The Washington Post’s Robert Samuelson was obviously on another planet last year.  He has JUST now discovered this amazing fact:

The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time.  Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage?

My snarkiness aside… Samuelson raises a lot of good points in his column.

On the whole, this is not healthy for America.

Our political system works best when a president faces checks on his power.  But the main checks on Obama are modest.  They come from congressional Democrats, who largely share his goals if not always his means. The leaderless and confused Republicans don’t provide effective opposition.   And the press — on domestic, if not foreign, policy — has so far largely abdicated its role as skeptical observer.

That is a pretty damning observation to be printed in the equally complicit Washington Post.   But the best part of his column?  The facts.

[A] study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism… concludes: “President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House.”

The study examined 1,261 stories by The Post, the New York Times, ABC, CBS and NBC, Newsweek magazine and the “NewsHour” on PBS. Favorable articles (42 percent) were double the unfavorable (20 percent), while the rest were “neutral” or “mixed.” Obama’s treatment contrasts sharply with coverage in the first two months of the Bush (22 percent of stories favorable) and Clinton (27 percent) presidencies.

Unlike George Bush and Bill Clinton, Obama received favorable coverage in both news columns and opinion pages. The nature of stories also changed. “Roughly twice as much of the coverage of Obama (44 percent) has concerned his personal and leadership qualities than was the case for Bush (22 percent) or Clinton (26 percent),” the report said. “Less of the coverage, meanwhile, has focused on his policy agenda.”

Very dangerous indeed.   But there are some signs of good news…..

Another Pew survey shows that since the election the numbers of both self-identified Republicans and Democrats have declined. “Independents” have increased, and “there has been no consistent movement away from conservatism, nor a shift toward liberalism.”

Samuelson concludes:

The press has become Obama’s silent ally and seems in a state of denial. But the story goes untold: Unsurprisingly, the study of all the favorable coverage received little coverage.

If not for the blogosphere and talk radio, many of the critical questions wouldn’t be asked at all.  And Democrats want to silence those outlets as well.   Stay tuned….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Reading the first comment to my post on why, I believe, the Prospects Don’t Look Good for Overturning Proposition 8 in the Golden State, I wondered if a reader had been stealing glances at my notes for he had done a great job anticipating an issue which I plan to start addressing with this post and hope to consider regularly for the next few weeks:

So, Dan, this looks like a great opportunity to start working with / providing consultation-advice, and build some bridges.

Work on the side, provide input in any way that makes you feel comfortable, or will you close the door on this opportunity to be part of the change?

Basically, I’ve been scribbling notes on strategies for overturning Prop 8.  Right now, I don’t think it would be smart to push this issue for 2010 and it might be better to wait until 2012, but the success of the legislation in New Hampshire may make it easier to address the issue sooner rather than later.

There, while the Governor peronally opposed gay marriage, he signed legislation providing for his state to recognize it because it included language spelling out “that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services. Legislators made the changes.”

If that gay marriage opponent could be persuaded to sign a bill recognizing same-sex marriages, then other gay marriage opponents could be persuaded to vote for similar legislation.

In short, do in California what the legislature in New Hampshire did after Governor Lynch first vetoed the bill–include a provision addressing the concerns of gay marriage opponents.  And their strongest argument is that state recognition of same-sex marriage could prevent churches and other religious institutions from defining marriage according to the dictates of their faith.

So, include such a provision.  And have a conservative legsl scholar draft it. Thus, when pushing this measure, advocates can point to his authorship. It would give the measure credibility on the right and make it more difficult for social conservatives to raise the religious freedom objection which they used so effectively last fall. (more…)

I had delayed in posting on New Hsmpshire’s recognition of same-sex marriages, thinking that I might have something profound and original to say, but (in past posts on legislative recognition of gay marriage),  I’ve pretty much said everything I have to say about this.

I could go on about the hyperbolic language of the releases that have cluttered my e-mail boxes.  It seems that most gay organizations don’t understand the meaning of the words “freedom” and “legal.”  (It seems they believe you need some kind of government imprimatur to be free.)

