Gay Patriot Header Image

Where’s the Smear?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 6:00 pm - July 12, 2007.
Filed under: Alternate Universe,Bush-hatred,Liberals,Media Bias

It is absolutely amusing listening to Administration critics ranting about the ham-handed effort of White House officials to discredit a dishonest critic. Hillary Clinton thinks they were trying to “stifle dissent” while others claim they were trying to “smear” that disingenuous man (Joe Wilson) by telling the truth to reporters to rebut the distorted information he provided to the New York Times, both in comments to a columnist for that paper and in a piece he penned on his own.

Just yesterday that deceitful Democrat testified before the House Judiciary Committee (Via Ben Johnson via Instapundit). Doesn’t seem his ability to “dissent” has been stifled even as the accusations he made against the Bush Administration have been discredited (and here). Imagine if a Republican partisan, after his criticisms of a Democratic president had been shown to be false, being invited to testify before a congressional committee. The MSM would be in an uproar, but they seem to have uttered barely a peep at Mr. Wilson’s appearance yesterday.

In that appearance, he continued to blather on about “the deliberate deceptions” he still claims he disclosed, even as the Senate Intelligence Committee has long since made clear that he did no such thing.

Now this man, like so many on the left, is accusing the President of being involved in an “unseemly smear campaign.”

OK, where’s the smear?

While White House officials may have behaved in a clumsy manner in trying to make known the facts to counter Mr. Wilson’s deceptions, they did not provide false or misleading information.

Look, it’s one thing to criticize the president for his policies, but it’s quite another to distort the truth to allege his policies were criminal or his own actions had malicious intent. It’s a truly sad when dishonest men are invited to testify before a congressional committee and level false accusations against the president of the United States, particularly when those claims have long since been discredited.

I don’t know why the left remains so obsessed with accusing this Administration of practices (dishonesty and smear tactics) which seemed to be staples of the previous Administration. There are ample grounds to criticize President Bush and his team. Dishonesty and Smear Tactics, however, are not among them.

UPDATE (from GPW): Just realized that I had posted a piece with the exact same title nearly a year ago — on this very subject. Despite numerous revelations of his many deceptions, Mr. Wilson continues to spout the same silly nostrums which gained him fame (and perhaps fortune), but hopefully to an ever-shrinking audience.

For Film Lovers in LA, Outfest Begins Today!

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:49 pm - July 12, 2007.
Filed under: LA Stories,Movies/Film & TV

If you enjoy gay and lesbian themed movies and live in Los Angeles, you’re in luck as Outfest, Los Angeles’ annual gay & lesbian film festival, begins tonight with a festive Opening Night screening of Save Me at the Orpheum in Downtown LA. It continues for the next nine days with a variety of shorts, features, documentaries and panels — and even a Dreamgirls singalong on Thursday, July 19 at the Ford Amphitheatre in the Hollywood Hills.

I’ve been volunteering at the festival for the past six years and have been a theater manager since 2002. While I regret that many of the films do have a left-wing bent, I am pleased to be associated with a film festival where the staff shows such respect for the volunteers and patrons. One of the reasons I continue to volunteer is that organization has gone out of its way to thank me — and the others who donate their time and enthusiasm to Outfest.

So, if you’re free in the next few days, check out Outfest where you can see some interesting, unusual and entertaining films — and have a lot of fun. And maybe even catch sight of (and schmooze with) a celebrity or two. (Many openly gay celebrities — and a few gay-friendly straight ones — have been known to frequent the festival.)

To get more information about Outfest, just click here or here for an online film guide and to buy tickets.

And if you’re going to be at the festival, make sure to e-mail me to see if I’ll be working at a venue where you’ll be seeing a flick.

GLAAD Will Now Allow You To See A Movie…

The Gay Borg have spoken.  You are now permitted to see “Chuck and Larry” with a clear gay conscience. 

Sandler made the film with his fan base, a demographic comprised of teenage to 30-something heterosexual men, squarely in mind, according to Damon Romine, entertainment media director for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

While the press waits to screen “Chuck & Larry,” Romine has seen the film twice with sample audiences.

“Through this disarming type of comedy, there is this use of stereotypes and slurs, and it holds the mirror up for people to ask, ‘Where does this come from?’ ” Romine said.

At the end of the day, this is a comedy that actually stresses the importance of family and treating others with dignity and respect. The film actually does send a very strong message.”  (GP Ed. Note – And it is always good to see GLAAD using the most overused corporate speak phrase in history.  Way to be creative!)

