Gay Patriot Header Image

Open for Questions? We’ll see:

Got this email today in my surreptitious Obama inbox:

Friend —

I wanted to tell you about an exciting new feature just launched on the White House website called “Open for Questions.”

Here’s how it works — President Obama is inviting everyone to ask a question about the economy and to rate other questions up or down.

On Thursday morning, the President will conduct an online town hall on the economy and answer some of the most popular questions live.

Watch a video of the President explaining this new feature and be a part of it now.

“Open for Questions” is an opportunity to open up the White House to all Americans.

It’s an experiment designed to encourage transparency and accountability by giving you a direct line to the White House.

This first round will deal with the economy. Americans deserve to know what their government is doing to get our economy back on track. But it’s up to you to participate and make this experiment a success.

Join the discussion now:

http://whitehouse.gov/OpenForQuestions

Thanks, and remember to check back Thursday to watch the President answer some of your questions live.

Mitch

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America

I wonder. If enough people submit the following question, do you suppose he’ll answer it?

Mr. President, you promised during the campaign that you’d go “line by line” and eliminate wasteful spending in the budget. Did you do that with the budget you signed earlier this month? And if so, do you consider any of the spending it authorized to be wasteful?

I’ll be over here, holding my breath.

– Nick (Colorado Patriot) from HQ

How Much Trouble Is Obama In?

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 7:13 pm - March 25, 2009.
Filed under: 2010 Elections,Liberals,Obama Watch

So much that the two US Airways flight attendants were discussing who the Republicans should run against him in 2012.

That’s trouble…

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

How Did “Equality” Become Watchword of Gay Movement?

In his comment to my post speculating why Andrew Sullivan made a hard left turn, Chuck in Del asks:

I would just like to know where does one go in conservative circles to get support for gay equality? Is it progressives and liberals ammending state consitutions against gay marriage? I am sorry but how long does a gay conservative have to sit in the back of the bus to get even workplace equality? Or are we supposed to swallow the argument that equality is code speak for special rights?

My response is simple, you don’t go to conservatives begging for equality, not for gays, not for anyone.  When conservatives are true to their principles, we speak out for freedom.  Indeed, freedom, until all too recently, has been the watchword of the American political tradition.

Thomas Jefferson did indeed write in the Declaration of Independence that we are “created equal,” but the rights with which we are “endowed” included “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Equality didn’t make the list.

And yet when we survey the gay political landscape, we see the notion of “equality” replacing the idea of freedom, with many state gay political groups defining themselves by a word with socialist implications.  Here in the Golden State, it’s “Equality California.”  Similarly in the Old Dominion, the Tarheel State, the Sunshine State, the Buckeye State and the Keystone State, to name put a few.

The equal sign serves as the logo for HRC which bills itself as “America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality.”  (Emphasis added.)  Neither the word “freedom” nor “liberty” appears once in the group’s mission statement.

So, I’m curious how did this come to pass?   (more…)

Obama’s Responsibility for Deficit

In his press conference last night, the president said he “inherited” a $1.3 trillion annual deficit.  Guess this former constitutional law scholar has lost sight of the document which ostensibly served as the center of his legal studies.

According to that august document, Article 1, Section 8, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”  For the last two years of George W. Bush’s Administration when the deficit spiked, Democrats, the incumbent president’s party, controlled Congress.  Obama, as a Senator from the great state of Illinois, was part of that majority.  This fact has led one blogger to ask,

What did Obama do to reduce the deficits as the Senator from Illinois? What legislation did he author? What opposition did he provide to the high-spending policies of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in 2007 and 2008?

Unless President Obama can provide evidence of such opposition, he shares responsibility for the deficits he claims to have inherited.

With Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff
Obama Commitment to “New Kind of Politics” Remains Hollow

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:18 pm - March 25, 2009.
Filed under: Economy,Obama Watch

Few things show the hollowness of Barack Obama’s campaign commitment to a new kind of politics which seeks, through transparency and civil discourse, to overcome partisan divisions in the national interest than his appointment of the hyperpartisan gunslinger Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, his top administrative aide.

Perhaps if the president had more regular contact with someone less adept at partisan warfare, he would quit bellyaching about the mess he “inherited” and instead roll up his sleeves and fill those vacant positions in the Treasury Department so he could have a full stable of advisers who could help him develop solutions to fix it.

