Along with Jonathan Rauch, Dale Carpenter is one of those rare advocates of gay marriage who can make a compelling case for “this expansion of the meaning of marriage” (as the editors of the LA Times puts it) to a conservative audience. (Basically, if you see Dale’s name on a column, just read the piece.)

Going through my accumulated e-mail (and finally emptying out all my e-mail boxes), I discovered a draft of a column Dale had written two weeks ago on the impact of the California Supreme Court decision mandating the Golden State recognize same-sex marriages. When I wrote him to commend him on the piece, he wrote back, pointing out that it (long since) been published.

Observing that “proposed amendment [defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman] was going to be on the ballot in November anyway,” Dale finds the “the main effect of the court’s decision has been to change the context in which the vote will occur:”

The question is, what effect will this reality have on voters? On the one hand, whatever they think of gay marriage, some voters may feel that it would be unfair to strip existing married couples of their rights. Voters may also be reassured by seeing that nothing bad happens when gay couples wed.

On the other hand, seeing gay couples actually marry may anger some voters. The sight of two men or two women kissing, no matter how joyous the occasion to those involved, is still shocking to a lot of people. They may vote “yes” as a way to stave off what they see as growing decadence and immorality. Five months just isn’t a lot of time to normalize what people have spent their entire lives believing is abnormal.

Other voters will be angry at what they see as judicial activism and vote “yes” as a way to rebuke the courts.

It’s impossible to predict now what the net political effect of all these gay nuptials will be. But it is possible to say what the stakes are.

Rather than have me tell you how Dale sees the stakes, click here and read it yourself. You may not agree with everything he has to say, but you will agree he understands the potential impact of the Supreme Court ruling — and the ballot initiative.

In a post this morning, I noted that Andrew Sullivan called General Wesley Clark’s recent attacks on John McCain “revolting” and “repulsive.” He wasn’t the only one to take on the favorite general of the Clintons.

In addition to Senator John Warner, former Secretary of the Navy, Admiral Leighton “Snuffy” Smith (USN Retired), Colonel Bud Day, USAF (Ret.), the most decorated American service member since General Douglas MacArthur, Rear Admiral Tom Lynch, USN (Ret.), numerous other retired officers and enlisted men have challenged the Obama supporter’s mean-spirited remarks.

Lynch summarized the remarks of his fellow officers when he said:

For anyone to challenge John McCain’s service to this country is an insult, particularly when it comes from the Obama campaign. John McCain’s life has been defined by putting his country before anything else. If Barack Obama is serious about his promises for a new kind of politics, he can start by denouncing these attacks that are unworthy of anyone who seeks to be the next Commander in Chief.

It’s not just retired military officials.

Blogger Ed Morrissey sees this attack as part of the Obama campaign’s strategy. Taking note of the charges Clark leveled against the presumptive GOP nominee, Morrissey writes:

Not only can every argument Clark made get applied more to Obama than to McCain, he has now made it clear that the Obama strategy is to demean and belittle McCain’s military service — and by extension, military service in general.

Via JammieWearingFool who, in the update which links Morrissey also links AJ Strata’s impassioned takedown of John Aravosis’s angry and hateful attacks on John McCain.

Unless Barack Obama publicly denounces General Clark for his broadside on the presumptive Republican nominee, he will be giving tacit approval to this latest smear campaign against his rival for the White House.

The more attacks I see from the left the more convinced I become that theirs is a party of hate. Remember those bumper stickers liberals sported in the 1990s, “Hate is Not a Family Value.” Maybe we conservatives should start sporting ones that say, “Hate is not an American Value.”

I think the term one blogger has used to describe what Aravosis and his cohorts are doing in attacking McCain: swiftblogging. I think I might start using that a little more often.

UPDATE: Obama disowns critique of McCain’s Military Record. Not clear whether Clark will continue to speak for the campaign.

When working on his piece on presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s letter supporting Proposition 8 which would enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the California constitution, LA Weekly writer Patrick Range McDonald contacted me for a comment on this decision.

