Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama: Standard-Issue Politician with Better Presentation

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:18 pm - February 29, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Liberals

When we read some pieces by some Democrats and Democrat-wannabes extolling the virtues of their man Obama, they delight in defining him as some new kind of politician who transcends traditional politics. Yet, the more I watch him, the more he seems like your average everyday run-of-the-mill politician with a stronger presence and greater rhetorical gifts.

Just watching him try to bob and weave in the Ohio debate earlier this week when he was asked if he accepted the support of Louis Farrakhan reminded me not of some idealistic visionary out to change politics, taking on those voices of hate and division, but as the sidestepping Texas governor of Best Little Whorehouse in Texas:

Ooh, I love to dance the little sidestep
Now they see me, now they don’t
I’ve come and gone
And ooh, I love to sweep around a wide step
Cut a little swath
And lead the people on!

Senator Obama could have answered the question directly, starting with the simple word, “No,” making clear he refused the support of an anti-Semitic demagogue like Farrakhan, but instead, even after repeated followup questions, he never said he rejected that hatemonger’s support. Guess he feared such forthrightness might cost him a vote or two.

As Byron York put it in his review of the debate, “It’s a common technique for a politician who doesn’t want to say something to say that he has said it before without actually saying what he says he said.”

Common technique for a politician? And Obama’s supporters have been trying to convince me that he’s something different!

As the Texas primary approaches, Senator Barack Obama has been perfecting an old political trick parodied in a song by the Texas Governor in a hit musical.  Claiming he’s got great ideas, without being specific about important issues — or even answering tough questions. He’s just dancing a little sidestep and leading the people on.

It’s amazing that some very intelligent people have seen his clever repackaging of old political tricks as some new kind of politics.

Why I voted for John McCain in the CA GOP Primary

Ever since I announced that I had voted for John McCain the California Republican primary, a good number of our readers have expressed shock (and dismay) that I would choose the less conservative of the two serious candidates then left in the race for the Republican nomination for president. Given my conservatism, they expected me to reject McCain and choose the supposedly more conservative Mitt Romney.

I believe this was the first time that I have differed significantly with my co-blogger on a key issue of the day with Bruce expressing significant skepticism (and outright opposition) to the apparent Republican nominee.

Not only that, in the month leading up to the primary, I had posted some critical pieces on John McCain (here and here) and one highly praiseworthy of Mitt Romney.

Even though I found the former Massachusetts Governor presidential in that New Hampshire debate, I just couldn’t bring myself to vote for him. I guess it was that he just didn’t seem very passionate, putting forward conservative policy proposals more as a professor explaining what conservative ideas were than as an advocate convinced of their merits. Later, after I cast my vote, a friend who had donated to Romney’s campaign, acknowledged that his man often seemed “plastic.”

Back in 2000, when I wavered between McCain and then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, I put a lot of thought into my decision, even ordering the Arizona Senator’s book, Faith of My Fathers: A Family Memoir from Amazon, reading it in the weeks before the California primary. That year (unlike this) I could identify the moment when I made my choice. It was when, as I noted here, McCain refused to address talk show Michael Reagan’s concern that he might appoint Supreme Court justices like David Souter.

The night before I voted this year I e-mailed a reader leaning toward Romney indicating that I was likely to “go with my gut” and vote for McCain. I think the main thing which swung me to a man whom I once compared to a bitter old man and whom I faulted for being “too eager” to please the media was that desipte his flaws and his many departures from conservative “orthodoxy,” on the most important issue of the day, the War on Terror, he has never wavered, remaining committed to victory in Iraq.


Why does Left see Global Warming as Most Important Issue when Threat of Islamofascism Persists?

While reading Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, I thought yet again about the question which serves as the title to this post.

The question first occurred to me last June when I read Maggie Gallagher’s column on Al Gore’s religious obsession with global warming. There, she wrote that, among other things Al Gore’s obsession “transforms the United States, as the world’s most successful economy, into the chief evildoer in the world.”