Instead of blaming Republicans, he might take heed to the fact that the deficit spiked only after Democrats took control of Congress. He was a part of their majority.  Realizing his own responsibility for the mess, he might tone down his rhetoric.  But, with Emanuel advising him, he is more likely to see others, namely Republicans, as the responsible party.

Thus, replacing Rahm Emanuel with a less partisan aide, the president would lack that sounding board reinforcing his partisan instincts.  He put the nation’s interests ahead of his party.  That’s why I believe Rahm must go.

Ann Althouse takes Barney Frank to the woodshed

So says Glenn in linking Ann Althouse’s must-read post.

The Massachusetts Democrat claims that Justice Scalia “makes it very clear that he’s angry, frankly, about the existence of gay people:”

If you read his opinion [in Lawrence v. Texas], he thinks it’s a good idea for two consenting adults who happen to be gay to be locked up because he is so disapproving of gay people.

Well that sage blogress, who actually read Lawrence informs the mean-spirited Decmorat that “you are either lying about having read it, lying about what Scalia wrote, or an embarrassingly incompetent reader.”  Actually quoting the actual words of Scalia’s actual dissent, Althouse finds the Associate Justice objecting to the majority opinion overturning Texas’s sodomy law as rooted in “plain old deference to the democratic process and a resistance to creative interpretation of constitutional text.”   His opinion is thus consistent with his constitutional jurisprudence.

Read the whole thing.  Maybe it’s Althouse’s direct manner which so offends those on the left.  And they, like Barney, are so easily offended.

If a Republican were as outspoken and mean-spirited as the Massachusetts Congressman and so regularly engaged in name-calling, he would be the target of regular media attacks.  Tom DeLay got in more trouble with the media for saying things far less offensive about his adversaries than Ol’ Barney has done.

Does this unhappy Congressman hide behind his sexuality, as if the marginalization he’s suffered somehow justifies his meanness?

On The Road Again

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 7:21 am - March 25, 2009.
Filed under: Blogging,Travel

Just a quick post this evening as I wait for my flight from Philly back home to Charlotte to takeoff.

I’m in a period of intense travel for the next few weeks. That will either mean little posting from me cuz I will be so overwhelmed. Or some bursts of blogging from a boring hotel stay.

I wish blogging were my fulltime jon sometimes, though I love what I do “for real”.

Anyway, just a quick hello. I’m out here somewhere whether I post or not!!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

A word on comments; a plea for civil discourse

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:18 am - March 25, 2009.
Filed under: Blogging,Civil Discourse

Due to our capricious spamfilter, I have been spending more time than perhaps I should “fishing” through our “Spam Queue,” rescuing the legitimate comments hidden amidst Viagra ads and other strange spam. I try to error on the side of inclusion and have frequently published comments attacking Bruce, myself and others who comment here regularly.

I don’t think the ad hominems are in good form, but also believe sunlight is the best disinfectant. Like Ann Althouse, I believe “in the marketplace of ideas. . . . Is it not better to have scurrilous ideas out in the sunlight where they can die?

All too often alas, those who chime in to defend Bruce or me compromise some very strong comments when they resort to ad hominem, using the term “libtard’ or some such. In many cases, if they took the insult out of the comment, they’d have won the argument anyway. That need to get in that additional dig, while emotional satisfying, compromises their entire argument and gives our critics ammunition to attack them.

There have been some really great exchanges in the comments thread to this blog, sometimes including those who occasionally use ad hominems. But, we could use more argument and less insult.

That’s why I was heartened to read Draybee’s response to Kevin’s comment in the thread to my latest post on Barney Frank’s name-calling and his subsequent commentary on that response:

By the way, I hope the rest of you noticed that I responded to Kevin’s post without resorting to insulting him or calling him names. He’s entitled to his opinion as I am to mine. I’d like to see more mature debate on this site and less ad hominem attacks.

So would I.

Our readers should make his wish a reality. And follow his example.

UPDATE from Bruce (GayPatriot) – I could not agree more with *everything* Dan wrote above. One more thing – the auto Spam Filter is NOT a conspiracy against certain comments or individuals. Sheesh.