Gay Patriot Header Image

Bush Wasn’t Polarizing, His Election Was

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 9:55 pm - January 22, 2009.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Liberals,Media Bias

One of the things I find most annoying about the coverage of President Obama’s inauguration was how certain Democrats compared the good will shown and national unity expressed to the previous two inaugurals, both of George W. Bush.

It’s as if that Republican created the contention of those two ceremonies,  But, the then-president wasn’t the one organizing the protests against his swearing-in.  Those who make that comparison, while meaning to slight the former president, unwittingly end up slighting his attackers.

It just seems that some people, a class of people given a pass (if not outright or tacit support) by the media, can’t accept that a Republican could win election to the highest office in the land.

But, we Republicans and conservatives, well most of us least, are a different breed. As Robert Stacy McCain puts it “conservatives aren’t going through anything like the grief/angst/outrage that Democrats went through after the 2000 and 2004 elections” (Via Glenn).

To be sure, the former President, after the 2002 elections, could have done more to unite the nation, especially by better defending his own policies and by better challenging those on the far left (and their media enablers) who sought to slander him.  But, he would not have been as polarizing a figure as he would become had others not sought relentlessly to undermine him.

Cornyn’s Concerns About Hillary Clinton

In my previous post, I promised to offer a little more on the hold Senator John Cornyn placed Tuesday on Hillary’s Clinton’s nomination (since confirmed) for Secretary of State.

The Texas Repubican had raised concerns about foreign donations to her husband’s charitable foundation, but was “swayed by a private conversation with Clinton” (I’m assuming this was Bill).

While I have said Mrs. Clinton could be a “great Secretary of State,” I do have concerns about her family’s ethical troubles. In this AP article on her confirmation, we see a typical Clinton response to a potential ethical problem:

Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, proposed that former President Bill Clinton’s foundation reject foreign contributions. But Hillary Clinton rejected Lugar’s proposal, contending that the foundation’s plan to disclose annually its list of donors and a range of its contributions already exceeds legal requirements.

Once again, we see the Clintons pointing out that what they are doing meets “legal requirements,” that is suggesting that as long as something is legal, it is also ethical.

Shouldn’t they also be concerned about conflicts of interest in this unique situation where the husband of a Secretary of State (Bill Clinton is the first such husband; of the two previous female Secretaries of State, one was single, the other divorced).  Had the wives of their predecessors run foundations that regularly sought large donations from international sources?

I’m concerned that his foundation plans to disclose the donors annually rather than upon receipt, which would better serve President Obama’s commitment to transparency.  We would be alerted right away to any foreign governments or interests who might be trying to influence US foreign policy (through our Secretary of State).  Actually, I believe it would be in this nation’s interest if the husband of the Secretary of State refused to seek or except any contributions from foreign sources as long as his wife is in office.

Both Cornyn and Lugar eventually voted to confirm Mrs. Clinton, but the latter “ssaid he hoped Clinton would re-examine her position.” I do too.  So should we all.

Obsessive Olbermann calls Republicans Obstructionist

Yes, Bush-hatred is mostly psychological, quite possibly pathological, but only partially political.  Last night, the first full day of the Obama Administration, when George W. Bush was in Texas far from reins of power in Washington, D.C., Keith Olbermann devoted a significant portion of his show to bashing the former president.  You’d think the guy would have something else to do now that his nemesis has left town.

But no, it seems people like him have some kind of need to attack Republicans, particularly Bush.

One of the best things about Obama’s victory is that we can confirm just how obsessed these people really are, proving points we first made during their early rantings against Bush.

While I pedaled away on the elliptical trainer (is that the verb I wanted?), I watched Olbermann pitch a fit at how Senator John Cornyn (more on that in my next post) had placed a hold on the nomination of former First Lady Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State (more on that in my next post).  He called the Texas Republican obstructionist.  In similar terms, he faulted Republicans on the Judiciary Committee for putting a one-week hold on the nomination of Eric Holder for Attorney General.

The editors at the Washington Post seem to share the sentiments of this angry announcer.  Eight years ago,  when then-President Bush tapped John Ashcroft for Attorney General, Democrats on the Judiciary Commitee also placed a hold on his nomination.  The Post then called the nomination “highly contentious,” headlining the article, “Vote On Ashcroft Is Delayed A Week; Democrats Cite Need for More Review.”  Today, the headline reads “Republicans Obstruct Holder’s Path to Justice Dept.