Please folks…don’t think for yourself, you are just wasting time.  After all, there’s always a Gay Borg group out there to do think and moralize for you.  Resistance and individual thought is futile.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Log Cabin: Sally Field Republicans

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 6:19 pm - July 11, 2007.
Filed under: Blogging,Gay Politics,Log Cabin Republicans

As Log Cabin prepares for its Capital Celebration in Washington, D.C. tomorrow, I’m reminded of Hollywood’s annual celebration back in 1985 when Sally Field won her second Oscar for Places in the Heart. Upon receiving the statuette, she uttered her memorable phrase, “You like me, right now, you like me.

For the past four years at least, it seems that everything Log Cabin does is so their leadership can repeat that talented actress’s memorable (and often-misquoted) phrase when describing how the national gay groups feel about them. Whenever I scan the press releases on their very user-unfriendly website, it seems the issues that matter to them differ little (if at all) from those left-of-center organizations.

While many conservatives and libertarians (including a good number of gay people) oppose Hate Crimes laws and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Log Cabin joined the gay groups in praising introduction of such bills in the House (ENDA) and the Senate (Hate Crimes).

Lost is the notion about federalizing issues best handled at the state level, particularly criminal law. No, it just seems that Log Cabin has let the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) define its agenda for it. Instead of coming up with a conservative/libertarian agenda on gay issues, Log Cabin’s leadership seems intent on gaining the affection of the leaders of the left-leaning and liberal gay groups.

Log Cabin could use its position as the only ostensibly right-of–center gay group in Washington to challenge those groups’ left-wing orthodoxy — and to promote a discussion and even debate on the best means to address gay concerns, but it is more comforting to hear your erstwhile adversaries telling you that they like you, they really like you.

And to hear such pleasant words, they have forfeited the opportunity to offer a unique, a conservative, perspective, on issues of concern to our community.

We should be grateful thus for the opportunities that blogging affords.

My Lai Haditha: Oops. Never Mind.

The government’s case against a Marine accused of fatally shooting Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha lacks sufficient evidence to go to a court-martial and should be dropped, a hearing officer determined. The murder charges were brought against Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt for killing three Iraqi brothers in November 2005.

The hearing officer, Lt. Col. Paul Ware, wrote in a report released by the defense Tuesday that those charges were based on unreliable witness accounts, insupportable forensic evidence and questionable legal theories. He also wrote that the case could have dangerous consequences on the battlefield, where soldiers might hesitate during critical moments when facing an enemy.

“The government version is unsupported by independent evidence,” Ware wrote in the 18-page report. “To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.” (Associated Press)

Any minute now we’ll hear from such fossilized leftist nutjobs reliving their ‘glory days’ like John Murtha, who sold his soul and betrayed the uniform he once wore for political gain, along with the MSM folks so eager to stick it to Bush regardless of such things as ohhhh “due process” and “innocent until proven guilty”. Yep, they’ll all be lining up and rushing to humbly apologize for slandering these Marines in just a few. Wait for it. It can’t be long now…

(More on this can be found at Gateway Pundit)

— John (Average Gay Joe)

UPDATE: In yet another example of military hatred by leftist nutjobs, Ace of Spades posts about the cover-up in the MSM on the real motive behind the attempted murder of U.S.A.F. Airman Jonathan Schrieken by an antiwar freak — on the 4th of July no less! Now that’s speaking ‘truth’ to power Tarentino-style.

UPDATE FROM GP: A reminder of John Murtha’s “cold blooded” attack on our US Marines.

UPDATE (from GPW): Bruce Kesler at Democracy Project has been doing a good job following this story, so I highly recommend his latest post on the topic. He suggests the coverage of the issue is of a piece of the media’s coverage of the surge:

Our foes quite openly and explicitly recognize their only hope of winning is in Washington, and they are encouraged by our politicians and media who weaken our efforts and resolve. The premature rush to abandon the “surge,” only fully manned for a few weeks and showing results, is more than irresponsible. It is despicable. Indeed, it’s incredible, so implausible as to elicit disbelief, but it’s happening, and cheers can be heard from our foes in Iraq and elsewhere.

Now just read the whole thing and make sure to follow the links.

The First “Gay Presidential Debate”…Nope, Not a Joke!

