mr. Bush that the Republican Party platform opposed civil unions.

“Well, I don’t,” Mr. Bush replied.

So the country has traveled a long road since 1999, when Vermont’s ruling seemed revolutionary. Of course, one should not overstate the case: Only a handful of states afford legal recognition to same-sex unions, and all of them are in the Northeast save California and Hawaii. Most states have enacted laws or constitutional provisions preventing same-sex marriage, and some bar civil unions too.

These provisions resulted from a backlash after the courts’ rulings in Vermont and Massachusetts–a backlash that has probably served the electoral interests of Republicans, who, despite the president’s liberal views on civil unions, remain the party less eager to expand gay rights. In the long run, though, the move toward legal same-sex unions may prove inexorable. All those state restrictions on same-sex unions could be struck down by five Supreme Court justices.

We have mixed feelings about all this. We sympathize with both the traditionalists’ resistance to redefining marriage and gay couples’ desire to enjoy both the tangible benefits of marriage and the affirmation that comes with legal recognition. We guess we’re with President Bush in thinking civil unions are a reasonable compromise. But we’d also be happier if this were thrashed over democratically rather than forced upon society by the courts.

We’ve been saying that for over two years right here!

[Related Story – Same-sex marriage now becomes political dispute in New Jersey –]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)