I have to return to the Courthouse today and may well have to serve on jury for a trial lasting several days so may not be able to blog as regularly as I would like.

As someone who likes to express himself, it’s kind of odd to be in a situation where I cannot speak out. I’m not sure I can even discuss the nature of the case to which I have been assigned. Indeed, when I had dinner tonight with one of my closest friends, I only mentioned that it was a civil suit. I think that’s really all I can say. So I’ll leave it at that.

This is the first time I have had to go in for jury duty. It was interesting waiting with a diverse group of my fellow Angelenos. I did get to talk to a few people called up to serve today — and wonder if I will ever cross paths again with any of those not selected to serve on the panel with me. (And even with those selected.) But, I guess that’s just one aspect of our life today. Just like our encounters with those with whom we share a long plane flight (or other journey).

Unlike people a hundred years ago or so, we continually interact with people for a few hours, a day, maybe even a week who come into our lives and then disappear. Perhaps, we have an interesting conversation (as I did today about the movie business with one potential juror) or find we have something in common with those we meet, but instead of these connections serving as the basis for a friendship or other relationship, they just become pleasant means to pass the time and to learn a little more about our fellows.

Interesting that after a somewhat disorienting day today — where I returned home to nearly 100 e-mails and two small fires to put out (for volunteer responsibilities I have with my college alumni association), I finally felt that I began to decompress when a friend came over for dinner. In a day filled with apparently transient connections, I finally begin to feel fully human when together with someone with whom I have found a more lasting connection.

With Bruce in Vegas and me having jury duty today, blogging may be slow for a while. And if your comment gets caught in the “Moderation Queue,” it may have to wait there for a while as we could both be far from computers for the better part of the day.

My post on the president’s critics denial of progress in Iraq ended up becoming much longer than I had anticipated, so I fear the point may have been lost. Maybe I need an editor.

Or maybe I shouldn’t try too hard to craft an essay. As is my wont. I mean, the first 200 words are just an introduction to the broader point. So, I’ll summarize. In a column in Newsweek (linked on Real Clear Politics), science columnist Sharon Begley claims that president is in denial about the situation on Iraq.

Only, in making her claim, she quotes psychologists (none of whom has analyzed the president), and suggests the war is lost, without providing any evidence to buttress that claim. She doesn’t even mention the surge nor the initial signs of its success. And never references the president’s statements (on the war in Iraq) in nearly of which, while claiming we are winning the war there, he also acknowledges the difficulties that lie ahead.

I cite articles indicating the success of the surge and write:

isn’t the president, but his critics who are in denial. While the president has changed his strategy, they haven’t changed their tune, continuing to report on the setbacks (and there are many) and all but ignoring the successes (which even some in MSM have begun to note).

While Ms. Begley’s piece is titled, “The Truths We Want to Deny” (and is all about the president’s alleged denial), she, as I wrote in the original post, “fails to provide any of the ‘truths’ she claims the president is denying.” Another example of the president’s critics relying more on their own animus against him than on their understanding of the facts of the situation.

Basically, she’s just using these psychiatrists in an attempt to ascribe a psychological afflicition to the president while showing that she is afflicted herself with what Charles Krauthammer has called, “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”

Just by taking a gander at conservative columns and blogs, you can see that many on the right have found much to criticize in the record of President George W. Bush. When they take issue with the supposedly conservative Chief Executive, they reference statements he has made, individuals he has appointed and policies he has enacted (or failed to enact) — and many have taken issue with his failure to change military strategy in Iraq until this year. When many on the left (and in the MSM) take issue with the president, they often dispense with the facts and levy a bevy of charges on him, often without substantiating them — or by pulling statements out of context and/or offering only an incomplete version of the situation, leaving out key facts.

We see the latter in criticism/reporting of the president’s record in Iraq where writers, newscasters, bloggers, etc., present the bad news from Iraq, neglecting the good, for example, headlining pieces with the number of Americans killed while giving short shrift to the number of terrorists killed — and ignoring whether or not our side won the engagement that is the subject of their piece.