Oh lord…. this must be sheer heaven for the “Special Rights” crowd of the Gay Left.   Their own debate!   Wooooo hoooooo.

 For the first time the leading candidates for the presidency will hold a televised debate devoted solely to LGBT issues. The one-hour event will be held on August 9 and broadcast on gay network LOGO at 9:00 pm ET (6:00 pm ET) and through live streaming video at

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have confirmed they will participate. Several other Democratic candidates also may join the debate.  The debate will be conducted with a live audience in Los Angeles.  On the panel questioning the two Democrats will be Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese and singer Melissa Etheridge.

The debate was put together by LOGO and HRC.  “In the 2008 presidential election, issues of concern to the LGBT community have already been at the forefront of the national conversation,” said Solmonese.

After all, how better to further advance the cause of self-victimization then to have all of the Democrats pander to you for one whole night? I can’t wait to watch it and see the endless pleas for gay people’s money flowing from the Dem candidates, especially Hillary whose husband codified two of the most anti-gay Federal mandates in our lifetime.

I would bet that Joe Solomonese and Melissa Etheridge (LOL!!!) will not ask any questions about Islamists condemning gays and lesbians to death, and Iran hanging gay youth.   Betcha!

So, let the jokes begin on this self-created parody….

From PoliPunditEdwards will have home-court advantage

From The CornerL is Lesbian. G is Gay. B is Bisexual. T is transgender.  What, pray tell, are the public policy aspects of bisexuality that require a debate at the presidential level? Oh, man, I hope there are some bisexual questions from the audience.

My addition:  Why isn’t Senatress Lucy Grah-amnesty (R-SC) invited?  She gave the best hissy fit the Senate had ever seen a couple weeks ago, after all.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan): Since I’m in LA, I have applied for press credentials to attend (having done so even before Bruce posted this piece). Let’s see if they’re open to having a gay conservative blogger attend. Even better, let’s see if they’ll have WiFi so I can blog it live.

Democrats Begin To Master The “Congress Of Corruption”

Under Empress Nancy’s reign, the “culture of corruption” has become more like the “Congress of Corruption.”

Exhibit A – US Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA). ‘Nuf said.

Exhibit B – US Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA)

Exhibit C – US Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV)

Mollohan Earmarks Nearby Land
Paul Singer, Roll Call Staff, June 28, 2007

A $1 million earmark request by Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) would allow the Interior Department to expand a wilderness area neighboring properties the Congressman owns.

Exhibit D – The Empress Pelosi (D-CA) herself!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has disclosed that she holds stock valued at up to $15,000 in Alcatel-Lucent (formerly Alcatel SA), a company with extensive investments in Iran and Sudan — nations that sponsor terrorism.

The disclosure of Pelosi’s holdings comes at the same time that legislation is making its way through the California legislature barring state pension fund managers from investing in companies, like Alcatel-Lucent, that do business with “terror-friendly” nations.

My, my, my.  How hollow these words now ring

“The Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.”

I guess (not my) Speaker Pelosi’s “out clause” in her promise was the word “intend.”  No wonder the Congress of Corruption has a lower approval rating that the President.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

B.D.S. & Constitutional Ignorance

The cries for impeachment and removal of President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney from many on the Left have been heard for a few years now, but it is interesting to see how they themselves view such possibilities. One such analysis is provided by “Daimeon”, who posts on the ever-so-liberal blog Pam’s House Blend. In this we see what I can only describe as Bush Derangement Syndrome in an unreasonable desire for the removal of both or either man by just about any means necessary, somewhat tempered by a woeful ignorance of how the impeachment process is outlined in the Constitution. For someone who claims a connection to the United States Air Force, one would think they would at least be more familiar with the actual document he possibly swore (or affirmed) to “support and defend” in the Oath of Enlistment. It’s not as if finding the text of the United States Constitution online is all that difficult. One could even start with Google if they do not know where to find it online.

Daimeon begins his review of possible impeachment scenarios he envisions by writing:

Scenario number 1 and the one most discussed right now as a “two pronged approached,” Impeach the Vice President:

Vice President Cheney is Impeached. While this seems like a good strategy to prevent him from becoming president should Bush be impeached, Mr. Bush still has the presidential power of granting pardons. The house would vote for impeachment which is the equivalent of charging the person of a crime and Mr. Bush would pardon him and wipe the slate clean. Cheney could not be charged again for the same crimes and would remain the veep.