Transforming the US into the world’s “chief evildoer” at a time when Islamofascism threatens our very civilization. Many on the left seems to dismiss that threat in order to make global warming as the most pressing issue facing the world.

Then, as now, I wondered if Gore (and others on the left) found it easier to blame our own nation rather than see evils in the world as something not engendered by the West or capitalism, but instead by ideologies at odds with our civilization and values.

The very nature of the global warming hysteria does seem a piece with the longstanding liberal criticism of Western society while the Islamofascist threat proves false the notion that the West in general and America in particular is responsible for all the world’s ill.

Perhaps, I’ll flesh this out in a future post, but for now, will put the idea out there and invite y’all to weigh in with your own thoughts.

Why I Cannot Vote For Barack Obama

Ok, I can’t figure out how to embed the video here like I normally do on my blog, so here’s a link to Obama’s campaign commercial that this post comments on.

My gawd, is he serious?!? Obama certainly is more telegenic and is a far better speaker, but this makes me shiver remembering the miserable failure of Jimmy Carter’s presidency. We saw how this kind of attitude turned out the first time, what possible reason do we have as a nation to go through that kind of mess again? I’m grateful to Obama for torpedoing the Hildabeast yet now I’m unhappy that he is essentially forcing me to vote for that jerk the “Maverick”. Thanks for nothing, Barack.

h/t Ace of Spades

— John (Average Gay Joe)

William F. Buckley, Jr.: Godfather of Conservative Pundits

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 7:42 pm - February 27, 2008.
Filed under: Conservative Ideas,Great Americans

Today is one of the most significant days in the history of American conservatism.

As I’m sure most of you have learned, National Review founder William F. Buckley, Jr. died earlier today at his home in Stamford, Connecticut.

Those of us who with access to the Internet have at our fingertips a plethora of sources for conservative opinion. But, back in 1955, before Buckley, a few months shy of his thirtieth birthday, founded National Review, there was no such source.

There, he brought together numerous conservative thinkers, representing a broad range of viewpoints, demonstrating the intellectual diversity of the conservative movement. He was one of the first to champion Ronald Reagan. The two were close friends and the Gipper regularly read Buckley’s biweekly magazine.

I have subscribed to National Review on and off since my freshman year in college. I met Buckley only once, at a fundraiser for the magazine held in Los Angels in 2005. He was cordial, but due to the press of the crowd — and the presence of some of his California friends — I did not have much time to engage this intellectual.

When I was friendly with Marvin Liebman in the mid-1990s, he remembered his friend fondly, noting how their friendship did not change when Liebman came out as gay to Buckley.


What is the Gay Conservative Agenda?

Given the particular niche we have found in the blogosophere, Bruce’s post two weeks ago inquiring into the conservative homosexual agenda may well rank as one of the most important pieces we have published. Or maybe I’m just saying that because it’s something I’ve thought about for as long as I’ve accepted my sexual orientation.

Indeed, the one thing which has most troubled me about Log Cabin is that on nearly every gay issue, they seem to take the exact same position as the other gay organizations, almost all of whom have allied themselves with various left-wing and liberal groups in the political arena. The leadership of that ostensibly Republican organization rarely seems to ask if those policies are consistent with conservative principles.

To be sure, there have been exceptions when Log Cabin took a stand on issues at odds with that of the gay groups, notably in 2005 when it joined in an alliance with conservative groups supporting the president’s plan to reform Social Security. They made the argument that the proposed reforms would give gay people greater freedom to allocate their own benefits, thus bypassing federal laws preventing an individual from designating a beneficiary, allowing only a spouse to receive those benefits.

Yesterday, as I was working on my post on how gun control harms gay people, I recalled Log Cabin’s support of Social Security reform and realized the common feature of these ideas was that they represented policy proposals which, while not specifically targeted to gay people, offered reforms which did indeed help gay people.