This morning (via Real Clear Politics), I discovered one such piece where columnist Sharon Begley echoes the criticism of Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid that the president is “‘in a state of denial’ about the situation in Iraq.” She answers criticism that this could be “dismissed as psychobabble” by quoting a number of psychologists, including Kerry Sulkowicz, clinical professor of psychiatry at New York University Medical Center who claims that the president “seems unmoved by the extent of the evidence that things are far worse than he believes. The tip-off for denial is perpetual optimism, a pathological certainty that things are going well.“

To be sure, the president has been optimistic that we will succeed in Iraq, but, in nearly every statement he has made on the War in Iraq, he has indicated that difficult times lie ahead. Mr. Sulkowicz offers his assessment without once quoting the president to show that he (the president) is not aware of the difficulties in Iraq. To be sure, he may well have addressed those issues, and Ms. Begley just chose to leave them out.

Indeed, in her entire piece on the President’s alleged state of denial (about the war in Iraq), she never once includes a statement of the president indicating a pollyannish view of Iraq (suggesting that there are no difficulties there) nor even once showing that the situation (in Mr. Sulkowicz’s words) is worse than the president believes. Indeed, she offers no facts about the situation in Iraq — or the results of the “surge,” the president’s new policy for victory in Iraq.

In short, in her piece, Ms. Begley fails to provide any of the “truths” she claims the president is denying.

She just joins Harry Reid in assuming that the war is lost. But, as the first reports come back from the “surge,” it seems that it isn’t the president, but his critics who are in denial. While the president has changed his strategy, they haven’t changed their tune, continuing to report on the setbacks (and there are many) and all but ignoring the successes (which even some in MSM have begun to note).

The president perennial critics seem to be in denial about the first signs of success of the surge.

(more…)

For as long as I have been blogging on gay marriage, I have faulted the great majority of those who advocate extending state definition of this ancient and honorable institution to include same-sex unions. I see all too many as all too eager to dodge a debate on this all too important topic. And see too few willing to talk about why marriage is a good thing — and why changing the institution would benefit gay men and lesbians.

I have repeatedly singled out (e.g. here) Dale Carpenter and Jonathan Rauch for discussing the real issues of marriage, noting particularly the chapter, “What Marriage is For,” in the latter’s book, Gay Marriage : Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.

Too often, I have said, gay marriage advocates focus on marriage as a right whereas most people see marriage as a social institution with certain benefits as well as certain responsibilities. It seems that all too many of these advocates don’t understand (as do Rauch and Carpenter — and a number of others) what this institution entails. Witness, for example, the comments of Bennett Klein arguing before the Connecticut Supreme Court that that state violates the constitutional rights of eight gay couples by refusing to grant them marriage licenses. He claimed that “the fundamental principles of marriage are not based on gender.”

Obviously this attorney has not spent much time the long history of marriage. Wherever there has been marriage, the institution has served to bring together individuals of differing genders. To be sure, some cultures have allowed same-sex unions, but they either called them something different than marriage or, as, when they were called marriage, as in the case of the so-called “berdache” tradition of Native American Indians, an individual had to live as a member of the opposite sex in order to marry someone of the same-sex. (In some cases, that individual didn’t have a choice in the matter.)

If Mr. Klein wants to understand those fundamental principles of marriage which he defined inaccurately before the highest court in the Nutmeg State, he should start studying the traditions of marriage from any number of cultures. As he begins his study, he will see how fundamental a role gender difference played in every culture’s understanding of the institution — even in the marriage ceremony itself. He could begin by reading the Chapter on “Betrothal and Marriage” in Arnold van Gennep’s classic work, The Rites of Passage.

That said, while marriage has long been a union between individuals of different genders, it has changed over time. And there’s no reason it can’t evolve to include same-sex unions. But, instead of making the case to state courts, as Mr. Klein, is doing, those who wish to promote this change, should be making their case to individuals who form the culture they wish to influence.

(more…)

To all of you Moms out there…. have a wonderful day.

Mom, I love ya!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Okay, so we’ve made the executive decision to leave the laptop at home and enjoy the trip, sans blogging.  I promise I’ll take photos of any County Music Stars we come in contact with this week at the MGM Grand.  And a full report on the Vegas trip and the Academy of Country Music Awards show when I return next weekend.

Don’t forget to tune into the ACM Awards Tuesday night on CBS-TV at 8pm Eastern/Pacific.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Since I first read Parzival as a senior at Williams, it has become one of my favorite books. This Middle High German epic tells of how an innocent and naif boy, raised far from the courts and castles of his medieval peers, comes to become the greatest knight of his age — as he fulfills his destiny by becoming Grail King.