As I considered my response, I came up with something a little longer than the sound-byte he may have sought. Given the time I took to craft the statement, I decided to include it below, but first wanted to comment on some of the things McDonald said in his article. Even though I don’t agree with everything he has to say (indeed take issue with the general thrust of his argument), I recommend you read in its entirety. He makes some good points and does so in a civil manner.

It’s nice to see a gay writer take on a Republican without the bile we are accustomed to see in such opinion pieces.

McCain may well, as McDonald puts it, be “making a national political play for fundamentalist Christians,” but the Arizona Senator has hardly blown any opportunity on the marriage issue, as McDonald suggests. Many people oppose gay marriage without harboring animosity toward gay people. The Hartford Courant noted as much in its article on gay marriage as the Connecticut legislature considered the state’s landmark civil unions legislation.

Simpy put, many people understand marriage as it has long been understood as the union of one man and one woman. And John McCain has been very clear to say he supports the traditional definition. In doing so, the presumptive Repubican nominee has also made clear his support of federalism and has refrained from attacking gay people as have all too many advocates of traditional marriage.

I focused on that in the statement I sent to McDonald (which I reprint here because he could not possibly have included all my thoughts in his post):

Obviously, I’d rather McCain had remained silent on the California ballot initiative on marriage. While he has shown a willingness to meet with gay people and showed some sensitivity to our concerns, he is not perfect on issues of concern to the gay community.

Remember, this is a man who attended the funeral of Mark Bingham, a gay man and hero of United Flight 93, and who wished Ellen DeGeneres “every happiness” in her relationship with Portia de Rossi. Indeed, in that interview, he, unlike some opponents of gay marriage, showed an understanding some of the basic issues involved in state recognition of marriage.

While, I — and many other gay Americans — applaud Senator McCain for leading the fight against a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage, we have long known he does not support state recognition of gay marriage. In 2006, he backed the Arizona ballot initiative which would not only have prevented the state from recognizing gay marriage, but would have also barred civil unions, a measure far more draconian than the one on this fall’s Golden State ballot limiting marriage to its traditional definition.

Support for such a measure is not inconsistent with opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. He had opposed the latter because it would bar states from defining marriage. John McCain believes states should decide these issues. Right now, he’s just saying he believe the people of California should decide this issue — and not the courts.

Shortly after posting my piece wondering if the sensible Andrew Sullivan were returning, I checked his blog a little more regularly as had been my wont in recent months. It seemed I had a little premature in heralding the return of the blogger who was once my favorite.

While Andrew still did occasionally offer insightful observations from time to time, he was too often cheerleading Obama or demonizing W, seeming ever careful to avoid offending his new left-wing fan base. Today, he seems to be trying to split the difference.

When checking the referrals on our sitemeter, I found we had a lot of incoming links from Andrew’s blog; he had linked my first Heller piece. While at his blog, I was delighted to see that he had taken on General Wesley Clark for attacking John McCain’s military record, calling the one-time Clinton supporter’s comments “revolting” and “repulsive.”

He’s right. Clark’s attack is that low. It shows how far the left will go to demonize John McCain, seeking to destroy any chances that good man has to win the presidency.

Unfortunately, Andrew call Clark’s attacks “swiftboating” to compare them to the ads the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth aired in the 2004 presidential campaign criticizing then-Democratic nominee John Kerry. Theirs was hardly a hit job as Kerry and his supporters have yet been able to to disprove anything in those ads.

So, while we see some signs of the old Andrew Sullivan returning, the “new Andrew” is careful to couch his criticism in terms that shows his continued commitment to castigating conservatives.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds disagrees with charges that John McCain is being “Swift Boated:”

For this to be a “Swift Boating,” people who stayed at the Hanoi Hilton would have to say that McCain was lying about what he did there — or perhaps that his repeated claims that events there were “seared, seared” in his memory are false, and he was never actually there at all — and those people would have to be telling the truth.