When the folks at Freedom (sic) to Marry announce that New Hampshire Becomes Sixth State to Embrace Freedom to Marry, it almost sounds like people who had previously gotten married in the Granite State had to hide their unions lest they be persecuted.  The same holds for those who announce that it’s now “legal” for gays to wed in New Hampshire. You mean, they had been jailed in the past for getting married?

All that said, I am pleased with the way things progressed in New Hampshire, particularly pleased with the final result for the same reasons I was pleased with the processes in Vermont and Maine.  In the Granite State, we really saw the benefit of the legislative process.  There, instead of judges announcing a decision in accordance with the court calender, there was a real back-and-forth between the elected Governor and the elected members of the legislature.  The Framers would have been pleased at that deliberative process.  If people don’t like the result, they can hold their representatives accountable at the ballot box.

Governor John Lynch, an opponent of gay marriage, opposed the initial bill because of his concerns that it might not protect the liberty of churches to define marriage according to their creed.  But, when he vetoed the initial legislation, he proposed a compromise, asking for language spelling out “that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services. Legislators made the changes“:

The revised bill added a sentence specifying that all religious organizations, associations or societies have exclusive control over their religious doctrines, policies, teachings and beliefs on marriage.

It also clarified that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same-sex spouses of employees.

As we see, this process allowed the law-making body to address citizens’ concerns.

There’s something else in this process which could help advance gay marriage in other states.  Advocates can show how they persuaded a gay marriage opponent (Lynch) to sign a bill recognizing same-sex marriage.  With the appropriate religious liberty provisions in the statutes they propose, they may be able to persuade other such opponents.

And so I end on the subject of my next post (planned before I had learned of the good news from the Granite State.)

Here is the photo of a true American hero.  It isn’t a photo that is being run 24/7 on NBC, CNN, CBS or even FOX News.

This is a man who, along with this family, volunteered to serve his nation in a time of war and paid the ultimate price on his nation’s own soil.  It is believed to be the first Islamist terror attack on US soil since 9/11.  And so far, President Obama has had nothing to say about the death of Pvt. Long and the shooting at the recruiting center.

Those who are honoring a doctor who aborted 60,000 fetuses need to see what a real hero looks like. 

The American Liberal mouthpieces on TV and the internet have not only ignored the Islamist’s terror attack in Little Rock, but they seem more upset about the murder of Dr. Tiller than they did about the attacks of 9/11/2001.

Army Pvt. William Long – RIP

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

When it comes to Democratic politicians, all but a few gay activists swoon when a politician in (or pursuing) power pays lip service to “gay rights” or “equality” or whatever is the gay leftist watchword of the day.  And while they may grouse and they may grumble when that Democrat with soaring rhetoric fails to follow through on his campaign promise(s), that failure won’t dampen their enthusiasm.  Recall how HRC refused to rescind its endorsement of Bill Clinton even after he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996.

And now they’re all but tripping over themselves to sing President Obama’s praise despite that Democrat’s failure to follow through on his campaign promise to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.  Even the unhappy Barney Frank, supposedly an advocate for gay issues, has been so captivated by Obama’s charisma that he’s defending his party’s plan to go slow (i.e., ignore) action on that promise.

Former Vice President Cheney frank remarks on gay marriage further expose the Democrat’s mealy-mouthed record on gay issues (“equivalent rights” anyone?), some, including blogress Dr. Melissa Clouthier, are wondering why gays don’t get mad at Obama:

President Obama knows [gay marriage] is a political loser. So do gay activists. For the greater good, gay activists won’t push the President. They will hypocritically maintain their silence. They will be willingly silenced by the President because it serves the Democrat’s purpose.

Is anyone astonished and appalled at the hypocrisy around this issue? We shouldn’t be. The Left has a long record of political expedience around this and other social issues. Remember President Clinton’s treatment of women? Yeah. And they love, love, loved him!