Moreover, these changes are consistent with conservative ideas, particularly in furthering freedom. They don’t just benefit gay people. They benefit society at large. As Glenn Reynolds noted in linking my piece on gun control, it’s not just bad for gays, “It’s bad for everybody. Except criminals.

So, after repealing discriminatory laws (e.g., the ban on gays serving openly in the military) and achieving some kind of state recognition of our relationships, the gay conservative agenda would be a particularly conservative one, supporting (as Log Cabin did with Social Security reforms) policies which do not specifically benefit gays, but which expand freedom thus making it easier for us to address problems peculiar to us as individuals.

Encouraging Poll On Gay Rights

Judging by the latest Gallup poll, it appears that gay rights are making some headway among Americans.  Every year that goes by more and more seem to be leaning towards acceptance, which should not be confused with moral approval.  Bear in mind that this poll has a margin of error of +/- 3% but let’s take a look:

I.  Whether gays should be allowed to serve openly, maintain the current DADT policy or return to pre-DADT policies of discharging all gays:

1.  Serve openly:  46%
2.  Serve under DADT:  36%
3.  Discharge all gays: 15%

The first gained 5% since 2000, while the second and third each lost 2% during that time.  See also part VII which tends to cloud these results IMO.

II. Whether homosexual relations should be legal or not:

1.  Legal:  59%
2.  Illegal:  37%

That’s a significant change since the question was asked in 1977 when both sides were evenly split at 43% each.


Is Gun Control Bad for Gay People?

 Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

Until recently, among the issues which formed the core of modern American conservatism, as articulated by Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and their ideoligical heirs, I found myself most at odds with my philosophical confrères on the issue of guns. Here, it didn’t seem that freedom would work. I used to believe that the proliferation of guns fostered increased violence in our society.

But, then, I started listening to the various arguments for gun control. I found that those with whom I once agreed refrained from argument and indulged in innuendo, while writing off the argument that guns could be used for self-defense. Opponents of gun control made better arguments, noting increased crime rates in jurisdictions with the toughest gun control laws and demonstrating how law-abiding citizens used firearms for self-defense.

And while I do favor more limitations on gun ownership than do most of my fellow conservatives, I am no longer an advocate of gun control as I once was. In a recent piece on District of Columbia v. Heller, a case challenging the District’s strict gun control now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, Dale Carpenter addresses some of the issues which caused me to reconsider my position. He makes the cases why gun control laws could make it more difficult for gay people to protect ourselves against hate violence.

A law professor at the University of Minnesota, Dale helped Gays & Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL–a gay libertarian group of which yours truly is a member) and Pink Pistols, “an international group . . . advocating gun ownership and training in the proper use of firearms by gay people.”

With nearly “one-third of anti-gay bias crimes [occurring] in the home,” the D.C. gun ban is particularly pernicioius as it “forbids the effective possession of firearms for self-protection.” Dale concludes:

. . . for many other gay people, especially the ones living on the margins of life in crime-prone or anti-gay areas, owning a gun is one important part of a comprehensive plan for protecting life and property.

Gun ownership might at the very least give [gay people] peace of mind. And widespread knowledge that many gays are packing might give their would-be attackers second thoughts Gun rights are gay rights.

Given the lower crime rates in states with concealed weapons laws and the persistence of hate crimes even in states with Hate Crime statutes on the books, I wonder if opposition to gun control may be a more effective means of stopping hate crimes that such statutes.

A topic for serious discussion. If Log Cabin had some guts, at their convention in April, it might offer a panel considering this very issue.

Whatever the case, Dale Carpenter makes a strong argument on why gun control is bad for gay people, so I suggest you read the whole thing.

