Gay Patriot Header Image

Holding Joe Biden to the Sarah Palin Standard

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 8:00 pm - October 20, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Media Bias

In at least three recent (and one forthcoming) posts on Sarah Palin, I have addressed (and will consider) the amazing ignorance of Palin-haters.  They deem her unfit for the White House even though they know nothing of her accomplishments in Alaska.  To prove her unfitness, they return repeatedly to a few things she said in her interview with Katie Couric.

Okay, if that’s they way they want to treat the Republican vice presidential nominee, let’s hold her Democratic counterpart to the same standard.

We could just limit our evaluation of Joe Biden to the remarks he made yesterday in Seattle, lowering expectations about his running mate’s qualifications to handle a crisis should he win election next month.  What kind of man accepts a place on the presidential ticket of a man whose readiness to lead he questions?

And for those who think Palin is such a clown, well, then, take a gander a Joe Biden’s gaffes.  If they want to judge Sarah Palin by one bad interview, shouldn’t we judge her rival by a series of silly statements?

UPDATE:  Tom Smith weighs in:  Picking Biden shows bad judgment (via Glenn who has more).

Colin Powell’s Establishment Endorsement

If you’ve been watching CNN, you’d think the only election news is Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama.  For the better part of the hour I spent doing cardio last night and the forty-five minutes today, that “news” network featured stories of the endorsement and its impact on the campaign.

Perhaps, because I had long heard (at least since August) that such an endorsement was imminent, I dismissed the newsworthiness of the announcement.  But, to those who had not been expecting it, well, I guess it was pretty significant.

There’s no doubt it will help Obama, the only question will be how much.

But, it does something else which, if my party had nominated a different candidate, one from outside Washington, might have backfired on the Democrat.

First, it’s important to note the absence of substance in the Powell endorsement.  It’s as if someone had briefed him on Democratic talking points in the limo as he drove to NBC to tape Meet the Press and he just repeated them in front of the cameras.

He was, in Claudia Rosett’s words, “short on specifics.”  He couldn’t flesh out why two more conservative justices on the Supreme Court would be a bad thing for the country.  Nor name Republican officials spreading lies about the Democratic nominee.  He basically did little more than articulate the conventional wisdom.

He is, as James Taranto put it, “a man of the establishment.”  And the Washington establishment has  coalesced around Obama in the same manner they coalesced against the one truly transformational president on the past half-century, Ronald Reagan.

This endorsement merely reinforces Barack Obama as the candidate of permanent establishment in our nation’s capital.  While the former Secretary of State called the Democrat a “transformational figure,” his endorsement suggests Obama is anything but.

If Obama really had plans to change Washington, Powell and other Beltway luminaries would not so eagerly embrace his candidacy.  With the American people increasingly uncomfortable with the way things are run in our nationa’s capital, it’s too bad the Republicans don’t have a presidential nominee who can more effectively run against the Beltway establishment.

Like, say, a Governor who stepped on some toes in cleaning up the corruption in her own state — and her own state party.

UPDATE:  Roger Kimball contends that Obama is a transformational figure, just not in the way the Gipper was.  (Via Instapundit.)

Briefly Undecided on 8

Whenever I drive around my neighborhood, I bristle at the almost ubiquitous “No on 8” signs, with their slogan “Equality for All.”  This line suggests equality of results, not of opportunity and represents a perversion of the America creed.

Equality for all, I fear, means freedom for none.  And freedom is the ideal which inspired our nation’s founders as well as those of my own political party.  It is the animating idea of almost every great political speech in American history.  Indeed, even Barack Obama uses the word, “freedom,” three times in his celebrated 2004 address to the Democratic National Convention.  (He did not once use the noun, “equality,” but did use its adjectival form, “equal” when quoting the Declaration of Independence.)

It’s not just that slogan which troubles me.  It’s also the attitude of many opponents of 8 who treat supporters of the initiative as narrow-minded troglodytes animated by a hatred of homosexuals (and yes, there are some guilty of such animus).  But, many of them simply see marriage as the union of one man and one woman and have legitimate concerns about how state recognition of same-sex marriage will impact their freedom and that of their religious organizations to maintain the traditional definition of that ancient institution.

(To that end, as I expressed in this post, this line in the latest ad against 8, “Because regardless of how you feel about marriage, it’s wrong to treat people differently under the law,” could be quite effective.)