On the way to that destiny, Parzival makes many mistakes, wronging several ladies and embarrassing himself before Arthur’s court. Not only that. He fails to accomplish his destined mission when he first comes to the Grail Castle. And has to undergo a series of trials, endure much suffering and learn humility and compassion before he gets a chance to right his wrongs.

So much did I like this story that it inspired my ideas of the life Beowulf-poet for use in my screen adaptation of that classic English tale of the greatest monster-slayer in our language.

And while Sam Raimi may not have had Parzival in mind when he wrote the script for Spider-Man 3 (which he also directed), he did develop a character not too different from his medieval German forebear — the flawed hero. Perhaps he was just being true to the comic book hero created by Stan Lee whose characters resonated with numerous kids (including yours truly who was a huge Spider-Man fan as a kid) because he gave them qualities similar to those of heroes of myth and legend.

That’s why, I believe, Sam Raimi’s Spider-man films have struck a chord with the American people — indeed moviegoers across the globe. He has been true to the comic book legends which themselves develop in their heroes qualities which recur in stories throughout human history — in a variety of diverse cultures.

In this latest film, Raimi shows how Spider-man is (to use borrow the expression I used in my review of Spider-Man 2) a “very human superhero.” This time, instead of developing Peter Parker’s longing for a normal life (as he did in the second Spider-Man flick), he focuses on the eponymous hero’s dark side, his weakness in giving in to his anger and desire for vengeance. In Topher Grace‘s Venom/Eddie Brock, Raimi even gives us a shadow character who embodies those unpleasant qualities Peter Parker has difficulty repressing.

The strength of this movie is not only in its script, but also the casting (not to mention the special effects). As in the original Star Wars movies, we believe the relationships between the three principal characters — Tobey Maguire‘s Spider-Man/Peter Parker, Kirsten Dunst‘s Mary Jane Watson and James Franco‘s Harry Osborn. (We even believe the secondary relationships, notably that between Peter Parker and his Aunt May, Rosemary Harris.)

While I found the film thoroughly engaging, I was slightly disappointed by the end. That said, it was the quality of the characters, both as Raimi (and his brother Ivan) wrote them and as the actors played them which made the movie — even more than the special effects. We can see (and understand) the tensions in the relationship between Maguire’s Parker and Dunst’s Mary Jane as he struggles with his dark side and she falls on hard times. And we believe the maternal compassion Harris’s Aunt May shows for her tormented nephew, reminding him that the “hardest person to forgive is yourself.” In many ways, she reminds us of Peggy Wood‘s Mother Abbess in The Sound of Music, the wise older woman eager to impart the wisdom of the heart to a younger generation.

And Mary Jane also shows compassion for her boyfriend’s weakness when she tells him that everyone need help sometimes, even Spider-Man. She is flawed as well, not behaving entirely responsibly when her career goes south.

One reason Raimi’s Spider-Man movies have done so well at the box office is that they have stayed true to the themes of the comic books which themselves remained true to an even older tradition, one which has resonated with human beings for as long as we have been telling stories, that of the flawed (or wounded) hero. With this movie as with the others in this franchise, Hollywood once again gets it right.

Let’s hope other filmmakers learn the lesson that Raimi has and rely on themes and develop characters which have recurred in myth, legends and folklore for generations uncounted. They just need find the appropriate modern dress to tell their tales. So they can reach contemporary audiences which stories which both entertain — and enlighten.

- B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)

Monster.com has an article on the topic today.

The law is particularly ambiguous on the rights of sexual minorities and religious institutions. While no federal legislation protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, approximately 90 jurisdictions — covering 20 to 25 percent of the US population — includes sexual orientation in antidiscrimination statutes.

Some fired GLBT (gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender) employees have filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on, among other identities, sex. However, too few religious-oriented cases have been decided to be definitive.

I nearly didn’t post on this because I think the article is a cheap shot at religious organizations.  The fact of the matter is, unless your company has specific policies against discrimination due to sexual orientation, or you live in a state with a non-discrimination law, you can be legally fired for being gay at any company — religious or not.  They might not tell you it is for being gay, but it can be done.

