Gay Patriot Header Image

Has Paul Krugman Unmasked the Republican-Martian Conspiracy?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 10:00 pm - June 29, 2009.
Filed under: Liberals,Media Bias,Post 9-11 America

Looks like he just might have.  Despite my contacts in the GOP, I have only heard rumors about this supposed conspiracy, yet no proof, not even a scrap of hard evidence.  I had thought that if this conspiracy did indeed exist, it was only among the far right extremists on our side of the aisle, the real loons, those so eager to bring down Obama that they would praise the leaders of our mortal enemies, you know I mean, the Martians who have only begun to make contact with us.

I’d heard about these GOP dead-enders, eager to help the Martians effect their planned conquest of our planet, perhaps just to bring down Obama or perhaps to protect themselves and their families when the extra-terrestials take over, assuming we could not resist their invasion.  Until today, I had thought that the talk of the conspiracy was attempts by the White House-MSM axis to smear Republicans as extremists.

But, maybe Paul Krugman knows something I don’t know.  Why else would he accuse Republican opponents of the Waxman-Markey bill of committing treason against the planet

I mean, treason against the planet does suggest helping an extra-planetary force.  And that points to the Martians.

Well, if he’s going to accuse the GOP of treason, he needs provide the evidence, of the actual conspiracy itself and of Republican contacts with Martian officials.  We can’t let him get him with this subliminal system of messaging, hinting at the extra-terrestial conspiracy just to keep it in people’s minds so that they assume that Republicans prefer to cooperate with aliens than to work with the President and his party.  Even in the darkest of times, Americans just won’t vote for a political party which allies itself with those little green men.

So, Mr. Krugman, now that we know you’re aware of the conspiracy, show us the evidence.

The Promise Breaker

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 7:50 pm - June 29, 2009.
Filed under: Media Bias,Obama and Gay Issues

As Jim Geraghty has pointed out on numerous occasions, all Barack Obama promises comes with expiration dates.  We in the gay community have seen how quick he is to break (though the obsequious Joe Solmonese might say “slow to fulfill”) his campaign promise to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT), the ban on gays serving openly in the military and the Defense of Marriage Act.

Now, one of his closest advisers won’t rule out a middle class tax hike.  Obama’s even willing to consider taxing employer-based health care plans, something which he excoriated his Republican opponent for supporting in last fall’s presidntial campaign and promised himself not to do (unless, of course, the person taxed earned over $250,o00 a year).

Even the New York Times notices that he has broken his promise of transparency, reneging on his pledge to post bills online for five days before signing them.  But, in typical Times fashion, the headline reads that the Democrat has only changed “the terms of a campaign pledge“.   If he were a Republican, he would have broken faith with the American people.

In order to reach out to independent voters (and even some Republicans), candidate Obama knew he had to play to the center to keep scrutiny off his past left-wing activities and rhetoric and his (very,) very liberal voting record.  Moreover, aware that voters (especially libertarian and conservative Republicans) were upset with the GOP for not holding the line on domestic spending, he sensed an opening and cast himself as a fiscal disciplinarian.  And a lot of people bought it.

Once elected, however, he faced a dilemma, keep faith with his left-wing base which (one of my past posts notwithstanding) seems to be where he finds his political heart or staying true to the promises he made in the general election.  Given the opportunity that crises afford, he thought he could get away with veering to the left on domestic issues, thinking that under cover of a perceived crisis, he could get away with it.

The mainstream media being what it is, he may well succeed.   Americans may be turning away from his big-spending initiatives, but they have not yet lost faith in Barack Obma as a leader.  But, should the economy continue to falter, people will not not only fault him for his failed economic policies, but also his betrayal of the trust he had gained in the course of the presidential campaign, during the better part of the transition and in the first few months of his Administration.

Challenge to our Critics:
Provide Examples of Bush Attacking Democrat
as Obama Attacks Republicans

Remember how presidential candidate Barack Obama promised to be a postpartisan leader transcending the partisan divisions which bedeviled Washington politics?  Well, not only has he abandoned that notion, but he’s ended up as quite the opposite, not postpartsian.