My silence from the blog this coming week will be intentional as PatriotPartner and I pack up the gas-guzzling 1999 Ford Explorer and head to the South Carolina beaches.   The great part about this vacation — PatriotPuppies are coming with us.  Yep, we have a dog-friendly cottage right on the beach.   Hopefully I will post pics next weekend.

Anyway, enjoy the week.  And everyone have a happy Fourth of July.

Just do me a favor.  In between the hot dogs and hamburgers, remember what it is all about. 

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

And don’t take it for granted… since most of the rest of the world’s population isn’t as half as blessed as we are.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I have always thought that the real measure of someone’s attitude toward gay people was not whether he supports the legislative agenda of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) or mouths the appropriate political correct slogans of gay activists, but how he treats individual gay men and lesbians.

John McCain has a long record of treating individual gay men not just fairly, but also with class and honor. We saw that most recently on the Ellen DeGeneres Show where he respectfully handled the eponymous hostess’s questions on gay marriage and as he wished her “every happiness” in her relationship with Portia de Rossi.

That wasn’t the first time he showed class via-à-vis a gay person. In September 2001, he flew from Washington to attend a memorial service at the University of California/Berkeley for Mark Bingham, a gay man and one of the heroes of United Flight 93. Along with his fellow passengers on that doomed plane, Bingham stormed the cockpit, preventing it from being used as a missile to destroy either the U.S. Capitol .

This was not the first time Bingham had risked his life for others.

Speaking at this hero’s funeral, John McCain recalled Bingham’s support for his 2000 White House bid and cited the Gospel of John in praising him for laying down his life for his fellows, calling it, “A love so sublime that only God’s love surpasses it.” He added:

I never knew Mark Bingham. But I wish I had. I know he was a good son and friend, a good rugby player, a good American, and an extraordinary human being. He supported me, and his support now ranks among the greatest honors of my life. I wish I had known before September 11th just how great an honor his trust in me was. I wish I could have thanked him for it more profusely than time and circumstances allowed. But I know it now. And I thank him with the only means I possess, by being as good an American as he was.

While John McCain may be far from perfect on gay and other issues, we do know him to be a man of honor. He treats men and women fairly.

His attendance at the funeral of Mark Bingham as well as his eulogy for that great American shows, he honors the service and sacrifice of our heroes — regardless of their sexual orientation.

I’m telling you, I’m on the verge of not voting for President in November and just sticking with putting my energy into the NC Governor’s Race. 

Just when I’m starting to think that McCain is the better of two evils, he says something that completely disgusts me and, more importantly, concerns me about his willingness to sacrifice the fundamental principles of the United States of America.

QUESTIONER: Senator, you have been a leader on immigration reform in the Senate but unfortunately Congress has failed to make progress on this very critical issue. As the next President of the Unites States of America will comprehensive immigration reform, and not just enforcement, be one of your top policy priorities in you’re first 100 days in office?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: It will be my top priority yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

The first part is bad enough.   But it gets worse….

And my friends, thank you for the question, and let me just review for you again, we tried. I reached across the aisle to Senator Ted Kennedy, and by the way I know that he’s in your prayers, and we worked in bipartisan fashion. And we were defeated. And by the way, it wasn’t very popular, let’s have some straight talk, with some in my party, and so I did that and worked together so we could carry out a federal responsibility.

We have to secure our borders, that’s the message. But we also must proceed with a temporary worker program that is verifiable and truly temporary, we must also understand that there are 12 million people who are here and they are here illegally and they are God’s children, they are God’s children and they will be treated in a humane fashion based on the principle obviously that someone who comes here legally cannot have priority over someone who comes here illegally.

Although Byron York reports that “The McCain campaign says that in the answer above, McCain fumbled the words “legally” and “illegally” when he said that “someone who comes here legally cannot have priority over someone who comes here illegally,” and they want to assure readers he was not setting some bold new policy“…. it doesn’t much matter.

What McCain doesn’t seem to realize is that “God’s Children” do not have an “automatic divine right” to American citizenship.  Especially if they break the laws of this country in the process of getting here.  What the hell is wrong with him?

