Sometimes the choices we make, when we balance two conflicting values, passions or even ambitions we have make for the most interesting stories. Or maybe it’s balancing our passion with our ambition. And when some people face truly challenging choices, they often have the most amazing stories to tell.

Think Sophie’s Choice.

Ms. Hillary has such a story, but unless she tells it honestly, it will only interest her die-hard fans, other Democratic groupies and political junkies. If she told it honestly, it could be a book for the ages. Here we have a woman whose early writings, speeches and activism suggest a strong commitment to a leftist agenda. Here we have a voice for feminism. But, we also have a woman who despite her discipline and intelligence, had few natural political skills.

She attaches herself to a man who lacks some of her strengths (e.g., discipline), but has something she lacks, a powerful presence, a natural charisma and an instinct for politics. And by some accounts, Hillary Rodham really did fall (romantically) for Bill Clinton.

Their marriage, however, while politically advantageous to her, did not appear to be very emotionally fulfilling. He started straying sexually even before they exchanged their vows. He cheated on her even when they were in the White House. And when this became public, she stood by her man even though she had mocked that very notion on the campaign trail in 1992.

What if she told the true story of their romance, how she did love him despite his failure to control his sexual libido? What if she discussed what happened in 1998, when she first found out that her husband was carrying on with a woman just a few years older than their daughter? What did she really feel? What did she choose to stay with him after that latest public humiliation? Why would a woman whose ideas on gender come right out of the feminist movement let a man treat her the way her husband did?

In addressing these issues, she could talk about the choices women make, the choices she made, why she realized that, despite Bill’s failings, she understood that ending their marriage might compromise her own political viability. And why her political success mattered more than her personal fulfillment. Or maybe it was that political success brought her emotional fulfillment.

I highly doubt Mrs. Clinton will write this book. It would likely require her to say things which might end her political career — or expose her as having (yet again) deceived the American people in past public comments. In short, she won’t write the book because while it might make her appear more human, it would not further her politic career.

And for the Clintons, all is politics, with electoral success and power their Holy Grail, the quest into which they pour their all.

Had it not been for all the myriad little things I have needed to do these past few days, I might have found the time to sit down and read Senator Obama’s much heralded speech on race and so write the post I want to write about why, in my mind, the speech dodges the real issue and raises serious questions about the charismatic presidential candidate’s leadership abilities.

In the world of instant communication, sometimes, when you have (what you believe to be) a great thought, the likelihood is that someone else has it as well. So, if you delay in posting on this topic, someone else will. And in this case, someone else did. In a piece on National Review on Friday, Stephen Sprueill pretty much echoed my thoughts when he wrote:

What bothers me is that we don’t have any evidence — either an old letter or a statement from the campaign — that Obama ever confronted his friend and tried to change his mind. Such confrontations can grate on friendships, if they happen frequently enough, and especially if they concern trivial matters. But here we have a situation where a friend of Obama’s was spreading poisonous beliefs to a congregation that included Obama’s own daughters. Obama was in a unique position to lead by asking his friend to reconsider some of his hateful and paranoid ideas.

Given those hateful and paranoid ideas, I had a brief thought which I wanted to whip off before I set out for an event I’m coordinating this evening. This weekend, reading a post on Instapundit about the speech and a “conversation on race,” I realized that if we need to have that conversation, we begin with the greatest speech on race in American history, indeed, one of the greatest speeches in all American history, so I did a brief post linking Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

If we have a conversation on race, we should have an idea of the goals of that conversation. And Dr. King verbalized them:

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
. . . .
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Contrast that hopeful vision with the Reverend Wright’s angry rhetoric and you see the true greatness of Dr. King. Dr. King, born 14 years before Wright, saw the same kind of prejudice which, in Senator Obama’s view, justified his pastor’s rage. Yet, Dr. King did not give into despair.

(more…)

I was delighted that my Friday post, Booing & Shouting: Standard Liberal Discourse? inspired such a spirited discussion though sometimes I wish that those who defended my points would use less colorful language in taking on those who disagreed with me.  More often than not, they make some very sound arguments whose points are sometimes obscured by their occasional vitriol.

 

While our critics did, from time to time, make some good points, they never succeeded in bringing cases apposite to the discussion.  I blogged about university students booing and/or shouting down speakers who offer perspectives at odds with the prevailing left-wing worldview.