To the gay left, it’s not about ideas, not about principles, not even about gay people, it’s all about keeping Democrats in power.  And when those Democrats take power, all too many gay activists fawn on elected Democrats as do the mind-numbed peasantry in a monarchy no matter what abuse the monaarch heaps out.

At the close of this song, Deborah Kerr well describes how gay activists react to Democrats in power, always “bowing” and “kowtowing”:

When Pajamas Media asked me to write a piece on former Vice President Cheney’s recent reiteration of preference of a federalist approach to same-sex marriage, I decided to see what the various gay groups were saying about this good man’s recent comments. What I found should not be a shock to those who read this blog.  Indeed, it fits their pattern.  That pesky little (R) after a politician’s name renders him all but immune from praise (from gay groups).

Let me whet your appetite with a few paragraphs from that article:

Two weeks ago, former Vice President Dick Cheney delivered a speech at the American Enterprise Institute “on the serious and ongoing threat terrorism poses to the United States.” He defended the Bush Administration’s record in the War on Terror and took issue with some of the criticisms and policies of the current President.

It was a good speech, earning him high marks across the political spectrum, particularly among conservatives, eager to hear our ideas defended with such vigor and conviction.  As Cheney burnished his conservative credentials at AEI last month, on Monday, in remarks at the National Press Club, he showed that he does not toe the party line on all issues.  He once again parted company with George W. Bush, the man who tapped him as his running mate and in whose Administration he served loyally for eight years, on gay marriage.  The former Vice President reiterated a point he has made publicly at least since the 2000 vice presidential debate, that we should take a federal approach to recognition of same-sex unions:

I think that freedom means freedom for everyone.  And, as many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don’t support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. … But I don’t have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that.

You can read the rest here.

With more than half of New Jersey voters disapproving of the job performance of Governor Jim Corzine, three-quarters of his fellow Garden State Democrats voted to give renew his lease on Drunthwacket, making the spendthrift former U.S. Senator their party’s nominee for this fall’s gubernatorial election.

While Democrats voted overwhelmingly for Corzine in their party’s primary yesterday, Republicans picked Chris Christie, a “former prosecutor who sent a parade of corrupt New Jersey politicians to prison” as their nominee.  Most pundits thought Christie had a better chance of ousting the unpopular Democrat (with approval ratings below those of George W. Bush) than did the man he defeated yesterday, former Bogota (New Jersey, not Colombia) Mayor Steve Lonegan.  Christie got more votes than Corzine and his two closest competitors for the Democratic nomination combined in a state where Barack Obama beat John McCain by over 15 points.

While it looks like Corzine is set to campaign against George W. Bush, given the mess he’s made of the Garden State, Christie will focus on making the state’s government smaller and returning tax money to citizens.  Should he campaign on thosse themes (which he addressed last night in his victory speech), the New Jersey Republican could show that our party’s core principles resonate with voters even in “blue” states like New Jersey.

His success could encourage other Republicans in the Northeast to run for office, helping bring the party back to life in a region where it once dominated, but has note done so well in recent years.

To be sure, Christie faces an unpopular incumbent, but that incumbent is unpopular for a reason, his policies.  And his high-spending policies haven’t been much different than another incumbent Democratic executive, the President of the United States.

It appears President Obama has to step up his reading pace if he wants to beat his predecessor in one particular measure: how many books a president can polish off a year.

Once again, gay marriage activists show they’d rather intimidate their opponents than address their arguments.  Just as in Maine, gay groups plan to “out” citizens in Washington State who sign a petition to put a referendum on the ballot in order to overturn the recent expansion of the state’s same-sex partnerships. (In the Evergreen State, the legislation in question merely expands the states domestic partner law to “give partners the same state rights as married couples,” but does not call them marriages as did the legislature in the Pine Tree State.)