New Poll Shows Senior Military Officers Support DADT

Posted by Average Gay Joe at 10:35 am - February 26, 2008.
Filed under: Gays In Military,Military

The findings of this CNAS poll are interesting in what active duty and recently retired senior officers think about various proposals to “fill the ranks” of the military:

78% – Expand options for legal permanent residents to serve in exchange for citizenship
58% – Allow a larger percentage of those who have GED but not a high school diploma
47% – Increase enlistment bonuses
47% – Increase the maximum age restriction
38% – Reinstate the draft
22% – Allow gays and lesbians to serve openly
 7% – Increase use of criminal, health, and other “waivers” for service

The second and third ideas are worthwhile to examine and in some instances are being implemented as we speak.  The first idea makes me wary a bit of following ancient Rome’s poor example of accidentally creating a mercenary army composed largely of foreigners, but does provide some benefits as well.  I’m also wary of the fourth idea, yet again there are benefits to exploiting the knowledge and skills of older Americans who are able to serve.  The idea of resinstating the draft is a non-starter, a bit of a third rail in politics that the current conflicts will not generate enough support to implement.  I’m glad to see a lot of skepticism by officers about the various waivers that have been used by the military in recent years.  Except for the draft, this idea concerns me the most about the effectiveness of our military. 

Back to Blogging/Obama is no Reagan

A few of you have written, observing that I haven’t written much lately. It’s just that, well, I haven’t been in much of a mood to write lately. As is my wont, I have been scribbling down ideas for posts, but for some reason, just haven’t felt like writing. Maybe it was the full moon had an unusual effect on me last week.

Or maybe I was discouraged by my difficulty accommodating to our new provider. Or maybe I just got out of practice of blogging when the blog was down.

In the past two weeks, since I got back from Vegas, I had endured a cold, had to plan an event (on the fly) for my college alumni association (which I will advertise on the blog later today) and begun serious work on my dissertation, while attempting to clean my apartment and looking for a condo to buy. And I wanted to see as many of the Oscar-nominated films as I could stomach while socializing with my friends.

Today, for some reason, I have been thinking a lot about the apparent Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. As I’ve noted several times on this blog, I find him a compelling figure, an attractive candidate and a good speaker, yet I find his campaign based more on his personality than any great ideas for leading and improving our great nation.

While some may call him a new kind of politician, in many ways, he’s no different from many other charismatic figures who have sought positions of political leadership. He obscures his absence of plan for change in noble-sounding rhetoric about the need for change.

It seems he’s running for president entirely on his personality. To be sure, other candidates for president ran on their presence. But, many of them had already accomplished things in other endeavors, for example, Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 or even H. Ross Perot, forty years later.

Given the power of the Illinios’s Senator’s presence and his gift with words, some have compared this Democratic politician to a Republican with similar gifts–Ronald Wilson Reagan. But, unlike Obama, Reagan had actually accomplished something before he ran for the White House, having served, among other things, two terms as governor of the nation’s largest state.

It’s not just that. As James Pethokoukis wrote earlier this month in U.S. News and World Report, “People knew what they were getting when they voted for Reagan. Obama? I’m not so sure” (Via Instapundit).

The Gipper never denied his conservatism and ran on a set of principles he’d been championing for at least sixteen years before his successful 1980 bid for the White House. Obama, by contrast, seems to be running from his record in elected office, never highlighting in his campaign that he was ranked the most liberal member of the United States Senate.

To be sure, Senator Obama is charismatic figure and good speaker. (Even Victor Davis Hanson calls him “perhaps the best natural orator and politician we’ve seen since Ronald Reagan and JFK.” But, we really don’t know where he stands. So, Senator, you may have the Gipper’s gift for words, but Ronald Reagan was also a man of ideas. In your campaign so far, you’re no Ronald Reagan.

And I wonder if he will be able to sustain a campaign on soaring rhetoric through November or if he’ll have to offer more substantive speeches in the coming days to hold his own against his more accomplished rival from Arizona and convince the American people he has a plan for change and an ability to lead.