Now, if our holier than thou Gay Leaders hadn’t wasted the past five years on their fight-for-marriage… we could have gotten an Employee Non-Discrimination Act passed by Congress.  It is the one issue that polls highest for us with a large majority of Americans, and has always had the most support in Congress.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

My brother is becoming increasingly convinced that Hillary will win next fall because the media will give her a free pass.

It certainly seems like it.

So eager are they for another Clinton in the White House — and to be able to cover the “historic moment” of the election of the first woman president.

And yesterday, while doing cardio at the gym, I was watching MSNBC and watched Chris Matthew toss softballs at Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. I haven’t done a scientific survey on this, but it seems to me we see her spokespeople on the talking heads shows more often than we see those of other candidates. (Indeed, I can’t recall seeing her doing any one-on-one interviews.)

I’m sure she’ll do her share of interviews as the actual primaries and caucuses approach, but like her husband in the ’90′s, she’ll be careful to avoid those interviewers who might ask her tough questions.* Her Republican opponents won’t have such luxury because even reporters at FoxNews have been known to ask tough questions of Republicans.

This may well help her in the short term, but in the long term, it could redound to her disadvantage, making her look like a pre-programmed automaton repeating campaign points and not vigorously defending her record. Or maybe I’m just an optimist.

************

*For example, a good reporter would ask her point-blank what she thinks about Sandy Berger, her husband’s National Security Advisor and his “carelessness” with sensitive documents.

I’ve decided that I need to do my part to help combat the global hysteria over “climate change” — something sane human beings used to call “weather” when I was growing up and when Al Gore was a conservative Democrat.

What has prompted me to take action and become “anti-Green” are the comments of yet another wacko environmentalist this week.

Watson’s May 4 editorial asked the question “The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?” Then he left no doubt about the answer. “We are killing our host the planet Earth,” he claimed and called for a population drop to less than 1 billion.

The commentary reminded readers that Watson had called humans a disease before and he wasn’t sorry. “I was once severely criticized for describing human beings as being the ‘AIDS of the Earth.’ I make no apologies for that statement,” the column continued.

He goes on to say…

“No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas. New York, London, Paris, Moscow are all too big. Then again, so are Moose Jaw, Timbuktu and even Annapolis, Md.”

“We need vast areas of the planet where humans do not live at all and where other species are free to evolve without human interference.  We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.”

Isn’t it ironic that those who most loudly preach the science of Darwin (liberals) are the same ones who reject it in practice.  This guy wants to commit global genocide, and American liberals want to subsidize those in society who don’t contribute.  So much for survival of the fittest in real life, eh?  Instead, liberals want to be God.

From this point on, I need to stand up in the spirit of great non-violent protestors to do my part to stop the potential human holocaust by these environmental nutcases.

I will now use and/or soil every piece of linen in my hotel room when I travel.

Take that, Al Gore!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Just a couple more work days and I’ll be Vegas-bound for the Academy of Country Music Awards vacation.

Today, I continue the ACM Countdown with Top Female Vocalist.  Well, I’m in love with Carrie Underwood.  She has rocketed from American Idol winner to Grammy winner in just two years.  She is probably the most successful Idol contestant so far (including Kelly Clarkson). 

But I’m torn here because I also love Martina McBride and have seen her in concert and really love her music. 

And, I’ve also seen Sara Evans… think she has an amazing voice… and frankly, she is smoking hot. 

Next Tuesday, the Academy of Country Music will decide who the Top Female Vocalist is.  When it comes down to it, I think this is one of the strongest categories.  All of these women are outstanding. 

Today, you can pick your favorite.

I was out working with one of my managers in Michigan last week and he asked me a question that got me thinking:  “Bruce, do you really think there are sleeper cells in the USA?”   I told him, yes — partly from things I know from friends in the intelligence community.  And partly because of my current bias due to watching the outstanding SHOWTIME series “Sleeper Cell: American Terror” (which is the 2nd season of this program).

One of the main characters in “Sleeper Cell” is an FBI informant.  While attending a meeting while undercover with his jihadist gang in Los Angeles, one of the true holy warriors asks the FBI agent (I’m paraphrasing) “who would ever believe a jihadist was a store owner?”   The FBI informant (keeping his cover as the group’s lead) replies “who would believe that a jihadist is a nanny?”  He then glances over to the Dutch-born Muslim extremist woman who, in fact watches over two American children during the daytime…while at night plotting the death of Americans.