Instead of publishing the names with an eye to intimidate, why don’t they just prepare to debate the issue in public fora should this referendum make the ballot?  Given the demographics of Washington State, I think those who favor such a referendum going to have a tough time overturning the law.  Bear in mind, this is recognition of same-sex unions as domestic partnerships, not as marriages.  The Evergreen State is far to the left of Arizona whose voters in 2006 rejected a referendum barring state recognition of same-sex marriages, largely because it was too expansive and would have banned civil unions as well.

And defeat of such a referendum could provide a real boost to efforts to enact civil unions in other states.

That said, for the same reasons I opposed a referendum in Maine, I also oppose one in Washington State.  Elected representatives who decided the issue.  If citizens don’t like the way their representative voted, they can vote them out of office.

Still, the state constitution allows them to put such a referendum on the ballot.  But, all too many gay marriage activists just get really upset if people express opposition to their agenda and dare do something about it.  So, I joined Michelle Malkin in wondering how they would they react if social conservatives attempted to intimidate those supporting state recognition of same-sex marriage?

. . . imagine the uproar if the roles were reversed and anti-gay marriage activists were publicizing the names of petitioners supporting same-sex partnership expansion laws.

But when they do it, they’re not creating a “climate of hate.” They’re just exercising their free speech.

Their very tactics suggest a reluctance to debate an issue supposedly near and dear to their hearts.  They’d rather make it personal.

If they eschewed such politics of intimidation and focused on making a careful and considered case of state recognition of same-sex partnerships, we may well see more states doing as Washington State has done.

On USA Today‘s homepage today (at 5PM EST), there are three links prominently displayed to articles on the murder Sunday of late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, including one to an article asking if religious conservatives share the blame for his death (not to mention a variety of other subsidiary links).  There are no links to the article on a Muslim convert’s shooting spree at an Arkansas recruiting center in which one soldier, William Long, was killed and another wounded.

As Michelle Malkin documents, this is not the first time military recruitment centers have been targeted.

And it’s not just USA Today which has devoted more attention to the murder of the abortion doctor.  Over at Newsbusters, Amy Ridenour finds there are “14 times more stories about George Tiller in Google News.“  It could be, she speculates (with tongue firmly planed in cheek), because Tiller’s murder occurred 24 hours earlier.

While USA Today wonders if religious conservatives contributed to the murder of Tiller and left-wing bloggers and their MSNBC lickspittle blame O’Reilly for the kiling, one smart young blogger wonders if those very bloggers are to blame for Long’s murder:

Salon, the Huffington Post, and the Daily Kos have already identified Bill O’Reilly as the culprit for abortionist George Tiller’s murder, so I now heap the blame on Keith Olbermann and all of the above mentioned websites and CNN for the shooting at a military recruiting center in Arkansas. . . .

We know that Markos Moulitsas, owner of the Kos, wants those fighting in Iraq and reporting in Iraq to die because he has expressed that opinion himself, and the other liberals have been encouraging the deaths of military recruiters and soldiers just by being against the war and against recruiting.

Read the whole thing.

So, you think USA Today will run an article asking if left-wing bloggers share the blame in Long’s death?  To paraphrase Amy Ridenour who wondered if there would “be approximately 7,000 references to William Long in Google News 24 hours from now,”  Don’t hold your breath.

Based on conversations I’ve had with those close to the leadership of the gay organizations who spearheaded the campaign last fall against Proposition 8 and on what I have read on the web about the “Meet in the Middle” rallies this past weekend, I’d say the prospects look pretty poor for overturning Proposition 8 next fall at the ballot box.

To be sure, a lot could change between now and then.  We haven’t yet seen the wording for the ballot initiative.  The campaign promoting the initiative could include Republicans–or at least those who know how to communicate with Republicans (but based on past experiences, I wouldn’t bet on it).

