Watching a growing number of left-wing pundits and bloggers trip over themselves to join Perez Hilton in smearing Carrie Prejean, Miss California, for offering a position on gay marriage nearly identical to that of the Democratic President of the United States, we see yet again an interesting aspect of the gay marriage debate.

At the same time these pundits and bloggers use hateful rhetoric to attack Ms. Prejean, they and some of their allies call Prop 8, Prop H8, or Prop Hate. This from GLAAD’s web page, “GLAAD and The Los Angeles Press Club present ‘Prop 8¦ Prop H8?,’ a panel discussion about the impact Prop 8 has had on the coverage of LGBT issues.”

What does it say about them that they choose to define their opposition as haters?

Last fall, I received a good deal of e-mail from both sides of the Prop 8 campaign. In nearly every missive I received from the “Yes” said, the proponents of the measure were at pains to assure me they did not want to take away the state’s domestic partnership program. The language was straight forward. They did not attack. They merely, as did Carrie Prejean, defended the notion of marriage as an institution defined by gender difference.

By contrast, the e-mail from the “No” side was overwhelmingly hostile, attacking supporters of the proposition as mean-spirited. To be sure, not all the e-mails were hostile. Lesbian friends who had gotten married just talked about their relationships.

It struck me how in the Prejean-Hilton exchange and the ensuing hullabaloo, we saw a replaying of that very campaign.

Why must so many gay marriage advocates label their adversaries as haters? Don’t they even realize the irony that they are using hateful rhetoric to accuse others of hate?

What is behind this need to demonize?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

It it with great sorrow that I read the news this evening of the passing of former Congressman, Cabinet Secretary and VP Candidate Jack Kemp.  He was one of the good guys in politics.

Rest In Peace.  I’m sure there is a touch football game in Heaven tonight.

UPDATE: Kemp’s last syndicated column was in honor of his great hero, Abraham Lincoln.  Here’s a key passage which sums up Kemp’s philosophy as well:

For Abraham Lincoln, true welfare meant not dependency, but well-being; not equality of reward, but equality of opportunity; not reliance on the state, but reliance on oneself and one’s family. He wrote, prophetically, “The progress by which the poor, honest, industrious and resolute man raises himself, that he may work on this own account and hire somebody else … is the great principle for which this government was really formed.”

Nick (ColoradoPatriot) is right.  America has lost a great defender of liberty in Jack Kemp.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Commenting on a link Glenn Reynolds provided to an Examiner post requesting that the President and Speaker Pelosi apologize for smearing the Tea Party movement, his reader Marc Greendorfer offered:

I can’t recall a single instance during his eight years where President Bush derided American citizens who took to the streets to protest his administration. In fact, I think that President Bush always acknowledged the right of citizens to disagree with him and he was always respectful of that dissent. If Obama’s mocking of dissent is the change he promised I don’t think I like it.

This mocking of dissent is entirely at odds with Obama’s campaign portrayal of himself as a post-partisan figure able to transcend political divisions.  In a post last month, I suggested he could make that rhetoric a reality if he “acknowledge[d] the sincerity of the Tea Party protesters and fault[ed] those who would question it.”

A leader confident in his ideas would welcome a debate on his policy proposals.  He would not need deride his critics because he would know that an airing of various opinions would not weaken his arguments justifying those proposals.

Whey has the President (and his supporters) been so thin-skinned on this?  Do they fear their proposals won’t stand up to public scrutiny?

Look, let’s have a debate on this.  Let the President defend his big government approach to the economic crisis and let a leading economist supporting the Tea Parties respond to his points.  Then, maybe have another member of his (the President’s) team respond to that.

If the President truly wishes to be the unifying image that his campaign promised, an idea he still promotes in his rhetoric, he would acknowledge the sincerity of the Tea Party protesters’ concerns and address them point by point, without mockery or derision.  Not only would that speech be a gracious gesture, he could also use it to promote his policies, to show why they’re in the national interest.

And he would fulfill his campaign pledge to serve as a transcendant, unifying figure.

Let’s see, April turns out to be the deadliest month for US troops since November 2008.

The U.S. death toll for April rose to 18, the military said Friday, making it the deadliest in seven months for American forces in Iraq. The sharp increase from the previous month came as a series of bombings also pushed Iraqi deaths to their highest level this year.

In the latest violence, a suicide bomber blew himself up at a restaurant on the reservoir of Iraq’s largest dam near the northern city of Mosul. At least five people were killed and 10 wounded, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.

The spike in attacks has raised concerns that insurgents are stepping up their efforts to re-ignite sectarian bloodshed as well as questions about the readiness of the Iraqis to take over responsibility for their own security as U.S. troops begin to withdraw.

Something different has happened in the past seven months.  I can’t quite put my finger on it….. I know it will come to me.  *tapping foot*  What…is…it….that…happened…in November 2008?