UPDATE: Seems my Athena agrees with me (or should I say, I agree with her, given that she published her piece first:

Barack Obama’s biggest draw is not his eloquence. When you watch an Obama speech, you lean forward and listen and think, That’s good. He’s compelling, I like the way he speaks. And afterward all the commentators call him “impossibly eloquent” and say “he gave me thrills and chills.” But, in fact, when you go on the Internet and get a transcript of the speech and print it out and read it–that is, when you remove Mr. Obama from the words and take them on their own–you see the speech wasn’t all that interesting, and was in fact high-class boilerplate.

As with anything by Peggy, just read the whole thing!

Guten Tag…. from Heidelberg, Germany

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 9:59 am - February 25, 2008.
Filed under: Blogging,Travel

Hullo!   PatriotPartner (John) and I are in Germany this week.   He is here for work, me for some R&R (and catching-up on work emails!).

In any case, I arrived in Frankfurt Saturday morning and then we made a bee-line for Strousburg, France where we spent the night.  Dinner was great on Saturday night… until I inadvertently took an Ambien after the French Onion Soup.   Luckily for all of you, there is video of my state of being that I’m not ashamed to post when I get it organized.

Speaking of which, one of my Christmas gifts from John was a nifty gadget called “Flip Video”.  It is basically an uber-small camcorder that operates completely on digital and is easy to edit and upload.   I’m hoping to get to my first video dispatch tomorrow (Tuesday).

For now… I just wanted to say hello from Germany.  The last time I was here it was still “West Germany.”   Ah, how times have changed. 

-Bruce (SchwulPatriot)

Dan’s Oscar favorites

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:02 pm - February 24, 2008.
Filed under: Movies/Film & TV

While I tried to appear indifferent to the Oscars in my last post, there are certain flicks, actors and writers I will be rooting for when I watch the telecast with some friends later today.

As to flicks, I’ll be pulling for Juno for Best Picture. While I don’t think it was the best movie of the year, I did think it was a sweet story and shows that the abortion is more complicated that pro-choice zealots would have. Here, a teenager gets pregnant and decides to carry the child to term.

And I’ll be rooting for Ratatouille for Best Animated Feature. A truly well done flick, with a great “conceit” as a premise, a rat who aspires to be a gourmet chef. This story resonates with anyone who has ever had to struggle to find his path in life, finding his life goals at odds with those around him and having trouble convincing others (in his chosen profession) of the seriouness of his endeavors.

In this post, I made clear why Nancy Oliver’s Lars and the Real Girl is the hands down choice for Best Screenplay.

Among the nominees for best actor in a leading role, I have to give it to Daniel Day-Lewis even if I didn’t much care for the film. He was, as always, brilliant.

For Best Actress, all five nominees clearly merit the honor. But, despite my love of Laura Linney (I thought she should have run for You Can Count on Me back in 2001), I’ll be rooting for Marion Cotillard for La Vie en Rose. While watching this flick, you don’t think you’re watching an actress portraying Edith Piaf, you believe you’re seeing the celebrated chanteuse herself.

While there are a number of talented actors up in the supporting categories, I believe two screen veterans should take home the statuettes this year, Hal Holbrooke for Into the Wild and Ruby Dee for American Gangster. Both inhabit their roles and steal the few scenes in which they appear. Honor them for their brilliant work in these flicks — and for their long careers.

The Oscars? Who Cares?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:44 pm - February 24, 2008.
Filed under: Movies/Film & TV

For the past week, I have had a post in mind on the Oscars and yet I keep putting it off.  It seems that this year, I, who love movies and who for the past decade has looked forward to watching the live telecast of the celebrated ceremony, have become indifferent to the event.

Maybe it’s because none of the movies nominated for best picture stand out as anything more than very well-made features, only one (Juno) with a meaningful story.  This seems to be the year Oscar forgot about story-telling and focused on film-making.  