Since McCain thinks that anyone who enters the country illegally has automatic dibs on US citizenship, and since the Supreme Court believes that Constitutional legal protection should extend to non-US, foreign enemy combantants, then I say — let’s just go for the full monty.

No more immigration laws, dismantle the border crossings, no customs checks at airport.   Just open it all up and let chaos reign.

Oh and by the way, I’ll stop paying my US taxes immediately… become a citizen of Canada…. and then re-enter the USA illegally (along with some Al-Qaeda sleepers, I’m sure) to get all of the benefits of the US Constitution that I have now — but this time for free!!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Commenting on my post calling the Supreme Court’s Heller decision a victory for gay rights, a reader points out that the plaintiff (joined by the National Rifle Association and the Washington state-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms) suing the San Francisco Housing Authority “in a bid to overturn a rule forbidding gun possession in public housing units” happens to be gay.

Cites a New York Times article on the various challenges to bans on handguns being filed in the wake of Heller, Tom Maguire calls this is a “clever choice of plaintiff.” In addition to providing details on the San Francisco ban, Times reporter Jesse McKinley observes:

In an interesting turn in a city known for its embrace of gay rights, the chief plaintiff in the suit against the city is a gay man living in a public housing development, owned by the federal government, who wants to have a gun to protect himself from potential hate crimes.

A gay man wanting to protect himself from potential hate crimes. While this decision on its face may not seem a victory for gay rights, it does make it a lot easier to defend ourselves against those who would assault (or otherwise attack) us because of our sexual orientation.

Glad to see the Times picking up on this angle, even if perhaps elliptically.

I wonder how many gay websites will address this issue, particularly given the sexuality of the San Francisco plaintiff. Or how this many gay organizations will consider the gay angle.

Let’s hope the court rules in favor of this gay man so he can feel just a bit safer in his own home. And so gay-bashers become aware that gay people are taking measures to defend ourselves.

Senator Reid may well be the most incompetent man ever to be in charge of the United States Senate.

Political Maneuvers Delay Bill-After-Bill In The Senate – Washington Post

The Senate went home yesterday for the Fourth of July holiday to face voters, having failed repeatedly to address critical economic issues from skyrocketing gas prices to climate change to the nation’s housing crisis.

Leaders in both parties have vowed to tackle those problems. Yet the Senate has been unable to move forward even when there is broad agreement about what to do.

<….>

Senators in both parties say the logjam is the worst they’ve seen, largely due to copious use of the filibuster. Since January 2007, motions to end debate — cloture motions — have been filed 119 times. The previous record for any two-year session was 82.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has used a procedural tactic to prohibit GOP amendments 13 times since January 2007, more than any Senate leader since 1985.

Republicans point to those statistics and accuse Reid of using cloture to deny them the ability to amend legislation often chosen for its political message.

Gee, remind me which minority-status party at-the-time began the requirement of 60 votes for passage of ANY item in the Senate?   One guess only, please.

It is unbelieveable to comprehend that Reid make (Not-My) Speaker Pelosi look smart, witty, and intelligent.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

FACT: The following countries were on their way to developing and/or using Weapons of Mass Destruction throughout the Clinton Presidency.

January 20, 2001:
North Korea
Libya
Iraq
Iran

FACT:  President George W. Bush has been able to do what neither President Clinton nor Madeleine Albright could dream of.   Eliminate that threat by 75%.

June 28, 2008:
North Korea
Libya
Iraq
Iran

Three down, one to go.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Welcome Instapundit Readers!! — While you are visiting, check out the election news GayPatriot broke earlier this week.

While Ann Althouse finds in yesterday’s Supreme Court Heller decision overturning the District of Columbia’s handgun ban a victory for women’s righsts (via Instapundit) as the overturned law banned certain guns which are easier for women to use, I see it as significant advance for gay rights victory .

