Earlier this month, I read a piece on Powerline by John Hinderaker which pretty much corresponded to my own views of why the president’s approval remains so low. Like me, he “traces it back” at least as far as the summer of 2003 when the Administration failed to respond to he dishonest statements Joe Wilson made in his New York Times Op-ed and later media appearances, claiming the president lied us into war. John wrote:

One can trace it back at least as far as the 16-words controversy. President Bush may be correct in believing that history will recognize his achievements, but history will also record that his administration’s inept efforts at self-defense resulted in a Democratic Congress that is poised to do severe damage to America’s economy and national security.

While the president’s problems transcend his Administration’s public relations errors, his team did, as John put it, make some incredibly “inept efforts at self-defense,” never effectively challenging Wilson’s mendacity nor regularly defending its own decision-making process. As a result, the views of an extreme fringe (that Bush lied us into war) gained greater currency, particularly among members of the media elite.

Polls show Americans increasingly questioned the president’s honesty and trustworthiness. The left-wing narrative that “Bush lied, People Died” seems to have taken hold

Yet, as Michael Barone observes in his essay on Douglas Feith’s recently published War and Decision, this narrative is at odds with the facts. In this book, “the the No. 3 civilian at the Pentagon from 2001 to 2003. . . quotes extensively from unpublished documents and contemporary memorandums and paints is at considerable variance from the narratives with which we’ve become familiar.” (Via Hugh Hewitt.)

Like Hinderaker and myself, Barone believes these narratives have become familiar because “the administration allowed its critics to frame the issue around the fact that stockpiles of weapons weren’t found.” This wouldn’t be the last time the Administration allowed its critics to frame the debate.

(more…)

Shortly after Crystal Dixon’s Op-Ed taking “great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims’” appeared in the Toledo Free Press, her employer, the University of Toledo, suspended her with pay from her position as associate vice president of human resources.

When the Ohio daily published her opinion piece, it did not identify Ms. Dixon’s position or place of employment, identifying her merely as a resident of Maumee.

While I do share her belief gay people are not civil rights’s victims, I don’t like some of the language she uses and don’t share her confidence in the work of “ex-gay” ministries. That said, she has every right to express her opinion, even if it be wrong-headed. That she did not list her job title at the university makes clear she was writing as an individual and not a representative of the University.

While gay rights’ advocates and others critical of her ideas have the freedom to express their disagreement, they should join me in condemning the University for suspending her. Yeah, she said some silly things, but on her own time.

Only if saying these silly things prevents her from doing her job should statements she makes away from work factor into any decisions her public sector employer makes regarding her employment. Government agencies should neither discriminate against someone because they’re gay nor against individuals because of their faith or their views on social issues.

And where are those who push for non-discrimination laws which would prevent private-sector employers from discriminating against gays in the case of this example of the public sector discriminating against a woman because of her political and social views?

(more…)

Yesterday, in his comment to my post on Disgruntled, Divided Democrats, American Elephant wrote:

the media is going to cover [Obama's liberal voting record and inexperience] up . . . while attacking McCain, and distorting his record. That means all Americans will see of Obama is an attractive, personable candidate with a deep, resonating speaking voice and a lot of money for slick commercials.

Soon after I read those words, I chanced upon an article on Drudge proving that very point. The very title, “Obama accuses McCain of ‘losing his bearings’” echoed the Obama campaign’s critique of the presumptive GOP presidential nominee “for repeatedly suggesting the Islamic terrorist group Hamas preferred Obama for president.”

Suggesting? A spokesman for the terrorist group actually said that. That’s not suggesting that’s telling things as they are.

Reflecting the MSM spin on McCain’s alleged problem with his temper, “reporter” Libby Quaid contended the Obama campaign’s accusation “brought an angry response from McCain’s campaign” (emphasis added). And how was the response angry? Or is anyone angry by definition who dares criticize the statement of the great Obama and his acolytes? Or is merely angry because John McCain is supposed to be a very angry man?

