Gay Patriot Header Image

Steele’s Communication Skills Will Serve GOP Well

The more I think about the election of Michael Steele as chairman of the Republican National Committee, the more hope I have for the future of my party.

Not only is the former Maryland Lieutenant Governor a bright man with a natural charisma and personal warmth, but he also conveys an image of a broader-based party than one to which the media has made us accustomed in recent years. And it’s not just his race. It’s the way he communicates conservative ideas.

Like Ronald Reagan, he can communicate conservatism to a diverse audience rather than satisfying himself by only offering up red meat for the party faithful.

As Thomas Sowell put it in heralding Steele’s election, “One of the huge and perennial handicaps of the Republicans is that they seldom have anybody who can articulate their case to the public

Too many Republicans don’t even seem to understand the need to talk. They seem to think it is something you have to go through the motions of doing but, really, they would rather be somewhere else, doing something else.

. . . .

Steele not only knows how to talk, he seems to understand the need to talk. In his appearances on television over the years, he has been assertive rather than apologetic. When attacked, he has counter-attacked, not whined defensively, like too many other Republicans. And when criticizing the current administration, Steele won’t have to pull his punches when going after Barack Obama, for fear of being called a racist.

Assertive rather than apologetic indicates he understands and appreciates our party’s principles. Like Ronald Reagan, he doesn’t whine about the failure of the media to convey our message.  He just figures out a way to convey it with confidence.

As we prepare to celebrate the Great Communicator’s ninety-eigth birthday tomorrow, it is fitting that we now have a good communicator at the helm of our great party.

The Gay Divorcées & the Meaning of Marriage

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:31 pm - February 5, 2009.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage

I have long believed (and social statistics bear me out) that no-fault divorce is a greater threat to social cohesion than gay marriage.  In most cases, when parents with children divorce, there are real victims of their choice.  Not so when two people of the same gender marry.

Now, it turns out that Hillary and Julie Goodridge, the named plaintiffs in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling 2004 mandating that the Bay State recognize same-sex marriages, are suing for divorce.  If they really value marriage, they should reconsider their choice, bearing in mind the welfare of their daughter.

As should any heterosexual parents with children who seek divorce as a means to deal with the difficulties of their relationship. If heterosexual parents weren’t seeking divorce, this might be a commentary on the fragility of same-sex relationships.

That’s why James Richardson is right that social conservatives shouldn’t crow as has Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.  Instead of showing that the Goodridges’ divorce is a setback for gay marriage, Richardson contends it helps make the case for expanding the defintion of that ancient institution:

Given the staggering heterosexual divorce rate and contemporary American’s pathetic social construct of life partnerships, gay divorce, if anything, legitimizes gay marriage as normal. Like it or not, divorce is as American as apple pie and baseball. Why? Americans cherish their freedoms, including the freedom to marry and the freedom to divorce without intrusive speculation.

We need repair that “pathetic social social construct of life partnerships.” If we were to enter into a serious debate on gay marriage, as some have, we could do just that.   Such a debate would allow us to better understand why marriage is a good thing, an institution to be embraced, and divorce not so good, something to be avoided.

NOTE: Bumped this post.

“Evil Republicans” Opposing “Stimulus”

Just a few moments ago, while at my local Trader Joe’s getting my weekly supply of groceries, I overheard a woman bemoan “evil Republicans” in a rather audible tone.

No longer closeted about my politics in this “bluest” of enclaves, I said she should careful of what she said since I was a Republican.  Startled to find dissent in the heart of Hollywood, she said, oh, but not you, just but those Republicans “on the Hill.”  Well, I responded, they’re standing up for the taxpayers.

Now, this woman certainly has a right to her opinion and to express her criticism of Republicans in whatever language she deems appropriate.  And I might just dismiss her as some eccentric in the supermarket who used hyperbolic language to describe her political adversaries.  But, the mean-spirited language she uses corresponds with that I read in anonymous* e-mails from critics alerting me to posts on left-wing blogs

Why is it that so many on the left must describe their political adversaries as “evil” while accusing conservatives of playing the politics of hate?