Indeed, I believe this decision is the best ruling for gays in many years, perhaps even more significant than Lawrence v. Texas, the decision overturning sodomy laws. Few states enforced those laws whereas many jurisdictions enforce gun bans. Both these pro-gay rights’ rulings were handed down on June 26, Heller this year, Lawrence in 2003. Given that day’s proximity to the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, we can celebrate all three events during Pride month.

With this ruling, gay people will have greater and more ready access to handguns and so be better able to defend ourselves against gay-bashers. With such a victory for gay rights, I thought I’d check the sites of the various gay organizations to see how they’re celebrating, acknowledging how the constitutional freedom enshrined in the Second Amendment benefits us. Nothing on the websites of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) or the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR).

Silence on such an important victory for gay rights?!?!?

Log Cabin, however, devoted the better part of its homepage to a press release heralding the ruling. At least one gay group gets it. (Note to self: renew Log Cabin membership.) Organization President Patrick Sammon understands how this decision benefits gays:

Unfortunately, too many LGBT Americans still face the threat of anti-gay violence. . . We’re happy the Supreme Court has affirmed the right for us to protect ourselves and our families from harm. Self defense is not a privilege, it’s a right.

Exactly.

Tammy Bruce celebrated the decision on her blog, calling it “good news,” but warning that the 5-4 decision “is far too close for anyone’s comfort.” (Make sure to check out this piece where she builds on her celebration — and her warning.)

(more…)

In his LA Weekly piece today remembering the thirty-ninth anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, Patrick Range McDonald summarizes the events of the day (well, evening) and its significance: “an angry bunch of drag queens and effeminate gay men pushed back after New York City police officers raided the place, and subsequently started the modern gay rights movement.“**SEE UP- & UP-UPDATE BELOW**

These flamboyant gays pushed back because officers of the state attempted to prevent them from assembling peacefully and associating with others like them. In short, the state was limiting their freedom.

Those who rioted weren’t demanding equality or any kind of government privilege, but were rebelling as did the patriots standing up against the British nearly two centuries before them. They were standing up for their freedom. They wanted to be left alone to live their lives as they chose.

As we call those riots on their anniversary, let us consider how far we’ve come since then. We should be grateful for those drag queens who did what others less flamboyant refused to do. They really showed courage.

Back then, police frequently raided gay bars — and not just in New York. Back then, our fellows could not assemble as freely as could their straight counterparts nor could they live as openly as we do today. No states granted domestic partnership benefits. Nor did many corporations. No presidential candidate would meet with our representatives. In fact, there were only a handful of gay political groups at the time. Now, there are multitudes, appealing to the many diverse interests of our community.

Thirty-nine years ago, a bunch of drag queens and other flamboyant gays had had enough of the heavy hand of the state, with police preventing them from assembling freely. As we celebrate that anniversary, we should bear in mind that modern “gay rights’” movement began with individuals rioting for freedom.

As did the movements of many other once-oppressed groups throughout our nation’s history going back to our founding.

UPDATE: In 2002, Dale Carpenter challenged the Myth of a Transgender Stonewall.

UP-UPDATE: Looks like the Stonewall history I learned from my gay peers was wrong. It wasn’t a bunch drag queens, but a bunch of middle class white boys (with a few drag queens joining them). Writer Eric Marcus (whose book, Together Forever: Gay and Lesbian Marriage I much enjoyed) provides the details here. But, I did get the spirit of the riot right. As Marcus writes

So the streets weren’t filled with drag queens in sequins and heels. . . . But gay people — fluffy sweater boys, dykes, sissies, college students, boys in chinos and penny loafers — did in fact challenge police repression. They were finally pushed to the point where they’d had enough, and they fought back.

Gay activists and bloggers have made much of presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s statement that he supports the California initiative defining “marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman” as he does “not believe judges should be making these decisions.”  I wonder if they’ll now press the presumptive Democratic nominee on his continued obfuscation (as one conservative blogress who had written favorably about Barack Obama has observed) on gay marriage.

According to Carol Platt Liebau while the “Illinois senator opposes same-sex marriage,” he favors repeal of the the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Without that law, she claims, every state in the union would be required to ”recognize gay marriages” performed in states recognizing such unions.