I’m planning to do a more complete review on Sleeper Cell which I’ve downloaded to my iPod.  But you can still catch repeats on SHOWTIME through June.

With the “nanny comment” as an intro, I call your attention to the announcement yesterday of the breakup of the “sleeper cell” in New Jersey yesterday.

The FBI arrested six people last night, including five in Cherry Hill, for an alleged plot to kill soldiers at Fort Dix, several federal officials said.

Greg Reinert, a Justice Department spokesman in Camden, described the six as “Islamic radicals . . . who were involved in a plot to kill U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix in New Jersey.”

“Their alleged intention was to conduct an armed assault on the Army base and to kill as many soldiers as possible,” he said.

While there is no suggestion that these individuals were operating under an al-Qaeda umbrella, clearly there are “sleeper cells” in our American neighborhoods.  Americans need to wake up and realize that there is a global war against our freedom and way of life.  It isn’t fair that our volunteers in the US Armed Forces are the only ones having to defend us. 

And our national media organizations aren’t doing us any favors when they are continually chipping away at our national resolve to fight this war.  (*cough* Keith Olbermann *cough*)

Especially when there are Islamic terrorists next door.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In the immediate aftermath of the 2004 elections, the prospects looked bleak for the Democratic Party. Bloggers on the right as well as conservative pundits (and even a few on the left) forecast that the Democrats would remain in the minority for the near future. Some even projecte GOP gains in the 2006 election. But, a combination of the president’s lack of media strategy and excessive loyalty to his appointees* as well as Republican overconfidence and the arrogance of a seemingly entrenched minority allowed the Democrats to make gains, not so much because of their agenda, but because they weren’t the party in power.

Now, a number of pundits, mostly on the left, but also a few on the right, have declared that 2008 will be a Democratic year, even though 2007 is barely a third over. Conservative pundit and frequent Bush-critic Bruce Bartlett writes that “it is foolish to ignore the strong Democratic trend that is indisputable,” claiming that “no Republican can win the presidency next year.”

To be sure, things don’t look so good for the GOP right now. But, then, they didn’t look so good for the Democrats in May 2005. In fact, things looked pretty bleak for the Democrats well into 1992. Going into this year in France, polls showed Socialist Ségolene Royal defeating Nicolas Sarkozy, the candidate of the party of the unpopular incumbent.

I would daresay that as soon as our party picks its nominee for 2008 and that candidate distinguishes himself from the incumbent, he (like Sarkozy) should pick up support. After all, while most polls show the American people preferring the Democrats to Republicans, polls also show that the American people continue to hold conservatives views. (Yes, I realize that these polls indicate that people prefer the Democrats on a variety of issues. I’m referring to polls which ask issue-specific questions, such as waging an aggressive war on Terror and decreasing the size and scope of the federal government.

Not only that. But, it seems that next fall, the Democrats may face criticism similar to that they leveled against the GOP last fall. Noting that “Democrats’ Momentum Is Stalling” the Washington Post writes that “some in the party are growing nervous that the ‘do nothing’ tag they slapped on Republicans last year could come back to haunt them.” And the power of the far-left “netroots” (i.e., left-wing bloggers) pushes the Democrats further to the extreme (e.g., Hillary Clinton’s bill to “deauthorize” the Iraq War), making them less palatable to voters in the center.

Right now the Democrats are riding high for the same reason they won in 2006. They are the party opposed to an unpopular president who has trouble making the case for his policies. But, when a GOP nominee emerges as the new face of the party and if he succeeds in putting forward a positive agenda for change, we should see the Democratic advantage melt away. And as the 2008 election approaches (without George W. Bush’s name on the ballot), Democrats’ opposition to the incumbent will not matter as much as their plans to move America forward.

Given that they’ve dwelled more on that opposition than their own agenda, expect a GOP surge next fall, that is, provided my party’s nominee succeeds at articulating his vision for the future. And that the Democrats reminded mired in the politics of antagonism — and beholden to the far left, with an agenda sure to win praise amongst left-wing bloggers, but out of touch with the great majority of Americans.