The problem with this analysis is that it ignores the very clear text of Article II, Section 2, which states that the President “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment” (emphasis mine). In other words, President Bush could pardon Vice President Cheney for any alleged criminal activity but has absolutely no power to prevent his impeachment and removal from office. Despite all the trappings in the proceedings, impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate are political acts and not judicial. Congress has no authority to levy criminal or civil penalties in an impeachment and trial process, as stated in Article 1, Section 3:

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

That an impeached official who is removed from office after a Senate trial, still faces the possibility of criminal or civil proceedings in the courts should be enough to put that misunderstanding to rest. In fact, even if an official is not impeached in the House or after being impeached is acquitted in the Senate, they are subject to criminal and civil penalties in the courts like every other citizen. Thus, there is no “double jeopardy” protection preventing Congress from trying again to impeach and remove from office an official no matter how many times they previously fail. This is contrary to what one finds in a criminal trial where the Fifth Amendment affords the accused protection from being “subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”.

Daimeon continues with a second scenario which he envisions being:

Scenario number 2: Impeach the President

George W. Bush is impeached towards the end of his second term. While the president can’t pardon himself, he’s already played the best hand any administration could have. In fact, the Republicans have allowed and helped the administration “stack the deck” just for this reason. Two words: Supreme Court. Mr. Bush has successfully appointed two of his cronies in the SCOTUS, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justice Alito. In the event of the president’s impeachment, the Chief Justice presides over the trial as the senate president, a position normally taken by the Vice President but due to the possible succession of the president by the veep it would be a conflict of interest. The Chief Justice could call an end to the trial before it even began or came to a vote to get the two thirds required vote to convict. The President would return to his normal duties and pretty much chastise those who brought charges against him and sadly business would return to what is considered normal under this tyrannical administration.

Contrary to Daimeon’s assertion that a “president can’t pardon himself”, one should recall that “except in cases of impeachment” the Constitution places zero restrictions on the president in granting pardons. In theory at least, the president can pardon himself though this has never been done before and would ignite a political firestorm of enormous proportions. Nevertheless, the president could act thusly without any constitutional impediment preventing him from doing so.

Daimeon next erroneously asserts that any possible impeachment trial of President Bush would be thwarted by the presence of Chief Justice John Roberts, whom he “appointed” to office. As stated in Art. I, Sect. 3 of the Constitution, “the Chief Justice shall preside” over any such trial in the Senate of an impeached president. What Daimeon sees as a nefarious “stack[ing of] the deck” preventing a possible conviction of an impeached Mr. Bush, turns out to be nothing more than misguided and woeful ignorance. First of all it should be mentioned that although the current Chief Justice was nominated by President Bush, he was confirmed by a vote of 78-22 in the Senate which included exactly half of the then-Democrat caucus. Second, one should recall that in the two previous instances of trial of impeached presidents in the Senate, the presiding of the seemingly ‘friendly’ (to those wishing to remove Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) Chief Justices Salmon Chase or William Rehnquist made no difference whatsoever to the outcome of either. Thirdly, this notion by Daimeon that Chief Justice Roberts could thwart any impeachment trial in the Senate is shown to be absurd when one notes that each House in Congress makes it own rules by majority vote, as outlined in Art. 1 Sect. 5. The presiding officer, in this case the Chief Justice, can only delay things if they so choose through parliamentary procedure, which can be easily quashed by a majority of the Senate. He has no authority on his own to dismiss the charges against an impeached official, to suspend or “call an end to the trial before it even began or came to a vote”, etc. Such actions are taken by vote of the Senators, a vote which the Chief Justice does not have himself. Need I even have to mention which party holds the majority in both the Senate and the House since January 2007?