And the box office returns for these films shows it.  Even with the added publicity boost of their Oscar nomination, Juno is the only best picture nominee to have a box office exceeding (or even approaching) $100 million.  The films this year seem to be distinguished by their absence of audience.

It’s not just the film that lack an audience this year.  Some are predicting the worst Oscars ever, with a much smaller audience than in years past. 

That’s not to say there are not some notable performances this year and some amazing film-making.  While I found No Country for Old Men more of a character study than  a story, I found the movie compelling and beautifully made.  That is partially true for There Will be Blood, but that latter reeked of pretension and was disturbing to watch.

One might contend that there was the Coen Brothers flick had a story, but could not say the same for Paul Thomas Anderson’s movie.  And in that movie, most of the characters were more caricature than anything else.

And yet while those filmmakers were nominated for Oscars, the Academy left out the man who accomplished the most impressive achievement in directing this year, Ridley Scott whose American Gangster captured the feel of a 1970s movie while creating believable characters and situations.

I’m disappointed that Lars and the Real Girl, my favorite movie of the year only secured one (much deserved) nomination — for best screenplay.

And I haven’t even gotten to the political aspects of this year’s Oscars.  See the nominees for best documentary.

Then there’s the host, someone whose fame comes from a political show. Why can’t they pick someone with a background in movies and non-political entertainment? Or is that they see their industry as a political one.

(This post is already longer than anticipated & I have more to say about the Oscars so may do so in a subsequent post in which I note some of the truly great achievements this year, some of which have been honored with Oscar nods.) 

John Kerry Finally Sees Battlefield Action

Dateline…. Afghanistan, 2008:

Helicopters carrying three senior U.S. senators made emergency landings Thursday in the mountains of Afghanistan because of a snowstorm.

Sens. John Kerry, Joseph Biden and Chuck Hagel were aboard the aircraft. No one was injured, according a statement from Kerry’s office. The senators and their delegation returned to Bagram Air Base in a motor convoy, and have left for Turkey.

“After several hours, the senators were evacuated by American troops and returned overland to Bagram Air Base, and left for their next scheduled stop in Ankara, Turkey,” the Kerry statement said. “Sen. Kerry thanks the American troops, who were terrific as always and who continue to do an incredible job in Afghanistan.”

There’s no immediate word from Kerry if he plans to ask Defense Secretary Gates for another Purple Heart for himself.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Americans, Not Congress, See Iraq Progress

From a new Gallup Poll.  The headline, of course, is:  MAJORITY STILL FAVORS TIMETABLE FOR TROOP WITHDRAWAL.

But the guts of the story are telling a much more interesting perspective among the American public:

According to the poll, 43% of Americans say the surge of U.S. troops in Iraq is making the situation there better, a slight increase from 40% in late November, but up more substantially from 34% in early November. This is the most positive review of the surge Gallup has measured since it began. Thirty-five percent now say the surge is not making much difference, and just 21% say it is making things worse.

Republicans, Democrats, and independents have divergent views of the surge. Seventy-five percent of Republicans say it is making things better in Iraq, compared with 40% of independents and 21% of Democrats. Democrats are most likely to believe the surge is “not making much difference.

Those who favor a timetable are more than twice as likely to favor a schedule of gradual troop withdrawal (67%) as they are to prefer a more immediate removal of troops (32%).  All told, [only] 18% of Americans favor removing troops from Iraq as rapidly as possible.

Americans who do not assess the surge positively overwhelmingly advocate a timetable, including 76% of those who see the surge as not making much difference, and 86% of those who think it is making things worse. Meanwhile, Americans who believe the surge is working are solidly against (70%) a timetable.