Hmmm, maybe my intelligent readers will be able to help me remember what may have changed in the past seven months to make things more dangerous in Iraq?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Responding to the Olbermann/Musto segment (linked here) on Carrie Prejean, a relatively new blogger Wesley M. at In My Copious Free Time writes:

We’ve reached the point where those of us on my side of the gay marriage issue, if we want to avoid a backlash of our own making, need a remedial primer on how we lose, and how we lose again. I’ve said most of this before, and so have others, but it obviously needs to be said again. So…

When we let a foul-mouthed caricature like Perez Hilton become the spokesman for our cause, we lose. And when we defend that foul-mouthed caricature for using rhetoric that we would call hate speech if it came from the other side, we lose again.

We lose, he claims, when “we actually start to believe that anyone who doesn’t meet us 100% of the way on this issue really is a ‘hater.’”  While seconding my point that we need to rationally, civilly respond to gay marriage opponents, he acknowledges that this response is “just not as satisfying emotionally.”

He’s really onto something there.  I think that’s why so many respond as they do.  It’s like venting.  It makes them feel better.  This shouldn’t about their feelings, should instead be about how our government treats gay relationships.  And a good number of opponents of gay marriage don’t know much about the reality of these relationships, thus don’t believe they’re worthy of state recognition.

So, understand and respect that their lack of knowledge comes about largely because of ignorance, not hatred.  And find a way to correct it without insulting them.

Just read Wesley’s post.  And while you’re over at his blog, check out this post as well. Amazing how similar our reactions were to the anti-Mormon ad put out by some “No on 8″ folks. Had I seen that ad before resolving to vote, “No,” on 8, I may well have changed my mind.

I’m quite sick and tired of the unbelievable hysteria being fed by the media and encouraged by the Obama Administration and the World Health Organization.

First of all, here are two facts that you have NOT heard from the saturated coverage of the pig flu.

1. Face masks DO NOT stop the spread of the virus.  Face masks can only help prevent the spread of bacteria-related illnesses — not viruses.
   
2. 36,000 Americans die EVERY YEAR from flu/flu-related illnesses.  Only 16 people WORLDWIDE (all in Mexico) have died from the pig flu.  For crying out loud!

This obsession the media has with scaring everyone to death, then moving onto something else… well, it is pathetic and irresponsible.

Stop the madness.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Last night on FoxNews’s O’Reilly Factor with Laura Ingraham substituting for the show’s eponymous host, feminist Gloria Feldt said Miss California, Carrie Prejean, needed a “heart transplant.”  So, since that young woman has offered a position on gay marriage nearly identical to that of the President of the United States, does this feminist believe that Barack Obama needs a “heart transplant” as well?

Here’s what Miss Prejean said about gay marriage:

Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman.

Note her answer was prompted by a question. In his book, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, Barack Obama volunteered (without prompting) that he is “opposed to same-sex marriage:”

I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture.

Now, contrast the two statements.  Prejean didn’t say she was opposed to gay marriage, she merely said she favored traditional marriage.  It was the Democrat who indicated his opposition. Interesting that.

The hypocrisy of the Left on this manner is telling.  Now, I know Miss Prejean has become the spokesmodel or some such for some pro-traditional marriage outfit (of which I had never previously heard).  I wouldn’t have known about this had gay marriage advocates pointed it out.

Once again, they’re giving her a bigger platform.  Let me repeat something I’ve said before:  ignore her.  It’s her critics who have made her name more familiar than that of the woman who won the pageant.  You know her name, “but can you name this year’s Miss USA?”

And if you’re going to criticize her, at least hold others who have made public statements advocating traditional marriage to the same standard.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

To see just how far discourse on controversial social issues has declined in our culture, all you need do is watch a few liberals take on Carrie Prejean, the Miss California who likely loss the Miss USA pageant last month because she said she believed “marriage should be between a man and a woman.”

She did not attack those who believe otherwise.  She did not insult them.  She did not call them names.  She merely offered her opinion.

Yet, for offering a view of marriage nearly identical to that of the Democratic President of the United States, she has been repeatedly ridiculed on the left.  Do those who mocked her know how nasty they sound?  Do they have any sense how people outside the liberal enclaves where they reside will react to such bile?

Do they realize that most people who heard Miss Prejean speak, even the great majority of those who disagree with her, would appreciate the civility with which she expressed her opinion?

Here, we have feminist Gloria Feldt engaging in the most juvenile of insults to mock and belittle this politically incorrect beauty queen.  Just imagine how the media would react if a social conservative had said an advocate of abortion rights needed a “heart transplant:”

(Thanks to Gateway Pundit for providing the video.)

In the clip above, Laura Ingraham referenced the mean-spirited Michael Musto who, in the clip below, acts as if his television audience was identical to the readership of his Village Voice column (which maybe it was since he appeared on MSNBC):

(more…)

It isn’t just my imagination.  The MSM is fawning over President Obama.

According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs:

The media have given President Obama more coverage than George W. Bush and Bill Clinton combined and more positive coverage than either received at this point in their presidencies. . . .

During his first 50 days in office, the three broadcast network evening news shows devoted 1021 stories lasting 27 hours 44 minutes to Barack Obama’s presidency. The daily average of seven stories and over 11 minutes of airtime represents about half of the entire newscasts. By contrast, at this point in their presidencies George W. Bush had received 7 hours 42 minutes and Bill Clinton garnered 15 hours 2 minutes of coverage, for a combined total airtime five hours less than Mr. Obama’s.