A reader wrote in, telling me that 25 “Yes on 8” signs had been stolen from his neighborhood in Orange County. Yet, more evidence that gay marriage advocates don’t want to discuss this issue and resent those who criticize them.

Not to mention the e-mails I get reminding me of the imperative of supporting the “No on 8” campaign because of how mean-spirited and dishonest the “Yes” campaign is. Can’t they just make a positive case for gay marriage?

So, on Friday, troubled by the “Equality for All” slogan and reading much vindictiveness from the “No” folks, I felt I couldn’t possibly join their cause.

Then, at synagogue, I saw a lesbian couple who had recently gotten married. Both sported “No on 8” stickers. Having spent much time with these two ladies, I know they understand what marriage means. I realized there could be a human cost to a “Yes” vote. Their relationship did more to influence my vote on this initiative than the myriad e-mails cluttering my in-box.

Perhaps that’s why I thought the first ad against 8 would be so effective.

More on the Party of Hate

It seems that when one Republican says (or is perceived to have said) a nasty thing about a Democrat, the editorialists at the New York Times and the left-wing bloggers go into high dudgeon.   They’ll level accusations againt McCain of “inciting more division, anger and hatred” while ignoring the very record of their fellow Obama-supporters.

They have so twisted his campaign to fit into their narrative, we’re no longer reading about the campaign as it has played out, but as the Times would like it have played out in order for their writers to more easily badmouth it.

Yet, when it comes to hatred on the left, the Times, like many mainstream media ignores, feigns ignorance.  While, to be sure, a number of people on the right have said some pretty offensive things in the course of this campaign. the hatred has become endemic on the left, particularly in the nation’s two largest cities.  Now, there is a story worth covering, yet one which neither Times, the one in Los Angeles or in New York, is likely to cover, even though they’re happening right around them, indeed, perhaps among the very set with whom the papers’ editors and writers regularly socialize.

At least, the Hollywood Reporter has looked into this.  In a piece Sunday on entertainment industry intolerance of views opposing the prevailing orthodoxy, screenwriter Andrew Klavan comments on attitudes toward his fellow conservatives:

It’s not easy being different. . . . The liberals aren’t all that liberal. We think they’re wrong, but they think we’re evil, and they behave like it.

In a recent post on the Corner, Jay Nordlinger provides an example of such behavior in the nation’s major East Coast metropolis:

Have a friend who was in Riverside Park (Manhattan) with his baby daughter. A woman came up to him and said, “Are you a registered Democrat?” He said no. She said, “Well, you can register right now — it will just take a second. I have the necessary paperwork here.” He said, “No, actually, that’s not it — I am registered. It’s just that I’m a registered Republican.” He said that the woman gave him a look of hate such as he had seldom seen — sent a shudder down his spine. She walked away, still glaring, bitterly, without a word.

In the wake of 9/11, maybe the reason so many on the left wondered what it was about Americans which made Islamicists so hate us was because they really believe some hate is justified. To them, the problem must always be the object of the hatred, not the feelings of the hater.

Keep Your Arms & Legs Inside The Blog…
And No Flash Photography

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 1:50 pm - October 20, 2008.
Filed under: Post 9-11 America

Sorry for the radio silence folks.  I was celebrating my 40th Birthday with a trip to Disney World.

Thanks for the trip, PatriotPartner!!!!

Anyway, just a quick hello to let everyone know I’m back.   And thank you all for the nice birthday wishes way back last week on October 15th.

More later….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Chris Dodd Fails to Disclose Dubious Dealings

While this blog has been particularly harsh on Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, for his responsibility for the mortgage meltdown (here, here, here, here and here), he at least acknowledged the need for regulation of the government-supported enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the current Congress.  Still, the Massachusetts Democrat remains certainly one of the leading culprits of the collapse.

A Senator, however, perhaps holds the distinction of being the legislator the most to blame for the current catastrophe.  Like Frank, Connecticut’s Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, refuses to admit his role in the crisis.

Indeed, as the Hartford Courant‘s Kevin Rennie reports, the Democrat won’t even “release documents from his $800,000 in sweetheart mortgages from subprime titan Countrywide Financial.“  A loan he received while he served on the very Senate committee overseeing the lender. Yet, Dodd assures us he would never be subject to improper influence. Okay, fine, Chris, no be open with the public.