And why need these people so berate Republicans when Democrats control both Houses of Congress–and the White House?  They could pass the “stimulus” without a single Republican vote.

RELATED: How Is It the GOP’s Fault if the Democrats Can’t Pass Their Stimulus?

* (more…)

Special Interest Politics Destroying Golden State

Just over five years ago, as we Californians considered recalling our then-spendthrift Democratic Governor Gray Davis, I read that Davis had hired 40,000 new state employees since taking office.  I had hoped his successor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, would fire all those recent hires, as would as business owner whose costs far exceeded income.

In the Golden State, just as in the federal government, Democratic politicians and public employee union leaders try to ignore such fiscal realities:

While the nation’s economy is reeling, as the United States, and California, plow into a recession, public employee union bosses continue to be advocates for the notion that somehow public employees are “more privileged” that their counterparts in the private sector and should be immune from the laws of economics — you know, that when less money comes in, less money can go out?  Unfortunately, that “Golden Rule” applies in government just like it does in the private sector.

At a time when state government is facing a huge financial shortfall, directly attributed, by the way, by an overspending orgy that was completely advocated by the state’s public employee unions (I do not recall any unions calling for less spending on new government jobs, and instead calling for increasing state reserves to deal with potential shortfalls such as the one we are facing today), the unions are pouring proverbial fuel onto the fire by opposing any cuts in pay or benefits for their employees, hiding behind negotiated contracts.

I’ve always thought public employee unions should be barred by law from contributing to political campaigns. If their candidate wins, when the times comes to renew employee contracts, they’ll find themselves on both sides of the bargaining table, leaving those who foot the bill for their policies, the taxpayers, out. Shouldn’t government officials represent the taxpayers?

State elected officials risk a loss of campaign cash if they defy the unions. And now our government is short of cash.

And it’s not just public employee unions to whom our state officials are beholden. (more…)

Another Obama Cabinet Nominee With Tax Issues?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:48 pm - February 5, 2009.
Filed under: Democratic Scandals,Obama Watch

Husband of Rep. Solis, Labor nominee, settles tax liens

This is getting to be a pattern.  An interesting change President Obama has brought to Washington.

Media Bias and Political Scandal

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 12:42 pm - February 5, 2009.
Filed under: Blogging,Democratic Scandals,Media Bias

If you have any doubts that the mainstream media favors the Democrats, just take a gander at the way most major news outlets cover political scandal. If a Republican is involved, they identify his political affiliation early in the report. If a Democrat, they bury that affiliation, if they list it at all.

Google “Name that Party” to find a long list of links to conservative bloggers exposing this MSM double standard.  There, you can learn about a whole host of Democratic scandals, described just as political scandals with the politician’s party affiliation buried absent.  Guess these reporters don’t want people to know that Democrats are corrupt too.  Or to assume that Republicans have a monopoly on corruption.

Reader Peter Hughes alerted me to a short piece by Michael Medved summing up this phenomenon:

When Republicans get into trouble the media make a big point of their party affiliation — as in the cases of Mark Foley, Ted Stevens, Larry Craig and more. We heard all about a “Republican culture of corruption” and it became a major campaign issue. But with a flurry of jaw-dropping scandals involving Democrats, their party identification becomes suddenly irrelevant.

Obama’s Stimulus Armageddon

Here’s a very powerful perspective from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the out-of-control, special-interest spending bill that Congressional Obamaniacs are trying to shove down America’s throat:

To give the proposed economic stimulus plan some perspective, “if you started the day Jesus Christ was born and spent $1 million every day since then, you still wouldn’t have spent $1 trillion.”

Jim Geraghty at National Review says, the math adds up…

Christ’s birth in year zero one, times 365, times 2009, gets you 733,285,000,000, or a bit over $733 billion. (Yes, I’m leaving out leap years.) You’re not even three-quarters of the way there. (Politifact calculates from 4 B.C.)

Yes, the stimulus is less than a trillion—$819 billion in the version passed by the House. But that’s still a bigger total than a million a day since the first Christmas.

That’s a soundbite that is going to resonate.

Damning, just damning.  Our 44th President leading America into financial ruin:  Jimmy Carter Hussein Obama.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)