Finally, we’ve already seen an impeached president who was acquitted in the Senate “chastise those who brought charges against him and sadly business would return to what is considered normal”. Indeed, President Clinton put on a remarkable performance calling his impeachment “illegitimate” and how he “saved the United States Constitution“. In such a hypothetical scenario as Daimeon presents, Mr. Bush would have to have a lot more chutzpah than this all while charming the general public with a wink and a smile. Such is possible I suppose but unlikely. President Bush has lost a significant number of his own political base with unfortunate maneuvers as the recent controversial immigration bill, making any friendly allies in Congress opposing legitimate reasons for his impeachment difficult if not impossible to find in numbers that would prevent such an action. Yet in order for Messrs. Bush and/or Cheney to be impeached and removed from office convincing evidence of criminal wrongdoing would have to be presented and thus far what the Left has provided has been, to put it mildly, found to be lacking. If it could be shown that either President Bush or Vice President Cheney have criminally violated their oath of office, I for one would support such a move but until then while I have my own reasons in looking forward to them leaving office, I see no reason to invoke the impeachment and removal clauses of the Constitution to short-circuit their terms. Politically such a move would probably be disastrous for Democrats as it was for Republicans when they impeached then-President Clinton in 1998. Of course the Democrats hold the majority in the House and can make such a move for impeachment if they choose, damning the consequences Admiral Farragut-style. Yet if such a move is made it would be far better for them to do so based upon something of more substance, rather than rely upon the tripe presented by Leftist activists like Daimeon which display quite an amusing ignorance of the very process they wish to use in order to achieve their objectives.

— John (Average Gay Joe)

Remembering 7/7/2005

And yet another attack on Western civilization by Muslim extremists.   Our thoughts and prayers go out to our brethern on the other side of the Atlantic in their day of remembrance today.


(Photo courtesy — Someone Else’s Life)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Jogging is “Right Wing”?

Posted by Average Gay Joe at 4:13 pm - July 6, 2007.
Filed under: Alternate Universe,General,Leftist Nutjobs

President Sarkozy has fallen foul of intellectuals and critics who see his passion for jogging as un-French, right-wing and even a ploy to brainwash his citizens.

Attacks on Mr Sarkozy’s pastime, which he has made a symbol of his presidency, began on the internet as soon as he bounded up the steps of the Elysée Palace in shorts when he took office in May. That moment has become the icon of his hyperenergetic administration. The grumbling has now moved to television and the press.

“Is jogging right wing?” wondered Libération, the left-wing newspaper. Alain Finkelkraut, a celebrated philosopher, begged Mr Sarkozy on France 2, the main state television channel, to abandon his “undignified” pursuit. He should take up walking, like Socrates, Arthur Rimbaud, the poet, and other great men, said Mr Finkelkraut… (Times Online)

My, my how quickly “tolerance” and “diversity” get tossed out the window for political expediency by some leftist elites. We are told by many of these same people just how much the West is the source of all evil in this world, that we need to sympathize with and understand those who try and kill us (these poor dears provoked into such behavior solely because we are so eeeeevil of course), etc., etc., etc. God The Entity Who Shall Not Be Named forbid that someone like Sakorksy actually enjoy some cardio exercise and a healthy – dare I say it? – lifestyle. No, rather than accepting such a benign alternative lifestyle we are informed that jogging is “undignified”, selfish “individualism” that cares nothing about the welfare of others, an “hypnotic” form of “media manipulation”, blah blah blah. If this tripe is the best they can sling at Sakorksy or anyone else who disagrees with their views, they’d best be prepared for a long season of being out of power. That jogging, of all things, makes these elitists go crazy speaks volumes about the vapidity of leftist ideology, or at least the intellectual bankruptcy of many of those who keep trying to pass off coprolite as being something other than pure crap.

— John (Average Gay Joe)

Al-Qaeda’s Number Two Calls for Muslim Unity Against USA

Hey… Nancy Pelosi… are you listening?  The terror group that has repeatedly killed Americans and declared war on us has stated yet again that Iraq is central to their plans for an Islamic state.

Al Qaeda’s deputy leader sought to bolster the terror network’s main arm in Iraq in a new video released Thursday, calling on Muslims to rally behind it at a time when the group is on the defensive, faced with U.S. offensives and splits with other insurgent groups.

Ayman Al-Zawahiri defended the Islamic State of Iraq — the insurgent umbrella group headed by Al Qaeda — against critics among Islamic militant groups, saying it was a vanguard for fighting off the U.S. military and eventually establishing a “caliphate” of Islamic rule across the region.

Al-Zawahiri, the top deputy of Usama bin Laden, called on Muslims to follow a two-pronged strategy: work at home to topple “corrupt” Arab regimes and join Al Qaeda’s “jihad,” or holy war, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia to fight and train “to prepare for the next jihad.”

Al Qaeda’s declaration of the Islamic State of Iraq last year was a dramatic move aimed at staking out its leadership of Iraq’s insurgency. Allying itself with several smaller Iraqi Sunni insurgent groups, it presented the Islamic State as an alternative government within Iraq, claiming to hold territory.