 

One reader claimed that conservatives did this too, linking a story about students booing a liberal Congressman delivering an anti-war speech.

 

And indeed, conservatives did boo Congressman William “Lacy” Clay when he addressed the University of Missouri-St. Louis on May 13, 2006.  But, what distinguishes this situation from those referred to in the post is that that liberal Democrat delivered a Bush-bashing anti-war speech as a commencement ceremony.

 

Why did he see fit to inflict his opinions on students celebrating their graduation?  Shouldn’t a commencement speaker off remarks, reflecting the occasion, the commencement (beginning) of their adult lives and offer them sage advice and words of inspiration for the journey ahead.

 

Instead, he chose to politicize what should have been a non-partisan event where students of all political stripes sit together and celebrate the achievement of completing a stage of their education.  The stories I referenced involved lectures that, while open to the public, were not mandatory events.  If the students didn’t like the speakers, they didn’t have to attend.  If they disagreed with their (the speakers’) ideas, they could ask questions after the talk.

 

Why is it that so many liberals (and yes, a number on the right) wish to politicize everything, turning what should be a speech about the future to an angry harangue about a president and policy they don’t like?  Perhaps, it was boorish for Missouri students to boo their commencement speaker.  But, it was certainly disrespectful of the Congressman to deliver at angry, partisan address at a non-partisan celebratory forum.

 

For the past three years or so, I have had two Internet main portals (as well as great variety of minor ones) for getting the news. And I realized (yet again) today that the more mainstream of the two, Yahoo!’s homepage, was more biased than the one with a more partisan (if libertarian-conservative could be called partisan) edge.  Over at Instapundit, at least Glenn Reynolds regularly links pieces critical of Republicans.

 

 It seems that nearly every headline related to the Iraq War on Yahoo!‘s homepage offers bad news about the situation there.  If there is a critical article on McCain somewhere anywhere, Yahoo! will list it as among the top headlines.  Just as they list any report critical of the Bush Administration, even from a Soros front group.  

 

Just now, they spin the latest news in Pakistan to make it appear a setback for the US:  Pakistani judges freed; power slips away from U.S. ally Musharraf.  (Note the less loaded headline on the article itself.)  But, if power “slipping away from a stalwart U.S. ally” is it going to anti-American forces?  The reporter calls the Bush Administration a “staunch supporter of Musharraf,” but doesn’t mention that the president pushed for free elections there.

 

Look, Yahoo!’s editors have every right to lead with whatever headlines they choose, but the more they offer headlines which fit their worldview, the more people will choose other sources for the news. And the more they encourage conservative readers to seek sources with an edge.  But, at least some of those right-of-center sources “deign” to link articles critical of the party with which they are affiliated or whose candidates they more readily support.

 

Last week, I met a reader visiting LA from the East Coast at a Farmers Market coffee shop.  When we decided to drive to dinner, I asked him where he had parked his car.  He replied that he left at it a lot near the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA).  “You walked here?” I said incredulously, then realized that journey was just over three blocks (though one of them quite long).

 

Only in hearing the incredulity in my own voice did I realize how adapted I have become to LA’s car culture.  We take it as a given that if you’re going anywhere you drive.  Hence that delicious scene in LA Story where Steve Martin‘s Harris K. Telemacher drives to his next door neighbor’s house.

 

Once I drove to a hardware store, fewer than two blocks away.  Of course, then, that was my first stop among many errands that day.

 

Perhaps, realizing that I drove way too much, I decided to go for a walk today around my neighborhood, something I did regularly when I was new to Southern California.  It is a pleasant neighborhood with attractive bungalows, colorful gardens and a great variety of foliage, some native to the region, some from tropical locales, other plants the flora of American suburbia.

 

It was a pleasant stroll.  Once I set off, I started noticing things that I might otherwise have missed.  A yard (well, more properly, a driveway) sale almost hidden behind the trees between the sidewalk and the street.  Beyond the privacy bushes in one alleyway, I saw what I thought was the top of a modern sculpture.  I peered over a nearby fence to discover what looked like a trampoline on its side.

 

And then there were the people.  An elderly couple who had turned an outdoor landing of their building’s stairways into a balcony.  New parents awkwardly putting their child into what may have been a new stroller.  Russian men playing chess and checkers in a public park.  A lesbian couple giggling in the threshold to a public building, each wearing stockings which matched her outfit, but clashed with her friend’s.