Here’s my challenge to Keith Olbermann and his supporters.  At any time, in the last eight years, did he (or the editors at the Post for that matter) call Democrats obstructionist for thwarting Administration policies and placing holds on President Bush’s appointees?  Which they did on more than one occasion.

Remember, when Republicans play the same hardball politics the Democrats play, it’s called, “obstruction,” but when Democrats do the same thing, the actions are, by definition, noble, just and right.

Finally Revealed: Members of “No on 8” Exec. Committee

Given the eagerness with which gay activists supported Barack Obama’s presidential bid, let us hope they take heed of one of his first initiatives as president.  He has promised greater transparency in government, committing to making “his administration the most open and transparent in history.

Now, months after reporters tried to find out who was serving on the “No on 8” campaign’s executive committee, intrepid and persistent blogger Michael Petrelis “found and published” the names of the the 16 ‘principal officers’ on that committee.  It doesn’t seem to include any Republicans* and reads like a Who’s Who of the gay left.

They kept this list under wraps for the duration of the campaign. Can you imagine the outcry if a political candidate kept secret the names of his campaign team?

By hiding the names, they made it much more difficult for us to hold them to account for failing to defeat Prop 8.  Par for the course with these guys who would rather attack their adversaries than engage in introspection and figure out what went wrong with their campaign.  Seeing Lorri Jean, chief executive of the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center, on the list, the LA Weekly‘s Patrick Range McDonald reminds us that she:

was incredibly quick to divert all attention away from the failures of the “No on 8” campaign — which were many — and point the finger at the Mormon church. Jean, if you remember, first started the Mormon backlash on Wednesday, November 5 at a rally in West Hollywood, whipping people up and announcing a demonstration at the Los Angeles Mormon Temple on Thursday, November 6. She continued with her anti-Mormon rant for the next several days whenever she could grab a microphone.

Guess these people would rather attack their adversaries than admit their mistakes or promote their cause.

* (more…)

On the Hatred of the (Gay) Left

Welcome Instapundit Readers!  While you’re here, you may want to check out my latest on the president’s stimulus package, The Democrats Must be Crazy, or my post contending that the former president was not polarizing, but his election was because some on the left (including many in the MSM) refuse to accept that the American people could elect a Republican chief executive.

Something just occurred to me as I was going through the comments in our spam filter.  Oftentimes, I find “hate” comments, ad hominem attacks on us, trapped amidst the sex ads.  To be sure I also find legitimate commentary from critics as well as supporters in that file.*

By a margin of at least 19-1, those hate comments come from angry leftists calling us “self-hating,” delusional or whatnot, mean-spirited attacks on us, our party, its leaders or gay Republicans in general.  To be sure, occasionally, I have found mean-spirited missives from anti-gay social conservatives (the 1 (or smaller) in the ratio above).

And that’s what struck me.   We get linked far more often by conservative sites (as we did from Instapundit today) than we do by gay (or liberal) ones.  And yet we get more hate comments from the left, particularly the gay left, a left which constantly derides Republican and their social conservative allies as “haters.”  Indeed, some of them call the GOP the “Party of Hate.”

If conservatives were truly the part of hate, shouldn’t we then get more hate comments from anti-gay social conservatives.

But, maybe they’re just not as mean-spirited as the left contends.

Perhaps, those angry voices on the left call us haters for the same reason they so regularly profess that we venerate George W. Bush while they soon over his successor.  They draw the notion of our hatred from their own psyches, seeing in our behavior what they actually feel, though, of course, they direct their feelings toward different “targets.”

——-* (more…)

Arizona’s Third Consecutive Female Governor

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:25 pm - January 22, 2009.
Filed under: Strong Women

When the US Senate confirmed then-Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security, she resigned as chief executive of the Grand Canyon State, yielding that job to the state’s then-Secretary of State, Jan Brewer. Just as a Republican woman succeed Napolitano, so did a Republican woman, Jane Dee Hull, precede Napolitano.

I believe that when Napolitano succeeded Hull in 2003, she was the first woman to succeed another woman as governor of a state.  And now it’s happened again.  No state has ever had three consecutive female governors. 

Indeed, I would daresay that no state has even had three female governors.*  Governor Brewer is Arizona’s fourth (Rose Mofford held office from 1988 to 1991).  In the past twenty years, Fife Symington is the only man to serve as Arizona Governor.