Seems she was just adding this adjective to reinforce an image the media is trying to manufacture about the Republican contender. Note how New York Times Book Review editor Sam Tanenhaus uses the word “hair-trigger” to define the Senator’s temper as if it’s a matter of long-established fact, not opinion. All stemming form yet another front-page article in the Times or Washington Post trying to bring down John McCain’s high favorables.

It’s not just the Times and the Post. Contending that the GOP “has been successfully scaring voters since 1968,” Newsweek reporters Richard Wolffe and Evan Thomas contend “the GOP will try to paint Obama as ‘the other’—as a haughty black intellectual who has Muslim roots (Obama is a Christian) and hangs around with America-haters.”

Once again as the McCain campaign’s Mark Salter informs us, an organ of the MSM has “embraced the primary communications strategy [of] the Obama campaign.” (At least Newsweek‘s editors didn’t call this letter angry.) (Via the Weekly Standard‘s Michael Goldfarb.)

Note that one of the authors of this hit piece is Evan Thomas who once said media bias would give Kerry a 15-point bump in the 2004 matchup with George W. Bush. Looks like he’s doing his part to make sure they give a similar advantage to this year’s Democratic nominee.

How do you like THOSE apples?

UPDATE: I made the graphics a bit better.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In addition to Senator Obama thinking there are 57 states in the Republic,

“”I hope I said 100,000 people the first time instead of 100 million. I understand I said there were 57 states today. It’s a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh.”  [GP Ed. Note - Sounds very GW Bush-esque]

… Obama also has some interesting stereotypes about gay Americans:

The marathon Democratic primary means stressed out candidates—so how do they relax? In the case of Democratic frontrunner Senator Barack Obama it seems as though board games are his choice for a break. This evening on a flight from Washington, DC to Portland, Oregon Obama was challenged to a game of Taboo. The game pits teams against each other to guess different words, but players are forbidden to say certain clues. Instead, teams have to describe the word to elicit a response out of their team members.

In another round, one staffer gave the clue of where a Gay person shops.  Senator Obama guessed “Abercrombie and Fitch,” but the staff member was trying to get his team to say “Gap.”

You know that GLAAD and the Hypocrite Rights Campaign would be having a temper tantrum if this had been done by Senator McCain or any other Republican for that matter.

By the way…. by the sounds of this article the press corps is waaaaay too friendly with Senator Obama and his staff.   They won’t be interested, or looking for, any relevant issues regarding his campaign.

They are too busy mocking gays and their shopping habits.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I thought I saw Al Gore’s cold breath in the air last week…. the New York Times finally admits success in recent surge by Iraqi troops in Basra.

Three hundred miles south of Baghdad, the oil-saturated city of Basra has been transformed by its own surge, now seven weeks old.

In a rare success, forces loyal to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki have largely quieted the city, to the initial surprise and growing delight of many inhabitants who only a month ago shuddered under deadly clashes between Iraqi troops and Shiite militias.

Just as in Baghdad, Iraqi and Western officials emphasize that the gains here are “fragile,” like the newly planted roadside saplings that fail to conceal mounds of garbage and pools of foul-smelling water in the historic port city’s slums.

Among the many uncertainties are whether the government, criticized for incompetence at the start of the operation, can maintain the high level of troops here. But in interviews across Basra, residents overwhelmingly reported a substantial improvement in their everyday lives.

“The circle of fear is broken,” said Shaker, owner of a floating restaurant on Basra’s famed Corniche promenade, who, although optimistic, was still afraid to give his full name, as were many of those interviewed.

You might recall the US Democrats who were quick to condemn the Iraqi troops actions in Basra when it began.

Oh, you don’t? Well, here ya go….  All of these statements were made as the result of Maliki’s actions in Basra:

Not-My Speaker Pelosi (D-CA):  “I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces.

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE):  “Violence has come down, but the Iraqis have not come together.”

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI):  “The Bush administration has put all of our eggs in Maliki’s basket,” Levin said. “And he’s shown himself to be a political leader who is excessively sectarian, who’s incompetent and who runs a corrupt administration.”

I could go on and on and on….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)