 

It was a pleasant way to spend an afternoon.  Because the distances are so great in LA, we do need a car to get around.  Of my closest friends here, the one who lives nearest to me is a 20-minute drive away–without traffic.  With traffic, it can sometimes take two hours to get to the home of another.  

 

That said, today’s lesson was that I, for one, need to walk more.  And that it may well again be time to watch LA Story.

 

Since there has been much chatter in the blogosphere about a conversation on race (e.g., here), I thought I’d link to an essential primer on this topic.

In her comment to my post on Michael Lucas, Leah noted that, according to her son at Stanford, when the iconoclastic porn star “spoke at Stanford earlier this year, [he] as booed and shouted down.”

Such behavior, booing and shouting down, seems pretty standard behavior for some left-of-center students when speakers come to their campuses (campi?) presenting ideas that these high-minded intellectuals don’t like.

A year before its Administration invited the malicious and murderous president of a theocracy to speak at Columbia, students “booed and shouted” during an event featuring “Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minutemen, a group that patrols the border between America and Mexico.” They later stormed the stage when that opponent of illegal immigration rose to speak. They didn’t even given him a chance to express his opinion.

Despite attending a prestigious university which supposedly only admits very smart people, they didn’t have the patience to listen to his arguments and ask him tough questions. If his ideas were so bad and they were so smart, then couldn’t they better show the superiority of their ideas by posing questions which would stump him? Why did they choose to shout him down instead of challenging his views?

Perhaps they hought they didn’t need listen to his remarks because they, being so smart, already “knew” what he stood for. And being so smart, they deemed that his ideas being inferior to theirs, they shouldn’t be aired.

(more…)

The Democratic former governor of New Jersey and Advocate cover boy Jim McGreevey is back in the news. A judge yesterday dismissed his ex-wife’s “claim of emotional distress.” Meanwhile, Jamie Kirchik reminds us that this Democrat’s scandal “wasn’t just about sex.”

McGreevey wasn’t just engaged in extramarital trysts with men, he was also putting them on the state payroll. While Jamie acknowledges the “eagerness of gays to champion the [ex-]Governor of the Garden State,” given the “paucity of openly gay people in public affairs,” he finds:

McGreevey inadvertently hurt the cause of gay civil rights as much as any crusading, socially conservative political activist could have hoped to do. He fed the stereotype that gays are untrustworthy and self-absorbed, and that homosexuality is a personal weakness

Exactly. And yet the Advocate put him on its cover.

In a headline on another cover, that “national gay & lesbian news magzine” accused an open lesbian of “copping out” because Mary Cheney didn’t say what they wanted her to say in her memoir, Now It’s My Turn: A Daughter’s Chronicle of Political Life.

Hmm, here we have a lesbian comfortable in her sexuality, faithful to her partner and close to her family, a woman who is anything but self-absorbed, even having the courage to come out in conservative circles and the Advocate dismisses her writing. Guess it must be that parenthetical letter after her name. That (R) seems to make one anathema to gay activists and journalists while that (D) excuses them of all wrongdoing.

If we really want to promote a positive image of gay men and lesbians in American society, gay leaders as well as our advocates in the media would be condemning the conduct of men like Jim McGreevey and wishing more people like Mary Cheney would be open about their sexuality.

On his blog yesterday, Michael Petrelis noted something which shouldn’t surprised those who have followed the goings-on at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) over the past sixteen years. This self-proclaimed civil rights organization which, in recent years, dropped the word “bipartisan” from its mission statement, seems to have a number of staffers and board members backing Ms. Hillary’s (Hillary Rodham Clinton) bid for the White House.

Guess some gay activists are not joining the mad rush to back the favored candidate of the left.

Given HRC’s record in the 1990s, it seems fitting its supporters would support the spouse of the man they swooned over in the 1990s. Just like Ms. HRC, HRC the organization stood by its man while he repeatedly broke promises he made.

HRC endorsed Bill Clinton after he codified anti-gay discrimination when, in 1993, he signed Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell. Then, refused to rescind that endorsement when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996.