Brewer joins other Republican women as chief executives of their states, Linda Lingle of Hawai’i, Jodi Rell of Connecticut and Sarah Palin in Alaska.  Let’s hope Mrs. Brewer governs in the spirit of that great lady from the Last Frontier.

*Connecticut, Texas and Washington State have had two.

Geithner Should Not be Confirmed

Last week, when when I blogged on the failure of President Obama’s nominee for Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to pay taxes, I quoted blogress Jennifer Rubin to note that a Republican nominee in similar circumstances would be “toast.

Well, it doesn’t look like this Democratic nominee will be toast. “The Senate Finance Committee on Thursday cleared the nomination of Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary despite unhappiness over his mistakes in paying his taxes.

The vote was 18-5, with all five of the “no” coming “from Republicans, including the top GOP member of the panel, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.” Kudos to those guys for doing the right thing. As Wyoming Republican Mike Enzi put it, “I am disappointed that we are even voting on this. . . . In previous years, nominees who made less serious errors in their taxes than this nominee have been forced to withdraw.

Some may say that, given the times we’re in, we need a Treasury Secretary in place as soon as possible.  And by all accounts, Geithner is more than qualified for the job.  But, it sets a poor example to have a man who failed to pay taxes as the guy in charge of the IRS.

To be sure, Geithner apologized for what he called his “careless mistakes.”  But, even in 2006, after he learned of his tax liability in 2001 and 2002, he failed to pay his back  taxes.  He only paid them when the Obama team was vetting his nomination. (more…)

The cult “was the campaign” to bring Obama “into power”

It’s always refreshing when a blogger, or, in this case, a blogress diva, you respect echoes a point I’ve made in a previous post.  Even if she didn’t read the post (& I highly doubt she did), it’s nice to know a smart pundit has a view similar to your own.

Just a few moments ago, when I discovered Glenn had just linked a post I had written on Monday, I followed another link in his post to learn that Ann Althouse echoed something I had written last week about former President Bush.

Taking his popularity for granted in the wake of 9/11” I contended that Bush “didn’t work hard enough to burnish his image and defend his policies in the wake of unrelenting attacks on his character and motives.”  Today Ann Althouse reaches a similar conclusion:

Any glorification of [Bush] was a consequence of those events [attacks of 9/11] and not through a conscious campaign to inspire a cult of personality. . . .  When the love subsided, he and his people did little — too little — to pump us up again.

Exactly.

Ann, however, explores this issue of image with far greater depth than I did, comparing Bush team’s failure to build up their guy’s image with the Obama team’s dedication to that task:

By contrast, the entire plan to bring Obama into office depended on the glorification of the man, whose actual experience was so bizarrely limited that it took some nerve to claim to be ready. Magic was required. The cult grew up not as he held power and needed to respond to a crisis. The cult was the campaign to bring him into power.  It depended on our projecting all sorts of hopes and dreams onto him, and he knew it.

Read the whole thing. And bear in mind that these are not the rantings of an angry Obama opponent, but the thoughts of a woman who voted for the Democratic nominee last fall.  Indeed, Ann hopes that now that he’s in office, “he’ll do the job that must be done.”  I hope she’s right.

Related:  Why Leftists Assume Conservative Bloggers Revere Bush.

Garrison Keillor – Moron Extraordinaire

Apparently, love for Obama clouds your judgment and changes history as well…..

From National Review’s The Corner:

Jonah, the Garrison Keillor comment you cite is really an astonishing display of ignorance and puppy love, of the sort I suppose we should now expect from the cult of Obama. Obama is “our first genuine author-president”? He has written two books about himself, the second of which was a campaign book of the sort that lots of office seekers churn out. Have we grown so postmodern that an autobiography makes you a genuine author but an enduring work of political thought and history, or a five-volume history of the American people, or a biography of George Washington, or a four-volume retelling of the conquest of the West, or a renowned history of the war of 1812, or a biography of Gouverneur Morris, or reflections on American individualism somehow don’t? There are LOTS of examples of pre-presidential books by men who would be presidents, and some are truly excellent and lasting books. Obama’s first autobiography is an interesting and well written book worth reading, but it is very far from a first.

I suppose for the Obama cultists, today’s real date is Day Two, A.O. (After Obama).

[RELATED: An Uneasy Feeling – Victor Davis Hanson, Pajamas Media]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)