- B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)

*particularly as this involved shifting strategy in Iraq — and making the case for the war to the American people.

ADDENDUM (after the jump): (more…)

For the past 4 years (at least), many on the left (& in the MSM) have accused the President of “cowboy” diplomacy, of going it alone without the participation of our allies. In making that claim, the President’s critics have made much of France’s opposition to his policies. But, with the victory yesterday of Nicolas Sarkozy, we can once again see that the problem was not so much Bush’s decision to “go it alone,” but the duplicity of the French.

In declaring victory yesterday, Sarkozy “embraced” his nation’s friendship with the United States, noting that his “dedication to our relationship with America if well known and has earned me substantial criticism in France.” While noting his disagreements with U.S. foreign policy from time to time, he faulted the attitudes not of the Bush Administration, but of the outgoing French leadership, pointing out that “France’s foreign policy had often suffered from an arrogant and insensitive approach” which, as John Fund put it, was “a clear reference to the haughty attitudes of retiring president Jacques Chirac and his prime minister, Dominique de Villepin.“

It was after all, de Villepin in 2002-03, then as Foreign Minister, who deceived then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell about France’s intention to support the Iraq War in the U.S. Security Council and who lobbied Turkish legislators to vote against allowing U.S. troops to invade Iraq from their soil. It wasn’t so much that the Bush Administration sough to go it alone, it was that France (under Chirac and Villepin) sought to thwart U.S. policy. As the Washington Post‘s Jim Hoagland put it, “Chirac’s foreign policy . . . sought to establish Europe as a counterweight to American influence abroad.” That is, Chirac and Villepin were determined to oppose us merely for the sake of establishing a foreign policy different from that of the United States.

To be sure, Hoagland does not expect Sarkozy to immediately repudiate Chirac’s foreign policy. Still, Sarkozy has not shied away from his affinity for the United States, even braving (if that be the word) a pre-election meeting with the president where he had “his picture taken shaking” the much-maligned Chief Executive’s hand. (As I wrote above, Sarkozy noted himself that his dedication to the Franco-American alliance earned him some criticism in France.)

And the media has noted his pro-American attitudes, with London’s Telegraph calling him “a blunt and uncompromising pro-American conservative” and USA TODAY heading today’s paper, “Pro-US president elected in France.” Sarkozy himself acknowledged as much in his victory speech, saying that the United States can “count on our friendship,” even as he made clear that “friendship means accepting that friends can have different opinions.” Sounds like friendship between nations is like friendship between individuals.

(more…)

This year we decided to combine two Patriot favorite past times into one vacation.  One week from tomorrow night, PatriotPartner, PatriotMom and I will be in the audience for the 42nd Annual Academy of Country Music Awards — live from the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas!

We leave this coming Saturday for a week’s vacation in Vegas including the ACM Awards on Tuesday May 15, and the “Music & Passion” Barry Manilow show at the Hilton a week from this Thursday.  Hopefully there will be some time where I can post photos of the festivities during our trip.

To start the countdown this week, I thought it would be fun to post a poll of the nominees to get your thoughts.  Of course, we start off with Top Male Vocalist.

My pick is Brad!

More countdown to the ACM Awards all week and this weekend…

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

This has to be my ultimate nightmare….

What began as a faint popping in a 9-year-old boy’s ear – “like Rice Krispies” – ended up as an earache, and the doctor’s diagnosis was that a pair of spiders made a home in the ear.

 

“They were walking on my eardrums,” Jesse Courtney said.

One of the spiders was still alive after the doctor flushed the fourth-grader’s left ear canal. His mother, Diane Courtney, said her son insisted he kept hearing a faint popping in his ear – “like Rice Krispies.”

I think I’m going to hurl…..

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

**UPDATE AT 2PM EASTERN** — French newspaper LeMonde declares Sarkozy the winner in a landslide**

Sarkozy’s margin was only 4%�shy of Ronald Reagan’s massive�popular vote/electoral landslide of 1984 in the United States.� This is truly a�new day for the French Republic!� First, Germany elects a conservative Chancellor (post-�and now France a conservative President (post-Chirac).� Perhaps the�Western democracies’�fight against Islamic extremism has turned an important political corner today. I’m going to enjoy a nice glass of French wine this evening!