Now, we learn that HRC’s (the organization) vice president for programs, David M. Smith, gave $2.300, the maximum allowed by law, to HRC, the presidential candidate. Given that Smith supervises the group’s communications department, Petrelis writes:

With Smith’s large donation in mind, I just don’t see how HRC can claim their 2008 presidential operations and media advocacy, two fields controlled by Smith, are not biased in favor one Democratic candidate over the other.

This despite HRC’s official neutrality in the presidential race. It’s not just Smith. HRC board member Hilary Rosen has also backed Ms. HRC. Anyway, read Petrelis’s post to see why he wishes HRC (the origination) would just “come out of the closet.”

According to Log Cabin’s web-site, its national convention will feature a “Town Hall Meeting” on Presidential Endorsement, described on the convention’s Schedule of Events as “The Road Ahead?”

In anticipation of that event, I had thought to set up an organization called, “Gays & Lesbians for John McCain” to show that while we don’t always agree with the Arizona Senator (he backed an unsuccessful proposal in his home state to bar recognition of same-sex relationships), many gay men and lesbians support this courageous veteran because we know he is sound on the most important issue of the day, the war against Islamofascism.

Indeed, we realize that that issue is particularly important to gay people, given the strong anti-gay bias of Muslim extremists and the continual persecution and execution of gay people in Islamic theocracies, like Iran.

I had considered setting up the organization as a vehicle to gather names of prominent gay Republicans backing John McCain to show Log Cabin that there was a burgeoning movement backing his White House bid. Should they fail to endorse (as they failed in 2004 to endorse the GOP nominee), they would further marginalize themselves.

But, I’m optimistic Log Cabin will endorse McCain. Should they fail to endorse, however, the title of this post would become moot. At present though, I don’t think such an organization would really sway any gay voters, primarily because those gay men and lesbians who would consider John McCain don’t play the kind of identity politics that gay activists believe we play. We see ourselves as Americans who happen to be gay and vote for the candidate whom we believe will best serve the national interest.

When we look at the two candidates for the Democratic nomination pandering to the left-wing of their party and consider the threats abroad, we know that John McCain is the best candidate for gay and lesbian Americans because he is the best candidate for all Americans.

Gay Americans don’t need a gay organization telling us as much.

(more…)

A couple months ago while browsing in history section of the Barnes & Noble bookstore near me, I chanced upon a book which must have been misshelved, Corey Taylor’s Naked: The Life and Pornography of Michael Lucas. Intrigued by the sexy man on the cover, I browsed through to learn about a Russian Jewish porn actor and producer who is outspoken on a number of political issues not (directly) relate to the porn trade.

While this unusual combination intrigued me, I didn’t buy the book and indeed may well have forgotten it had I not earlier today read Jamie Kirchik’s New Republic essay on Lucas “Hard Right: Gay porn’s neocon kingpin.” Turns out this guy is an interesting blend of seemingly discordant parts (inciently a description which could be applied to many gay conservatives though the parts might be different).

A “staunch advocate of safe sex,” he makes sure performers uses condoms in his films, he has earned the enmity of many on the them, thankfully not for this safe-sex advocacy, but because he has frequently denounced “Muslim homophobia and anti-Semitism.”

Reading widely, he is well-versed in international affairs. He even blogs about them, though his blog (warning, it contains adult content) is far racier than ours. He even writes a regular column for the New York Blade. In this piece, he offers his thoughts on “Gay Takeaways” from the CNN/YouTube debate last summer.

Devoted to his family, Lucas uses the money he earned in porn to move his parents and grandparents to New York. He even “put his father to work as a set constructor on his films.”

While I can understand how (to quote another outspoken blogger who performed in the buff), porn “flattens the soul,” I don’t see it as necessarily a bad thing. Those who become addicted to it may well be destroying themselves; that’s not because of porn, but because they let it become a substitute for something else. Others find porn offers a temporary release, enabling them to get on with their lives.

(more…)

Just before Senator McCain’s series of victories on “Tsunami Tuesday” last month, I wrote, he “seems to take the race for granted when he’s ahead.” At the time, I observed that he ran a “lackluster” campaign when the MSM considered him the GOP frontrunner.

Now a string of polls show him to be the frontrunner for the fall elections. This success has caused Roger Simon to wonder if McCain is peaking too soon. (Roger’s February 14 “suspicion” that “Obama my have peaked too soon” appears now to have been quite prescient.)