Nancy, Harry, Barack, Hillary & Hang ‘Em High Murtha need to get out and talk to ordinary Americans…  Oh yeah, and maybe actually GO TO Baghdad before they continue spouting off their 2006-era talking points of retreat and surrender.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Today’s Success In Iraq:
Security *and* Political Progress

Hmmm…. what IS a cut-and-run Democrat to do now that the entire premise of their anti-Iraq policy has collapsed?  (h/t – Instapundit)

For The First Time, Petraeus Is Cautiously Optimistic – ABC News

If you’re looking for one measure of the impact of last year’s troop surge in Iraq, look at Gen. David Petraeus as he walks through a Baghdad neighborhood, with no body armor, and no helmet.

It’s been one year since the beginning of what’s known here as Operation Fardh Al Qadnoon. According to the U.S. military, violence is down 60 percent. One key to the success is reconciliation.

In the last year, U.S. and Iraqi troops moved into the neighborhood, set up joint security stations, earned the trust of local people, and found those men willing to put down their guns and work with them.

The results of the last year can be seen on the streets. A soccer team practices on the local pitch. The stalls in the market buzz with customers. I stop to talk to local residents, and ask if they feel a difference. Overwhelmingly, the answer is a resounding yes.

Big News From Baghdad – Commentary Magazine

Within the last week the Iraqi parliament passed key laws having to do with provincial elections (the law devolves power to the local level in a decentralization system that is groundbreaking for the region), the distribution of resources, and amnesty. And those laws follow ones passed in recent months having to do with pensions, investment, and de-Ba’athification.

American Ambassador Ryan Crocker told Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard that “the whole motivating factor” beyond the legislation was “reconciliation, not retribution.” This is “remarkably different” from six months ago, according to the widely respected, straight-talking Crocker.

Progress in Iraq means life is getting progressively more difficult for Democrats and their two presidential front-runners, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Having strongly opposed the surge, Obama and Clinton have been forced by events to concede that security progress has been made. But until now they have insisted that the surge is a failure because we’re not seeing political progress. That claim is now being shattered.

Shattered, indeed.   What is a cut-and-run Democrat to do?   Nancy?  Harry?  Murtha?  Are you out there?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Would The Last Person Leaving Hope, Arkansas…
Please Turn Out The Lights?

Larry Kudlow has shut the book on the long national nightmare known as The Clintons.

Please allow me a dose of hardened market realism concerning Obama’s landslide victory in Wisconsin. The race is over. Hillary is finished. The Clinton Restoration is over. President Bill Clinton’s political invincibility is over. Hillary’s electability is over.

Obama got to the far Left faster than she did. He out organized her in the precincts. He out fundraised her. He out speechified her. He out-hustled her. He out-dressed her. He out-presidentialed her. He outdid her and he outbid her for votes, one promised government check at a time.

A 15-point margin in Wisconsin is incredible. Wisconsin is a lot like Ohio except for the wacko ultra-Left Madison college population, which is even worse that Columbus’s Ohio State. But there are so many campuses in Ohio that will go for Obama that it is no matter. Think faculty voters, grimly determined for a left-wing takeover of America ” from the bottom up” to use the former Saul Alinsky community organizer’s phrase. As goes Wisconsin, so goes Ohio.

The Intrade pay-to-play prediction market shows Obama with a 7.5-point gain tonight, giving him a 78 to 20 lead. That’s right, 78 to 20. Hillary has suddenly become an incredibly steep inverted yield curve, with a rapidly declining credit rating and a complete drying up of liquidity. She won’t be able to raise two wooden nickels, and not even Bill can raise enough money in Dubai to keep her out of bankruptcy.

As of tonight, the market has officially pulled the plug, terminating her campaign. The only thing left for her is to muster some grace, humility and character to begin the process of pulling out. To do otherwise will destroy the Democratic party and what’s left of the Clintons’ badly tarred and tattered reputation.

Stick a fork in Billary…. they are done.   And with it goes the last chance the Baby Boomers have of screwing up America from the Oval Office!  Obama or McCain might still screw up royally, but we have successfully gotten past the “power years” of the Boomers.