Emphasis added.  And the MSM hasn’t just been obsessed with showcasing the President’s image, they’ve also, by and large, been promoting his policies:

Mr. Obama has received not only more press but also better press than his immediate predecessors. On the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news, fifty-eight percent of all evaluations of the president and his policies have been favorable, and 42 percent were unfavorable. CMPA’s previous studies of network news found that George W. Bush received only 33 percent positive evaluations by sources and reporters during the first 50 days of his administration in 2001, and Bill Clinton received only 44 percent positive evaluations during his first ten weeks (70 days) in office in 1993.

And I had thought the news media loved Bill Cliinton when he took office in 1993.  If Obama falters, he may not only hurt his party, but he could well bring the MSM down with him as well.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  MIchelle raises an interesting point:

I don’t doubt that the MSM has been falling head-over-heels for Obama, but do you think that just the pure AMOUNT of coverage has been because the news cycle has INSANELY ramped up their coverage since the days of Clinton and even Bush?

The left-wing network features more than just gay marriage opponents.  They’re also help pevent one of the most prominent anti-Semites in America from fading into a much deserved oblivion.  ”Pat Buchanan, one of America’s leading conservative voices (sic), is a political analyst and regular contributor on MSNBC.”

Does MSNBC just keep him on because they believe he’s a conservative and they so want to tar conservatism in general by his narrow-minded mean-spirited rantings?

No serious conservative considers Buchanan a part of our movement any longer.  He left the GOP to run for President on the Reform Party ticket and supports an economic (and foreign) policy totally at odds with anything the Gipper ever championed.

Plus, as the GOP and consrvatives in general have become more pro-Israel, he has become increasingly antagonistic to the Jewish State.

As Democrats and the media try to dress up Arlen Specter’s switch to the Democrats as a sign of the drift of the GOP in the direction of extreme social conservatism or some such, it was really nothing more than, to quote a Democratic Party strategist, “a cowardly act of a cornered man.”

As Byron York (via Glenn) puts it, “He’s a Democrat of necessity, and everyone knows it“:

More than a few in the GOP were gobsmacked when Specter explained his defection in nakedly strategic terms. “He made perfectly clear in a private conversation with [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell that his decision was made last Friday, when his pollster came to him and said, ‘You will not win the Republican primary,’” a top Senate aide told me. “So the decision to run as a Democrat wasn’t because he wanted to leave the Republican party, or because the party was mean to him.” Specter said much the same thing in public; his decision was born of sheer desperation.

But, just for argument’s sake, let’s say he did make the move because of the GOP’s drift to the right.  It’s a good sign for the GOP when we realize which issue hastened his departure from the Republican caucus.

The Republican position on abortion hasn’t changed in the past few years.  So, while pro-choice, Specter stayed put in a party with a pro-life platform.  Twice in the past five years, Republican legislators, with the then-Republican President’s support pushed the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), which would block states from recognizing gay marriages.  Specter didn’t join the Democrats who shared his pro-choice views and who, on the whole, opposed the FMA.

Only after he voted for the spendthrift “stimulus” did Specter secure an opponent in the Pennsylvania Republican primary.  It was his support of excessive government spending which alienated him from the GOP.

So, if the GOP is truly moving in a rightward direction, it’s doing so on the right issue–standing up against out-of-control spending.

And here I had thought the MSM was eager to discredit those making the case for traditional marriage.

I’d bet that if they polled 1,000 randomly selected Americans who had watched Miss California, Carrie Prejean, answer Perez Hilton’s question on gay marriage in last week’s Miss USA pageant, an overwhelming majority would say she handled the question with grace.  When she goes on TV to discuss the controversy generated by that response, she comes across as poised, self-confident and definitely not bitter.

Not the kind of a woman you’d want to be speaking out in favor of a cause you opposed.

But, MSNBC’s David Shuster has gone on the warpath against the beauty queen, launcing an attack campaign against Miss California for her stance on gay  marriage.  Don’t think his angry rants will serve to discredit her with anyone save those who already abhor her for that stance. Matt Lauer interviewed her on the Today show.

Has the MSM ever given so much air time to a contestant who lost the Miss USA or Miss America pageant?  All they’re doing is giving her a larger platform from which to make the case against gay marriage.  When last I checked, she attracted nearly twice as many google hits as did Kristen Dalton, the woman who won the pageant.

My advise to the MSM:  ignore Carrie Prejean.  Don’t make it easier for her to speak out for maintaining the social status quo on marriage.  Given how well she comes across on TV, you only increase her stature by featuring her on your programs.

FROM THE COMMENTS: Leah offers:

If she is successful, you can thank Perez Hilton and all the others in the media who are giving her air time thinking that by doing so they are discrediting her.
The opposite is happening, she is becoming a very attractive young spokesperson for the anti gay marriage crowd.

Had Hilton not injected politics into the pageant, none of us would know her feelings about the issue. Had she then won, she never would have broadcast them but kept them to herself.

Well said.  I agree.  Perez Hilton helped give her a platform.  Let her take the job with the anti-gay marriage group, but ignore her.