My concern is not that the GOP presidential nominee has peaked, but that he may take his lead for granted and run a classic frontrunner campaign. This could work to his detriment given that the MSM is determined to defeat him and the Clinton record of campaign ruthlessness should New York’s junior Senator find a way to secure her party’s nod.

While a recent Gallup poll showed the Arizona leading (or tying) both of his Democratic rivals on “Character and Quality Dimensions,” he falls significantly behind Hillary on one issue, having a clear plan for solving the country’s problems and behind both Democrats on understanding the problems Americans face in their daily lives.

Let’s hope that Senator McCain moves to hold — and build on — his lead by addressing those two issues. His plans to hold a series of townhall meetings across the country is a good start. I would also suggest delivering major policy addresses on issues not normally deemed his “bailiwick” like the economy and government reform. Perhaps, to schedule those speeches in states at the time of their presidential primaries.

Former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro said today that she objected to the comparison Sen. Barack Obama drew between her and his former pastor in his speech on race relations Tuesday.In the speech, Obama sought to place the inflammatory remarks of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a broader context, in part by placing them on a continuum with Ferraro’s recent remark to the Daily Breeze that Obama is “lucky” to be black.“To equate what I said with what this racist bigot has said from the pulpit is unbelievable,” Ferraro said today. “He gave a very good speech on race relations, but he did not address the fact that this man is up there spewing hatred.” (dailybreeze.com)

Ouch. Hell hath no fury…

h/t Hot Air

– John (Average Gay Joe)

UPDATE (From Dan) : I agree with Gerry Z? I am planning a followup to my post There’s Something About Barry, but want to first read my print-out of the speech (as I sometimes miss things when I read long speeches or articles on-line). The former Mrs. Zaccaro’s point that it was a good speech, but did not address Wright’s bigotry is a succinct summary of my own reaction.

UPDATE (from John): Gerry has good reason to call Wright a “racist bigot” given the award his church gave in 2007 to race-baiter Louis Farrakhan. Wright “applauded [Farrakhan's] ‘depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation.’ [Wright] praised ‘his integrity and honesty.’ [Wright] called [Farrakhan] ‘an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose.’”

It gets worse. On the “Pastor’s Page” of the July 22, 2007 church bulletin, Wright reprinted an article by Mousa Abu Marzook of the terrorist group Hamas, under the headline “A Fresh View of the Palestinian Struggle”.

Well…well….well.

Fifty-five percent of Iraqis now say their own life is going well, up from 39 percent 12 months ago. And 62 percent say security in their local area is good, up 16 percentage points from last year.  These results, from an ABC poll carried out across Iraq and released today, paint a picture of a damaged country that is gradually starting to pull itself together again.

Attitudes toward Americans are ambivalent. On the one hand, Iraqis are deeply uncomfortable with the occupation — 73 percent say they oppose the presence of U.S. troops on Iraqi soil.  [GP Ed. Note - Um, who wouldn't be opposed to foreign troops in your country?]

When asked whether the U.S. troop surge has contributed to the drop in violence, a little more than half say no. But in a telling reality check, when asked whether U.S. troops should leave Iraq now, only 38 percent agreed — the majority wants U.S. troops to stay until security is guaranteed.

Oh, but wait….    *GP checks statements from Senate Majority Leader*

I am very confused.   Harry Reid tells me “the war is lost.”  I’m sure that’s because he has been to Iraq several times since the surge and has seen this first hand?  So he must be right, and the Iraqi people must be wrong.

*GP reads some news items*

Oops, no that’s not it.  Reid hasn’t been to Iraq at all.   But surely Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi have sat down with General Petraeus when he has offered to brief them? 

*GP reads more news items….*

Nope, Reid and Pelosi both refused to attend briefings given last year by Gen. Petraeus.  Oh, and what was that?…..  Senator Hillary Clinton said late last year that in order to believe Petraeus’ statements that the situation was improving, it would require a “willing suspension of disbelief.”  

I guess we will just have to trust the Iraqi people and the US military on the ground to tell us the truth, since our Congressional leadership isn’t at all serious about winning the Global War on Terror.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

WOW. (h/t – The Corner)

Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Communist leader of the Soviet Union, has acknowledged his Christian faith for the first time, paying a surprise visit to pray at the tomb of St Francis of Assisi.