He has truly made his predecessor seem a uniter rather than the divider Obama partisans and the left made him out to be.

In a piece yesterday for Commentary‘s Contentions, Jennifer Rubin notes that the Democratic President excuses Democrats for casting the same vote which earns opprobrium for Republicans.  While the 44 Democrats who voted against Waxman-Markey (AKA Cap & Trade) did so because they were “sensitive to the immediate political climate of uncertainty around this issue,” Republican who oppose the measure were “fear-mongering” and were “16 years behind the times“.

Did Mr. Obama’s Republican predecessor ever excoriate Democrats for voting against his legislative initiatives (or otherwise opposing hispolitices)? Recall how Democrats branded Bush a divisive figure. So, here’s my challenge to the Bush critics who regularly chime in in our comments section. You, like the unhappy Barney Frank, in his recent interview with Bill O’Reilly respond to every criticism of Obama with an attack on W. So, now you have a chance to show how right you (and he) are.  Show us what a horrible, no good and very bad that Republican was.

Show us that he was so horrible, no good and very bad that he was worse than his successor. Many Democrats voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (which passed the House in 2003 by a margin even closer than that of Waxman-Markey), even though it was quite similar to many initiatives proposed (and even enacted) by his predecessor Democrat Bill Clinton. California’s senior Senator, Democrat Dianne Feinstein voted for this bill, yet many Democrats balked because it was Bush’s bill.

So, using your google skills, find references to Bush attacking congressional Democrats who voted against him on this bill as Obama attacked Republicans who voted against cap and trade. And if you’d like, you’re welcome to bring up other legislation of the Bush era. And recall, since I’m referencing comments that the current President made, so must you reference comments the then-President made. Comments made by elected Republican officials and conservative commentators do not count–as we’re talking about the President here, not the liberal commentariat or left-wing bloggers.

Did the Republican President describe his domestic adversaries fear-mongering?  Did he say they were sixteen years behind the times?

Is an affair adulterous if the unfaithful partner is separated?

On every first date, I try to let the conversation flow naturally so each of us can get to know the other as he is, instead of matching ourselves us to some ideal image of the perfect mate, I do try to get two things across, the first about my politics because I know that’s a deal-breaker for some gay leftists and the second about monogamy because his eagerness for an open relationship would be a deal-breaker for me.

The question always arises that, once you start dating, when does the monogamy attach?  Obviously it hasn’t yet attached to the (first) date I had this weekend where I did broach the monogamy issue (but not the political one). So, I assume it attaches when we define ourselves as boyfriends, agreeing to be faithful to one another.

Some wait until they have had a ceremony, but the point is that there is a clear, definable moment when monogamy attaches. And that leads to the question, when does it “detach.” And that’s not always so clear.  If two parties plan on divorcing, need they wait until the divorce goes through?  Or can they start seeing other people once they make their intentions clear?  And  say a married couple separates, should each partner then remain celibate?

It would seem that in some such cases, celibacy would be unwarranted. And that makes Senator Ensign’s affair a bit less problematic, but it doesn’t excuse Mark Sanford. While the South Carolina Governor has been separated from his wife for “about two weeks,” all evidence indicates the affair had begun long before that separation. Ensign, by contrast, was separated from his wife while sleeping with a campaign aide and ended the affair when he reconciled with his wife. Even so, his lady friend was married at the time, so while his marital vows may been on hiatus, hers were not. It was definitely adultery.

Despite this wrong, there is no evidence the Nevada Senator abused hs position as a public official.  Sanford, however, appears to have used state resources to fund his tryst.  So, I’m with John Podhoretz on this one, he really has “no choice but to resign.

But, this all leads me to wonder if the media would give the Nevada Republican a pass if he had had different partisan affiliation?

UPDATE:  Glenn links a great article this morning on Reason where Steve Chapman offers some thoughts on adultery which pretty much parallel my own.  He does not, however, address the separation “conundrum.”  Since Sanford was not separated at the time his affair began, he was clearly violating his marital vows.   Chapman pretty much echoes my views, holding “Sex without marriage is OK. Sex in violation of marriage is not“: (more…)