Once again, Obama is trying to have it both ways, opposing gay marriage so he doesn’t appear too radical to more socially conservative voters, yet favoring the repeal of DOMA to curry favor with gay voters.  Another piece of evidence that the dewy-eyed reverence of many of his followers supporters notwithstanding, the Democrats’ standard bearer this year is just another typical politician.

I try when scanning the comments and reading my e-mail (as well as listening to friends and others who chance upon this blog) to take seriously any and all criticism. Sometimes that requires me to try to parse the logic of those who take issue with my writings but who aren’t really interested in engaging my ideas.

These people seem more interested in baiting us or in proving their own theories about gay conservatives (see e.g., the reaction to Bruce’s post breaking the news of the meeting between presumptive Republican nominee John McCain and Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon) than in actually considering our points.

But, sometimes, our critics, even in comments where they misrepresent our arguments, do have something serious to say. One such critic is Houndentenor who, in esponding to my post, Straight Writer Decries “Islamist” Intolerance of Gays, writes, “Any number of gay publications and bloggers regularly either cover the problems of gay rights abuses in the Islamic world or link to sources that do.”

He claimed I was “dishonest” not to acknowledge that. I wasn’t dishonest.  In the post, I didn’t claim gay bloggers failed to address the issue.  I only referenced the silence of gay political organizations.  In fact, I did cite one left-of-center gay blogger, Michael Petrelis, who regularly posts on the persecution of gay people in Islamic lands.

He, however, is not the only one.

Chris Crain routinely addresses this matter on his blog Citizen Crain. As does Andy on Towleroad. Just four day ago, that latter linked a report of a mass arrest of gay men in Saudi Arabia

Normally, when I scan the gay blogs, I find silence on such matters. But, some have spoken out, a number (notably Petrelis and Crain) on a regular basis. Please alert me to other gay bloggers who do this on a regular basis with links to their post and I will update this one accordingly

Last week, as I was reading my review of Julie Andrews’ memoir to a friend who likes my speaking voice, I found I often had to pause to mark a typo on the printout.  I have since fixed those errors.

In the past few days, as I’ve been reviewing my posts on marriage, I found a similar number of mistakes.  I guess I’m not the greatest proof-reader of my own work.

In this medium, our readers are often our editors.  If you catch a mistake in any of my posts, would you please alert me to it?  

Thanks! 

We are pleased an honored at GayPatriot to be a small part of a large event today — a groundbreaking live, internet telethon that directly benefits US military members and their families.  “From The Frontlines” begins broadcasting right here at 4PM Eastern time.  

Live Video streamed by Ustream

This special broadcast will be co-hosted by radio personality and Move America Forward Chairman Melanie Morgan and blogger-extraordinaire Michelle Malkin and will feature national radio powerhouses Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dr. Laura Schlessigner, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, NBC’s “America’s Favorite Mom” Patti Patton-Bader, reports from our military men and women on the frontlines of Iraq & Afghanistan, music, stars of stage and screen, and many MANY other special guests.

The historic telethon is being organized by Move America Forward, the nation’s largest pro-troop organization. Move America Forward has shipped over 40 TONS of care packages to our troops filled with food for their enjoyment, other necessities and message of appreciation and encouragement from home. Now we’re doing one better by sending over the largest shipment of care packages to our troops in American history.

These care packages will be sponsored by pledges made by viewers during the “From the Frontlines” telethon, and shipped by Move America Forward just in time for the 4th of July holiday. Our troops will receive these special 4th of July care packages, crammed with all kinds of items for their personal care and comfort, just as Americans stateside are celebrating the freedoms and liberties made possible thanks to the service and sacrifice of our noble service men and women.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Given the fact that we had some news to report yesterday, I wanted to welcome any new readers that might be visiting GayPatriot.   You are welcome as long as you please wipe your feet at the door, and treat others as you wish to be treated.