What are you missing, Nancy???  World War III’s main front IS Iraq.  You either want to win, or you want to surrender to Al-Qaeda.  There is no middle ground.  Just listen to the words and watch the actions of our enemy.  It isn’t rocket science.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Drug Dealers Against Global Warming!

Man, this is delicious irony as Algore’s “Live Earth” concert is just days away.

A few questions came to mind when I heard this story yesterday.

  1. Is this kid dealing drugs??? 
  2. Do you need to deal drugs in order to afford driving a Prius?
  3. If Algore was my father, I’d be on drugs too.
  4. Can you imagine how much more boring Algore is if you are doing pot and on Xanax, Valium, Vicodin?
  5. Does Al Gore III listen to explicit lyrics as well as doing drugs?
  6. Will the media be as critical on Al Gore III and his drug issues as they were on Rush Limbaugh?  Or will they be “sensitive” to his problems?

Ah well…. I love irony and karma.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)


As we celebrate the nation’s 231st Birthday, please pause to proudly remember some of our American Heroes today.



-Bruce (GayPatriot)

On the Libby Decision & the Left’s Silly Mantras

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 7:22 pm - July 3, 2007.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Liberals,Media Bias,National Politics

While Bruce and I have very different styles — and manner of blogging — we tend to agree on most political issues. I have to take issue with him with on the president’s decision to commute the jail sentence of Scooter Libby. I’m not sure it was a “half-measure” as Bruce puts it. Given the circumstances of the case, with the prosecutor bringing up stuff in the sentencing phase that wasn’t offered at trial, with the trial judge imposing a sentence in excess of that recommended by the probation office, I think the president did the right thing.

I may have more to say on this later, but am busy with school at present. So for now, I’ll just say that I pretty much think that Paul Mirengoff got it right in his Powerline post on the topic. He links a solid piece by William Otis from the Washington Post (which I ***highly*** recommend). Otis demonstrates that “There is a legal principle at stake in this case greater than either Libby or the politics of the moment.

In reviewing some of the comments in the moderation queue, I am amused at the left’s frenzy over the president’s decision. Even though he did not please the right, he managed (yet again) to infuriate the left. And many of those on the left see a conspiracy where there is none.

Mrs. Clinton’s comments show how much she buys into the left’s histrionics. Or maybe she knows better and is just doing this to win their support. For her comments are based less on the facts of the situation than the left-wing line on the case:

This (the Libby decision) was clearly an effort to protect the White House. … There isn’t any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent.

Um, how was this done to protect the White House? And where’s the evidence that Libby was carrying out the Vice President’s wishes when he made the statements for which he was convicted?

Had I not studied psychology, I might be befuddled why she, like so many on the left, seems to think that this Administration has tried, in her words, to stifle dissent. (They seem to be projecting something onto his.) As the very comments to Bruce’s post show (many of which I approved even though they were held up by our spam filter), many have offered very robust criticism of the president’s decision. No one is trying to stifle their voices. And such criticism, what she calls “dissent,” has persisted uninterrupted, at increasing numbers of outlets, throughout the president’s term in office.

All that Scooter Libby attempted to do, in a very ham-handed way, was to discredit a dishonest critics of the Administration. He was not even convicted of those clumnsy efforts, but of lying to investigators about them. And Joe Wilson, the man whose deceptions about the Administration’s record set this whole process in motion, could not be convicted because he lied to the media and not to a federal grand jury.

Yet, even as that dishonest man’s man audience has shrunk, he continues to remain free to spout his nonsense, while Mr. Libby (even after the commutation of his jail sentence) still facts several severe penalties, including probation and a hefty fine.

Mr. Wilson may long have been discredited, but neither he nor his supporters have been silenced.

It’s a sad commentary on the left that they continue to repeat their mantra that this case is an example of the Administration attempting to stifle dissent. There are examples too numerous to mention which prove the opposite, including their very criticism of this decision.

– B. Daniel Blatt (

Another Bush Half-Measure

It seems since his 2004 re-election, President Bush has succeeded in doing a lot things half-way or half-assed.  The commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence is a little bit of both.  It is certainly not an act of political leadership or courage.  The Wall Street Journal agrees:

President Bush’s commutation late yesterday afternoon of the prison sentence of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby will at least spare his former aide from 2 1/2 years in prison. But by failing to issue a full pardon, Mr. Bush is evading responsibility for the role his Administration played in letting the Plame affair build into fiasco and, ultimately, this personal tragedy.