*********�

Just heard via FoxNews that Nicolas Sarkozy has won the French presidential election with about 53-54% of the vote. This represents a real shift in European poltics. And yet another defeat of an anti-Bush candidate in a foreign land. On Fox, I heard that he won even though his opponents labeled him “Sarkozy the American.” I also recall he was accused of being a clone of our much-maligned President. That notwithstanding, he won by a comfortable margin.

I hope to blog more on this anon, but have a busy day ahead of me.

**UPDATE BY GAYPATRIOT AT 1:45PM** — Excellent liveblogging on the expected Sarkozy win is going on at No Pasaran.� Official results on the French Presidential election will be released in less than 15 minutes.

Turnout is extraordinarily high.

In a hotly contested poll, nearly 75% of voters had cast their ballots by late afternoon – the highest turnout at that point in more than 30 years.

-Dan (GayPatriotWest) and Bruce (GayPatriot)

UP-UPDATE (from GPW): Over at Back Talk, a “professor at a major research university” notes that in the past 3 years, six of the seven “advanced industrialized Nations of the world (i.e., the G7)” have elected governments which support the American war on terror, rejecting anti-Bush candidates and governments and observes:

If America’s standing really were so low, presidential candidates should be able ride anti-Americanism to victory. This should be especially true in France and Germany — the two most anti-American states in Western Europe (according to popularity polls, anyway). 

(Via Instapundit which features a picture of a woman holding a poster calling France’s incumbent President (Chirac) a “worm”). Now just read the whole thing!

In his comment to my post on last night’s GOP debate, HardHobbit faulted Fred Thompson for remaining “the outsider, keeping quiet and cashing in on apathy and dissatisfaction.” And while I frequently agree with this prolific commenter, this time, I beg to differ. He does raise a valid criticism of the former Tennessee Senator, but I believe Thompson has been executing a brilliant strategy.

First, by staying out of the fray (for now), he has been generating a huge amount of buzz — and free publicity. While the ten announced GOP candidates had to share the stage last night, Thompson will be speaking today to a party gathering in Orange County, just “75 miles south of the Reagan Library. C-Span and CNN will cover the event live.” John Fund (of the Wall Street Journal thinks Thompson could draw “as many viewers as” the debate. As the solo speaker in that forum, he’ll get the chance to get his message across in a format more conducive to a positive presentation. (And without a left-leaning moderator to interrupt him when he’s trying to make his points.)

Over at Hugh Hewitt, Dean Barnett agrees, noting that Thompson has

proven that he can get his commanding mug on TV and his soothing voice on the radio without even having a campaign committee. I’ve said it before – for someone with his level of fame and who generates the public interest that he does, living off the land as an undeclared candidate is a smart and eminently doable thing.

Not only that. While last night’s debate was held at the Reagan Library, many (but not all) Reagan Republicans (and other GOP conservatives) are not satisfied with the current candidates. Had Thompson been in the race from the get-go, he might have been subject to a more thorough vetting. Now, conservatives are casting about for someone to assume the mantle of the Gipper, a man with a conservative record and mediagenic presence. Thompson fits the bill.

Instead of having to pander to the party’s base (as some of this year’s candidates appear to be doing), Thompson strategy seems to be — to have the base come to him.

As Frank Cagle (via Instapundit) puts its, “Fred Thompson threw away the script when he ran for the Senate; he may do it again trying for the White House” Cagle’s right. Thompson has thrown away the script. And his strategy appears to be working. Even though he hasn’t announced, he polls well above all but two of announced candidates, even leading among others Mitt Romney (who has raised the most money of the GOP hopefuls).

While my man Rudy has shown the leadership skills essential to serving as the nation’s Chief Executive, last night he not show the political skills necessary to winning the job. So far, with his brilliant stealth campaign*, Fred Thompson is showing those skills that his likely rival has (recently) been lacking. If the latter can convince us he has those leadership skills, he could well eclipse the more accomplished New Yorker. That is, unless the former Mayor develops a political strategy designed to winning the GOP nomination.

It’s too bad we can’t combine the two (throwing in John McCain’s military know-how and resolve for good measure) — for together, they have what it takes to winning the White House — and governing effectively.