Let us all sing Hallelujah and raise our arms to the Heavens.  God has answered our prayers.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

McCain vs. Obama — The Wives Go At It!

Now this is a political diva match-up that would make any gay man drool: Michelle Obama vs. Cindy McCain.

Michelle Obama: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country,” she told a Milwaukee crowd today, “and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

Cindy McCain: “I always have been and will always be extremely proud of my country. I have led an extremely fortunate life. It was nothing more than that. I am just extremely proud to be an American.”

You go, Cindy! I do wonder what is sooooooooooooo bad about America that Mrs. Obama hasn’t been proud of her country until the year 2008? Hmmmmm.(Can we nominate Cindy McCain instead of John?)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan): Remember, Bruce, a vote for John McCain is a vote to make Cindy First Lady and to keep Michelle (& Bill) as a Senate wife.

Dick Cheney & Gays in the Military

Posted by Average Gay Joe at 8:40 am - February 19, 2008.
Filed under: Gays In Military,Military

While finishing a book I’ve been reading I was reminded of comments by Dan (GayPatriotWest) in a previous podcast on the subject of Vice President Dick Cheney’s views about the ban against gays serving in the military.  What really stuck in my mind was Dan’s belief that Cheney while SecDef under the Bush 41 Administration had called it an “old chestnut”, something I hadn’t recalled from that time.  I was pleased to come across more about Cheney’s views and actions on this during his tenure as SecDef in Shilts’ book which is the reason behind the following post…One of the more interesting aspects of Randy Shilts’ book Conduct Unbecoming that I have finally finished reading, are some of the people mentioned and their roles involving gays in the military. This is especialy true of Shilts’ telling of the mostly hostile atmosphere during the 1970s & 80s. Some of the people wouldn’t achieve much attention until years later, while others were already at the height of their fame and power. From Senator Sam Nunn, Democrat from Georgia who pressured a decorated Vietnam veteran that served on his staff to seek other employment because he was gay (pp.390-391), to then-Colonel Peter Pace who sought to have charges pressed against two Marines that had participated in an attack on patrons of a gay bar in Washington, DC (p.721). Nunn a few years later of course would infamously mount a fierce opposition to President Bill Clinton’s plan to repeal the ban against gays in military, while General Pace as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stirred up controversy with some seemingly anti-gay remarks during an interview. Perhaps most interesting of all, however, is the role of then-SecDef Dick Cheney, who currently serves as Vice President admired by some some and reviled by others. While Cheney could hardly be considered a champion for gay rights, neither was he “homophobic” or antagonistic towards homosexuals either. It’s possible that his love for his lesbian daughter Mary Cheney may have been behind some of this. It is notable that he strongly defended his daughter when her sexual orientation became a political issue many years after he headed DoD and Vice President Cheney would publicly express support for same-sex unions. In the early 1990s, blatant hostility against homosexuals in uniform was rampant among top leaders in the Defense Department, which caused Cheney a number of difficulties during his tenure as SecDef. (more…)

Reminder of the March to Liberate Iraq

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 7:37 pm - February 18, 2008.
Filed under: American History,Iraq,Post 9-11 America

I’m sure many of you recall these words from the United States President when it was clear Saddam Hussein was a threat…..

But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N. weapons inspection system itself. Yes, he has tried to thwart it in every conceivable way, but the discipline, determination, year-in-year-out effort of these weapons inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to finish the job. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act.

But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now. One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.

Saddam Hussein’s Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era. That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the future I ask our allies to imagine.

If we look at the past and imagine that future, we will act as one together. And we still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.

Thank goodness the President stuck to his guns and…… oh wait……

Sorry about that folks, those words highlighted above were spoken by President William Jefferson Clinton on February 17, 1998 — 10 years ago.   Clinton now claims he never supported the war of liberation in Iraq.   Just a qualifier — Clinton never supported liberation when it wasn’t HIS idea.

Just a history lesson for y’all today.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)