Mr. Libby will have to pay a fine of $250,000 and serve two years probation. This reflects the leniency that was previously recommended by the federal probation office but was rejected by Judge Reggie Walton in his vindictive sentence.

These columns have had cause to defend the Bush Presidency from what we’ve seen as often meritless or exaggerated partisan attacks, notably over national security and the Iraq war. This, however, will stand as a dark moment in this Administration’s history. Joe Wilson’s original, false accusation about pre-war intelligence metastasized into the issue of who “outed” his wife, Valerie Plame, as an intelligence officer. As the event unfolded, it fell to Mr. Libby to defend the Administration against Mr. Wilson’s original charge, with little public assistance or support from the likes of Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell or Stephen Hadley.

Mr. Libby deserved better from the President whose policies he tried to defend when others were running for cover. The consequences for the reputation of his Administration will also be long-lasting.

Frankly, I think it is too late for the reputation.

And this ironic note from a reader at The Corner.

notwithstanding the commutation, it’s hard to swallow an otherwise hard working public servant getting whacked with a $250,000 fine, a destroyed reputation and an enormous amount of personal anguish – when he was put in a very tough position by an administration that seemed slow to defend…

i don’t pretend to know all the facts – but I do know this – Sandy Berger stole classified documents re: sensitive national security issues and received a $50K fine…

I guess for Inside The Beltwayers, justice is only “just” when a conservative goes to jail.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Do Fundraising Numbers Suggest Lack of Enthusiasm for Hillary?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 10:09 pm - July 1, 2007.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics

When first I heard that Hillary Clinton’s campaign forecast that it would only be raising about $27 million for the second quarter of 2007 (April through June), I assumed the former First Lady’s people (masters of media manipulation) were lowballing its fundraising estimates so they could say, when they released the final number, that they had exceeded expectations.

Instead, she only raised $21 million for the primaries, considerably below Senator Barack Obama’s take of $31 million (for the primary campaign). Before Mrs. Clinton campaign released her take, the New York Times reported, “If her estimate that she raised ‘in the range of $27 million’ proves correct, Mr. Obama will have outpaced her for a second consecutive quarter in money that can be spent in primaries to win the nomination

Obama outraised her by $10 million (for the primaries). And he doesn’t have a former President doing fundraisers for her. That former President, Mrs. Clinton’s husband, being quite possibly the most popular living politician among Democrats.

I wonder how much less would she have raised had her husband not been headlining events for her.

That Obama did so well suggests there is a lot of enthusiasm for his candidacy (confirmed, in part, by my conversations with some of his supporters)–or perhaps it’s many Democrats supporting fear Hillary couldn’t win a general election. They are looking for a charismatic alternative to the bland (non-native) New Yorker.

While Mrs. Clinton does lead the polls for the Democratic nomination (and even leads many head-to-head matchups for the fall campaign), the fundraising totals suggests that Democrats may not be all that enthusiastic about their frontrunner.

UPDATE: As I read more information about the fundraising totals for the second quarter, I find more examples to support my notion that there is a lack of enthusiasm for Mrs. Clinton. Almost as if she is the establishment candidate. And big donors are supporting her because it’s “her turn,” much like the previous GOP notion of picking a presidential nominee.

Not only did Senator Obama outraise his New York colleague, even raising more money that is allocated for the primaries than she raised for the primaries and general election campaign combined, but he also had a broader base of donors. Given this base, we can safely assume that a fair number of them did not contribute the maximum allowed by federal law, indicating that he may be able to build on his fundraising totals merely by asking his past contributors to pony up a little more. But, Mrs. Clinton will not be able to go back to those who have already contributed the max.*

Having garnered “contributions from over 154,000 donors in the second quarter, bringing his total to 258,000 donors this year,” thus having had 104,000 donors in the first quarter, compared to 60,000 for Mrs. Clinton. New York’s junior Senator “has yet to release how many donors contributed to her campaign in the second quarter.

It does seem there is more enthusiasm for Obama. And it seems that rich establishment Democrats are giving the maximum to Mrs. Clinton—or just paying for the chance to meet her more charismatic husband.

* One reporter said as much, “Obama’s focus on using the Internet and other venues to attract a greater pool of smaller donors who can keep giving puts him in position to keep beating Clinton in fund-raising battles. Clinton has a far higher percentage of supporters who have already given the maximum amount to her for the election.