* Via Instapundit

Polls showing that Nicolas Sarkozy, the more pro-American of the two candidates competing in Sunday’s runoff for President of France should cause us to reassess our attitudes toward that European nation often at odds with the United States.

Many Americans, particularly those on the right (and even some of this blog!,) have made it a sport of mocking the Gallic land. But, I have to admit having a particularly fondness for the French. And it’s not just the cuisine. You see, I was a French major in college and think their literature ranks alongside that of the English as the best European writing. (This is not to dismiss the literatures of other cultures, merely to highlight the breadth (and depth) of the French literary accomplishment.)

When I lived in France in the 1980s, I saw two distinct nations which we seem to be seeing in the runoff to the election. One France, the intellectual aspect (that of trailing Socialist candidate Segolene Royal), scorned our nation, finding themselves far superior to the “crass” and “uncultured” Americans. The other (that of Sarkozy) loved things American and remained grateful to our armed forces for liberating them from the Prussian threat in the First World War and Nazi tyranny in the Second.

While the intellectuals mocked our cultural product, average French people flocked to our movies — and fell in love with our stars (at one time it was Jerry Lewis; when I was there it was Mickey Rourke). I recall that a cinema in St-Germain-des-Prés, considered the “center of intellectualism” in Paris, the lines to see American movies were (after a flick’s opening weekend) considerably longer than those for French films.

When I hobnobbed with young French intellectuals (even those living at the Fondation des Etats-Unis, the American dorm in Paris), they looked down on America. Yet, when I taught English to young French professionals, they were eager to learn about American culture — and would rather have learned American English than that of the nation where the language first developed.*

In the small Breton town of Quiberon, the staff at the hotel (where I stayed) was cold to me when they thought I was Parisian (I had registered with my Paris address). Their attitude changed when they learned I was American.

In 1988, when running for President, Jacques Chirac, understood that many of his compatriots liked America; he distributed a campaign flyer prominently featuring pictures of him with then-President Reagan and his heir apparent, then-Vice President George H. W. Bush. (I was struck that his campaign volunteers were passing this out in Paris.)

(more…)

Sometimes you learn a lot when you see something on TV (or a video screen) without the sound. If you’re watching a movie, say on a plane where you don’t have headphones and became engaged in the images, chances are its a good flick. You find can you follow the story without hearing the dialogue.

The same holds true for politics. I had little interest yesterday in watching the Republican candidates’ debate at the Reagan Library because the 2008 presidential campaign is beginning way too early.

But, yesterday, while I was at the gym doing cardio, they had the debate up on one the TV monitors, so I had a chance to watch without sound — while occasionally reading the closed captions at the bottom of the screen. I have to say, that of the ten candidates, John McCain looked the best. He came across as feisty energetic and self-confident. Mitt Romney also looked presidential, calm and self-confident. Much as I like Rudy Giuliani, it just seemed that he was phoning in his performance (I think I may have read that on another blog), almost as if he were repeating talking points.

My man just didn’t seem engaged. As a result, he seemed to blend in with the other candidates and did not stand out as did McCain. I still have my problems with McCain, but think David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register offered the best synopsis of the Arizona Senator’s performance:

He was critical of the early conduct of the war but stood steadfast in his support for the troop surge despite its unpopularity. He was critical of President Bush for allowing too much spending and went against the Republican grain on issues such as stem-cell research. He also said Congress made a mistake meddling in the Terri Schiavo case.

McCain often comes off well when he says things people don’t like. If you say it with conviction, voters will respect you even as they disagree.

I was following the debate (via those captions) when McCain addressed the Iraq war and commend him for succinctly making his point, noting that while he had been critical of the president in the past, he believes he has finally put together a good strategy. Kudos, Senator. This time, you’re telling it like it is.

From the perspective of this blogger who saw the debate without actually hearing the candidates, I agree that it represents a net plus for John McCain. Simply put, he looked good. But, note as well the observation of Roger Simon (and not just him) that a man who wasn’t there, Fred Thompson, won the debate.

If the debate has any impact on the race, I think it will be to tighten it up a bit. And should Thompson jump in (as most expect him to), he could find himself in close competition with both McCain and Giuliani. Instead of the two-man contest I imagined last month, we could well see a three men in serious competition for the GOP nomination.