Mr Gorbachev’s surprise visit confirmed decades of rumours that, although he was forced to publicly pronounce himself an atheist, he was in fact a Christian, and casts a meeting with Pope John Paul II in 1989 in a new light.

Mr Gorbachev, 77, was baptised into the Russian Orthodox Church and his parents were Christians.

Ronald Reagan, the former United States president, allegedly told his close aides on a number of occasions that he felt his opponent during the Cold War was a “closet believer”.

As someone who grew up admiring Ronald Reagan’s crusade to end the Communist ”evil empire,” this is completely stunning news to me.  It appears that one US President truly did look into the soul of his Soviet counterpart and saw something no one else did.

It sure says volumes about the morally bankrupt Communist doctrine that one of its own footsoldiers has turned to the polar opposite answer for his spiritual needs.

Finally, I would note that this story is notably absent from all of the major “mainstream” media news outlets.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Barack Obama in his recent speech criticized his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, for controversial remarks, saying:

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know — what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

Very nice and I agree with his words here. Some on the Left have attempted to spin this entire affair and use this speech as a vehicle to bury it all. Yet even if we should overlook his 20 year association with Wright, how does the Left explain the Senator’s membership in a racially exclusive club like the Congressional Black Caucus? As with Wright, Obama has said nothing about the membership policies of the CBC nor did he utter one peep about the comments from fellow member Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr., D-Mo in response to the attempt by Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tn., who is white, to join last year but was rebuffed because of his skin color.

From Wikipedia:

Over the years, the question has arisen, “Does the Caucus allow only black members?” Pete Stark, D-Ca., who is white, tried and failed to join in 1975. In January 2007, it was reported that white members of Congress were not welcome to join the CBC. Freshman Representative Steve Cohen, D-Tn., who is white, pledged to apply for membership during his election campaign to represent his constituents, who were 60% black. It was reported that although the bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, former and current members of the Caucus agreed that the group should remain “exclusively black.” Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr., D-Mo., the son of Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, is quoted as saying, “Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He’s white and the Caucus is black. It’s time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It’s an unwritten rule. It’s understood.” In response to the decision, Rep. Cohen stated, “It’s their caucus and they do things their way. You don’t force your way in.”

Rep. Clay issued an official statement from his office in reply to Rep. Cohen’s complaint:

“Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept – there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it’s our turn to say who can join ‘the club.’ He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives.”

On January 25, 2007, Representative Tom Tancredo, R-Co., spoke out against the continued existence of the CBC as well as the Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Republican Congressional Hispanic Conference saying, “It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a color-blind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race. If we are serious about achieving the goal of a colorblind society, Congress should lead by example and end these divisive, race-based caucuses.”

For more see FactCheck.org.

If Senator Obama truly wants to “move beyond some of our old racial wounds”, why then, as a member of the CBC, does he not move for a more color-blind admission policy in this group?

– John (Average Gay Joe)

Unlike most bloggers who have flexible schedules, I did not watch Barack Obama’s speech on race yesterday.  I had too many little things to do and realized I could just read it online.  I knew that if I watched it, I might lose sight of the words and become captivated by the man speaking them.

For there is something about Barry* that I, like so many others, find so compelling.  He just comes across as a decent man. With his mellifluous voice and warming presence, he definitely charms his audience, even over the ether.  Indeed, when I did see clips of the speech on FoxNews, I thought he acquitted himself quite well.

It’s only when I read parts of the speech online that I found his remarks frequently empty and often evasive.  Just like Peggy Noonan observed.  When you see him speak, you come away impressed, but when you read the words, you find there’s so much wanting.

Despite the evasiveness of Obama’s rhetoric, there’s something about him I like.  He reminds me of those liberal activists I encountered in college, those who would come to hear visiting conservative speakers, ask questions in a civil tone and even amicably greet their Republican peers on campus.  In classroom discussions (in which he would often participate) he would usually chime in with the standard liberal idea du jour.

He doesn’t attack Republicans with the same ferocity as does his Democratic opponent.  He just thinks we’re decent people who have misguided notions about the world  She thinks we’re narrow-minded people with bad ideas.

Despite the Senator’s decency, his response to the hateful rhetoric of his “spiritual advisor” shows him not to be the visionary leader all too many of his supporters claim him to be.  If he were such a leader able to unite a divided country, he would have had the strength to stand up those hateful individuals who refuse to find common ground with others different from themselves, who speak out promoting the divisions in our society.  For twenty years, he had the chance to stand up to such an individual and failed to do so.

