She actually looks good on the screen and seems like she’s having a lot of fun, in marked contrast to her fellow MSNBC host, Keith Olbermann, who always looks angry and unhappy.

For some reason, the closed captioning wasn’t working for her show while I was pounding away on the Stairmaster today, so I couldn’t follow the program so well.  Through the graphics and tags, I knew at one point she was peddling the fabulist Seymour Hersh’s latest lies about former Vice President Cheney.  Trusting this guy for honest information on Republicans is like looking to Paul Cameron for accurate studies of gay people.

All that said, despite her left-wing bias, I think Maddow’s show is going to have some staying power.  But, for MSNBC (yet not for FoxNews), Olbermann has some pretty good numbers, so anger does seem to sell to a certain segment of our population.

She looks like she’s a nice gal, someone with whom, if the convesation turned away from politics, you could actually have an interesting exchange.  And unlike Olbermann, she looks like she doesn’t take herself (or her show) too seriously.  That’s not a bad quality to have.

Instead of letting the financial crisis going to waste, the Obama Administration has been using it “a pretext for a wide power grab,” effectively nationalizing General Motors today.  Yet, the more Democrats spend, the more control they seek take over the economy, the less favor they will find with the American people.

Obama knew he had to campaign on a “net spending cut” because we Americans don’t have much appetite for a European-style social welfare state.  So, as his domestic policy departs from his campaign rhetoric and as memories of the failure of past Republican Congresses to hold true to party principles and hold the line on spending recede, the GOP could once again be able to reclaim the mantle of fiscal responsibility.

Yet, at the same time as Republicans can reclaim a mantle we once had, but later forfeited, the president is making a small effort to take away the one issue which held the GOP together in the past decade–national security.

While the president’s record has been far from perfect on Iraq and Afghanistan, he has been speaking out on the conflict in the first nation in terms nearly identical to those of his predecessor and has authorized a build-up in the second nation which has pleased many on the right, a number of whom have compared it (favorably) to Bush’s policies.

There are signs, a few, not a lot, but more that I had hoped when Obama first emerged as his party’s presidential frontrunner, that he could neutralize the national security issue (well, he will have to get tougher or Iran).  All that said, the way things have been going these past few months, the economy could emerge the issue which turns the tide for the GOP.

Provided Republicans continue to say, “No” to Democratic profligacy and offer responsible alternative plans to spendthrift Democrat ones.

On election night, appearing on Pajamas TV, I said that with McCain’s loss, Rush Limbaugh had become the interim leader of the opposition.  Much as I find the entertainer engaging and insightful, I did not mean for him to hold onto that mantle for very long.  Given his unapologetic defense of conservative ideas, his optimism and yes, his combativeness, I thought Rush was the one to rally us in the wake of our electoral setbacks.

Roger Simon, appearing on the panel with me, disagreed, anticipating the discussion which would ensue when the White House teamed up with partisans in the MSM to smear the talk show host.  He thought Rush was just too controversial and confrontational.

He was right to a point.  Given his combativeness, his delight in confronting adversaries of conservatives, skills which makes him so effective as communicator in the medium of talk radio, Rush could never be anything more than a provisional leader of the right.  Whereas, he excels in Reagan’s ability to communicate the ideas of conservatism to a mass audience (see e.g., his celebrated speech to CPAC), he lacks the Gipper’s ability to transcend partisan differences* when promoting conservative ideas.

That’s not to fault Rush.  It’s just to distinguish him from Ronald Reagan.

Because Rush’s confrontational style does not endear him to independent voters and even some more cerebral conservatives, some on the right wish to write him out of our movement.  But, when we see Rush for who he is and recognize the role he plays, we understand that he is an integral figure to our movement.

As I’ve suggested before, he, like other exponents of conservatism, albeit with different means and methods of expression, offers a unique contribution to conservatism.  Just as each deity in the Greek pantheon brought a different gift to Olympus.  Alone, each could not address all of humanity’s concerns, but together, they represent the qualities we all need to thrive in this world.

And that is why we should all bristle at those who wish to write Rush out.  We need see him as one among many, with each bringing a particular skill, a particular gift, to our movement.   (more…)

Sometimes, when I bring White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel with conservative friends, they say they want him to stay on because his presence in the president’s office serves to sharpen the distinctions between the parties.  His partisanship sets him apart from the mainstream of America and the unifying message of Obama’s fall campaign.

Democratic partisans like him because he is an unapologetic champion of their side and critic of ours.  With Rahm by his side, the president will continue to steer a left-wing course, pandering to the various liberal groups eager for additional federal handouts and hoping to influence federal policy.

But, if the president replaces Emanuel with a less partisan Democrat adept at Administration and respectful of Republicans, say like former Clinton White Hous Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, he would stand a greater chance of uniting the country and succeeding as president.

The simple question is whether or not the president sees his partisan affiliation as incidental to his Administration or as its defining aspect.  In the campaign, he made it sound like the former.  In the past two and one-half months, he made it seem the latter.

Replacing Rahm Emanuel, a hyperpartisan gunslinger, with a dispassionate administrator, even one, like Panetta, committed to Democratic ideals, would help the president fulfill the promise of his campaign and would put my party on the spot, making it far more difficult for Republican leaders to be confrontational.

With Rahm on the job, however, we have only the promise of a confrontational policy and increased partisan warfare.  And that’s not good for this great nation.

Nigel Ashford, a distinguished British political philosopher, whom we believe to be the only openly gay man honored by Dame Margaret Thatcher, will be in Los Angeles the last week in April and has agreed to join GayPatriot readers for dinner on Monday, April 27th.

Please save that date for this festive occasion.  Details to be provided when we get a sense of how many will be joining us.

Boom time for lobbyists in Washington, malaise for working men and women in the heartland:  “In a Down Time Everywhere Else, K Street Bustles: Lobbyists Find Plenty of Work as Clients Contend for Stimulus Package’s Billions.”

UPDATE:  From the Post article, “Put another way, Main Street’s gloom has been K Street’s boon.”

Here’s a nifty graphic originally created by the Washington Post. (h/t – Heritage Foundation)

And by “nifty”, I mean completely scary and mind-boggling!

Obama Lied, the American Way of Life Died!

Paraphrasing Eva Peron — “We are ALL Government Workers Now”.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

When, in 2001, the media made much of Jenna Bush’s underage drinking, did you tell them to tone it done and respect the privacy of the then-president’s daughter?

When, in 2004, the presidential and vice-presidential nominees of your party in respective debates made an issue of the sexuality of the then-Vice President’s daughter, did you fault them for doing so?

When, in the 2008 presidential campaign, the media made much of the indiscretions of the daughter of your rival for the second highest office in the land, did you tell them to cool it?

Did, in that same campaign, you ever fault New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor for contacting, through Facebook, the friends of the youngest daughter of then-Republican presidential candidate John McCain to get dirt on his wife?

If you answered, “Yes,” to any of these questions, then you have grounds to criticize anyone who would publicize your daughter’s private life.

As I’ve said before, her life should remain private.  She is not the public figure.  You are.  And you have been for nearly four decades now.  And during that time, the media has made much of the private lives of family members of politicians of both parties, but mostly of those on the Republican side of the aisle.

Did you ever stand up for your partisan rivals when the media made much of their families’ private lives to the anticipated advantage of your party?

Now that some in the media are looking into your daughter’s indiscretions, maybe you can use that snooping to the greater benefit of the nation you serve.  You could help us learn the lesson Achilles did when he recognized the sadness of his greatest rival’s father.

(more…)