That Countrywide employed lobbyists to influence Dodd and his colleagues while the lender lavished benefits on the senator may ensnare him in an ominous encounter with the Senate’s ethics committee. It would be harder for that body to whitewash a violation if the insidious mortgage details are known to a suspicious public.

The customs and expectations of Washington continue to bewilder us. Dodd exemplifies its worst rituals. For example, as the nation’s financial system crumbled earlier in the year, Dodd continued to accept tribute from Wall Street’s falling masters.

Read the rest of this piece and wonder why the national media is not paying as much attention to Dodd’s culpability in this crisis as they are to figures in the private sector. And why the Democrat won’t be more forthcoming about his own sweetheart deal from a failed lender.

And his own failure as a legislator to do anything to forestall the crisis.

UPDATE: Even the New York Times is taking notice of Dodd’s duplicity, opining today that the Connecticut Democrat has failed to keep his promise to “release documents to support his contention that he never benefited financially from the terms of the loans.

If Chuck Schumer were a Republican. . . .

. . . the MSM would be demanding an investigation and Democrats would be demanding his resignation.

According to the Wall Street Journal,

New York Sen. Charles Schumer’s public criticism of IndyMac Bancorp last summer, which critics say helped spark a run on deposits that took under the troubled thrift, came while IndyMac’s assets were being eyed by investors who are major donors to the Democratic Senate campaign committee the senator chairs.

(H/t Instapundit.)

Los Angeles-based Oaktree Capital Management LP which has “donated more than $700,000 to Senate Democrats and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee during the four years that Sen. Schumer has chaired the campaign committee” was eager to buy up IndyMac assets should the bank fail. To be sure, Oaktree Chairman Howard Marks said he never talked to the senator about IndyMac.

Yet, should a Republican have a similar appearance of impropriety, you can bet Democrats and the media would be all over it with Schumer leading the charge.

This isn’t the first time New York’s other Senator has escaped media scrutiny for potentially unethical actions. Three years ago, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee which he then helmed (as he does now), “was in illegal possession of the credit report for Maryland’s Republican Lieutenant Governor [& then-U.S. Senate candidate] Michael Steele. Two of Schumer’s staffers, Katie Barge and Lauren Weiner, used Steele’s Social Security number to fraudulently get his credit history.

Schumer’s Committee knew about Barge and Weiner’s deception months before the story became public, yet failed to alert Steele about this invasion of privacy.

And these misdeeds raise no red flags to the media.  Guess it’s that (D) after his name which renders him immune from suspicion about potential ethical lapses.

If the MSM treated Democrats as they do Republicans . . .

. . . this story would prompt editorials on the anger of Obama supporters.

We read all the time about the anger at McCain-Palin rallies as if it’s not commonplace for partisans at political rallies to speak harshly of their adversaries.  I mean, we all know that at Obama rallies, all they do is sing Kumbaya before chanting “Hope” and “Change” while riding their pink unicorns in happy circles around Obama.

Yet, when an Obama supporter physically assaults a McCain supporter, well, the media find it about as newsworthy as if a Democrat lied under oath.

Judging Sarah Palin by Ignoring her Record

Yet, again today, I find myself lectured about Sarah Palin’s inexperience by someone who knows nothing about her accomplishments.  He didn’t know what she had done as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission nor as Governor of the Last Frontier.  All he seemed to know was that she had been mayor of a small town and had said some silly things in her interview with Katie Couric.

Not only was he ignorant of Palin’s record, but he remain oblivious to his own candidate’s accomplishments, unable to name a single thing Obama had done.

For Palin critics, somehow experience and accomplishment matters only for Republican women.  And they’ll just pretend that if they don’t know about her accomplishments, they don’t exist.

If we judged Obama, or even Joe Biden, Palin’s rival for the Vice Presidency, by the standards Palin’s critics use to judge her, we’d be laughing those two Democrats out of the United States Senate as well as out of serious political discourse, given the number of silly things they have said over their political careers, heck, the crazy things they’ve said just in the course of this campaign.  You know, just ignore the record and focus on the gaffes.

Maybe I dwell on this point overmuch.  But, it is simply amazing how ill-informed so many supposedly well-informed people are about Sarah Palin.  It’s one thing to oppose her because you disagree with her policies or agenda.  It’s quite another to fault her for lack of experience while remaining ignorant of her record.