I would also like to apologize for my near-AWOL status lately.   The ‘real job’ has consumed my work and spare time over the past few months.  Work travel (always a pain) is at a high mark, and I’m also in kind of a “pre-Convention blues”.  (Translation:  I mostly don’t give a rat’s ass about the election at any given moment).

However, on a very recent business trip I experienced something that I wanted to share.   It was a full-blown case of “Bush Derangement Syndrome” played out during a business dinner.   Most all of the guests had left and one very well-educated man remained.  I am confident in reporting that he is gay man and a (self-identified) liberal Democrat.  He is very educated and, until the alcohol-induced outbreak of the BDS, I found him quite entertaining and a rather enjoyable business associate.

But then he let loose.   Among the things he said (somewhat paraphrasing):  “Bush is evil.”  “We don’t know the true mastermind of 9/11.”  “It should be illegal for a successful oil company man to be Vice President.”  “Republicans are evil.”  “Republicans are stupid.”  “Most of Americans are stupid.”  “Most of the South are rednecks.”  “Republicans don’t give a shit about people.”

I swear it was like the Daily Kos had come to life and was sitting across the table from me.

The ironic part of this whole diatribe was that in the middle of all of this, this well-educated liberal Democrat called the waiter (a fellow Latino) a “cocksucker” in Spanish.   I only found out about this insult later when the waiter told those of us hosting the dinner.  Needless to say, I was mortified and apologized to the waiter who had worked his heart out during dinner service.

All this goes to show you that Liberals really are a case-study in “Do As I Say, Not As I Do.”

[RELATED STORY:  Research Shows Right-Wingers Are Nicer People Than Liberals - Daily Mail [UK] (h/t – VtheK) ]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Dan and I both agree this is a fitting GayPatriot tribute to the passing of George Carlin.

We are so self-important…. everyone is going to “save” something. The greatest arrogance of all: “Save The Planet”!

<…>

I’m getting tired of that sh–. I’m tired of f–ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists; these white bourgeous liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for their Volvos.

Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me. Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. It’s the people that are f–ed.

Bravo, George! RIP

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Gallup’s latest survey suggests the White House is a jump-ball contest at this point. (h/t – The Corner)

The latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update on the presidential election finds John McCain and Barack Obama exactly tied at 45% among registered voters nationwide.

What does all this mean?   Simply that 131 days is a longgggg time away.  But I do agree with the sentiment expressed by Bay Buchanan and a number of other prominent conservatives recently:  This is Obama’s election to win or lose.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

GayPatriot has exclusively learned that presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Senator John McCain held a personal meeting with the head of the national gay Republicans organization, the Log Cabin Republicans.   Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon confirmed his meeting with Senator McCain earlier today.

A source with close ties to the Log Cabin Board of Directors provided information about the meeting to GayPatriot earlier this week.  This source disclosed that the Log Cabin meeting was not reflected on Senator McCain’s published schedule in advance and the meeting.  A second source familiar with the Log Cabin-McCain meeting reports that Senator McCain has routine personal meetings that are not shown on the Senator’s public schedule.  

The specific timeframe of the Sammon-McCain meeting is not completely clear, but appears to have taken place within the past couple weeks or so.

Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon confirmed the meeting with Senator McCain in email correspondence with GayPatriot earlier today:

“We’ve had a series of productive meetings with the campaign since Sen. McCain won the nomination—including a recent meeting with the Senator.  We expect to have more conversations with the campaign as we head toward November.” — Patrick Sammon, Log Cabin Republicans President — June 25, 2008

Based on published news reports, the meeting with Senator McCain would be the first between any national-level gay Republicans and a Republican Presidental nominee since “The Texas 12″ met with then-Governor George W. Bush in 2000.  Since his first election to the White House, President Bush has never met with anyone representing Log Cabin Republicans or any other American gay organizations.

Again, according to published news reports the Sammon-McCain meeting would be the first face-to-face dialogue between a Republican Presidential standardbearer and the President of the national Log Cabin Republicans organization since the check-refund controversy between LCR and the Dole Campaign in 1995.

There will be more details on this story to follow….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)