A real uniter would have challenged the Reverend Wright on his hateful rhetoric.  Barack Obama didn’t.  He may be a charismatic guy with a powerful presence, but when he had the chance to use the presence to condemn bigotry.  And failed to do so.  (Only speaking out when it became a national issue threatening his bid for the White House.)

If, as a prominent member of his own congregation, he couldn’t condemn challenge the minister’s bias, I doubt that, as president, he could stand up to such divisive voices in our society like Louis Farrakhan, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter or James Dobson.  Nor to the hateful enemies of freedom whose actions threaten our nation.

———–

*Many of the Senator’s friends call him Barry.

This is kind of related to my post yesterday, faulting the president for not challenging inaccurate media reports critical of his record.

Normally, I don’t review books until I’ve finished them. But, this morning, while reading Surrender is Not an Option, I came across something which really gets at why Republican poll numbers have tumbled in the president’s second term. But, first, one quick point, I have planned a joint review of Bolton’s book and Norman Podhoretz’s World War IV as each addresses some essential aspects of the War on Terror. I’m assuming, of course, that the second half of Bolton’s book will be as strong as the first.

When talking about his ill-fated confirmation hearings, Ambassador Bolton notes the dishonesty of the Democratic charges against him, nearly all of them created out of whole cloth. On one day, April 19, 2005, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee “faced an unrelenting barrage of criticism from Biden, Dodd, and Kerry, lasting for over an hour, while the Republicans sat and listened.” They just sat and listened while then-Committee Chairman Richard Lugar gave in to Democrats’ demands to keep delaying a vote on confirming that highly qualified diplomat.

As Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman put it:

The Democrats came in loaded for bear, and we just sit there and get discouraged. Our silence was taken as acquiescence in their charges, and we just looked awful.

But, Republicans wouldn’t have looked so awful had they responded to the Democrats’ attack, pointing out that their bile had little (or no) basis in fact.

Makes Senator McCain’s efforts on behalf of this good man stand out all the more. While most Republicans refused to stand up to Democratic misrepresentations about a conservative nominee, the Arizona Senator fought for his confirmation.

Why is it that so many Republicans remain so reluctant to stand up to Democrats who misrepresent our ideas and insult our leaders? The American people might have a better opinion of the GOP if our leaders took more time to defend the party and its ideals.

Since many conservatives are bound and determined to highlight examples of John McCain’s apostasy from conservative orthodoxy, it’s important we highlight those times when he went above and beyond the call of duty to fight the good fight for consdervative ideas–and individuals. Reading John Bolton’s Surrender is Not an Option this morning, I learned that our much (and wrongly) maligned former United Nations Ambassador appreciated the Republican presidential nominee’s efforts on his behalf during his confirmation battle.

Bolton calls McCain’s Senate floor speech “especially memorable,” comparing “allegations about my temperament to what everyone saw from senators every day of the week.” He recounts other episodes where McCain worked to find a solution to the problem created by Democratic grandstanding while other Republicans were silent and/or indifferent.

Once again, we see John McCain standing up for conservative ideas in foreign affairs, fighting this time to confirm an intelligeent, outspoken and articulate defender of the president’s policies when the Democrats and their allies in the MSM were working double time to destroy him. On the most important issue of the day, McCain gets it right. His efforts on behalf of Bolton’s confirmation show this.

No wonder that good man has endorsed the Arizona Senator for president. (In making his endorsement, Bolton cited McCain’s active support during his ill-fated confirmation hearings.)

I saw an ad last night for “On the Record” with Greta Van Susteren in which the announcer basically said ”why are Democrats so obsessed with race and are other issues being neglected?”

The thought struck me — “hey… it is the DEMOCRATS that are attacking each other over divisive racial issues.”  Americans are constantly drummed by the MSM that it is the eeeeeeeeeeevil conservatives who are the bigots and racists.   But I don’t hear anyone else but Democrats shouting at each other about who is the most racist or race-free candidate.

Well, folks…. this is what you get when a political party is built on a foundation of identity politics and victimization.  Eventually they will turn on each other.

2008 = 1968

-Bruce (GayPatriot)