The problem is threefold:

1. GOP Turnout Will be up in 2010.  Based on tradition patterns for off-year election, Republican turnout should be up in 2010.  Given GOP outrage over the rapid growth in federal spending and the return of big government, conservatives seem particularly emboldened to head to the polls next fall.
2. Left-wing Nature of Campaign to Overturn.  The rhetoric at the Decision Day Rally I attended sounded more like that for a left-wing gathering than for a movement ot win the hearts and minds of centrist and conservative voters.  The leaders of the movement (as it is now constituted) have a background in “progressive” movements, thus are not conditioned to appeal to those they most need to reach.
3. Default Reaction is Voting “No” on Initiatives.  When voters don’t know enough about a particular initiative, they tend to vote “No.”  This could mean a huge chunk of electorate just votes against some measures as if by rote.   Given how much media attention gay marriage attracts, that “chunk” will be much smaller on this issue, maybe 2-3 percentage points, but that could be enough.  Bear in mind that in 2010, unlike 2008, a “Yes” vote would be a vote for gay marriage.

Still, it’s early, way early.  And the leadership of the movement to overturn 8 does have time to address the second issue, the one they can most readily fix.  They should tear a page from Barack Obama’s 2008 general election campaign.  Almost as soon as he wrapped up the Democratic nomination, he began to reverse some of his positions and move to the center as he addressed the concerns of voters in the middle, reassuring them that he would pursue a more centrist path.

Right now, the prospects don’t look good for overturning 8 in ’10.  But, a lot could change in 17 months.

It would happen on a day when I’m running errands and thinking about things other than politics when one of my political heroes says something which shows why I so respect him.

And how wonderful it is that we gay Republicans can in one week hear a man deliver a speech which becomes a rallying cry for conservatives, then barely two weeks later, break ranks with the party on gay marriage.  Rare that we gay conservatives see a man so outspoken on issues near and dear to our hearts.  As most of you know by now, since the news broke while I was away from a computer, in response to a question at the National Press club, the former Vice President said he believed marriage should be a state issue:

And I think that’s the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don’t have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that . . . .

Thank you, Mr. Cheney.

And we know that he has dared speak out because, well, not only he is a smart man, but he’s also a good Dad.  He would likely not have spoken out if he did not have a lesbian daughter.

While gay groups regularly fault Mary Cheney for not being the activist they believe she should be, she, simply by being herself, has done more to advance understanding of gay people.  With her Dad, beloved on the right, publicly expressing his support for a federal approach to same-sex marriage, many conservatives may reconsider their views on same-sex marriage.  After all, they’re more likely to listen to a man they respect than those who insult their political confrères.   Cheney has credibility with the people whom most need to be moved if Prop 8 is to be overturned.

When will gay activists thank Mary for bringing her Dad around on this issue?

In her own quiet way, Mary Cheney has accomplished a lot more than the activists who take to the streets shouting left-wing slogans.  For our part, we say to her, “Thank you”

UPDATED: LAST CHANCE IS NOW. Deadline is June 1 (tonight!) at 9PM Eastern Time… I’ve extended the deadline time.

I can’t believe I am able to do this so quickly after our 2,000,000th visitor. But we are rapidly closing in on 3 million… so it is time for another contest!

I also happened to have accidently purchased two DVD’s of the HBO miniseries John Adams from Amazon. I hit the button twice. But my mistake is your win!

Beginning today and ending on June 1st at 5PM 9PM Eastern Time, I will accept dates and times as to when GayPatriot will get its 3,000,000th unique visitor.  The winner will get a DVD of John Adams.

Remember:  Date & Time. Pithy comments are also welcome, as always.

EMAIL: BRUCE@GAYPATRIOT.ORG

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Due to a number of obligations, I may not be able to blog until later in the day (as in early evening GayPatriot blog time), but before I get to other pressing matters, wanted to throw out two thoughts on unrelated topics.

First, under what authorization is the President spending taxpayer money to invest in/bailout GM?  Doesn’t the Constitution mandate that Congress must approve all federal expenditures? I recall that back in 1979, Jimmy Carter couldn’t unilaterally bailout Chrysler and had to go through Congress, though I recall that ill-fated Democrat asked for far less than his latest incarnation is requesting.

Second, American Elephant offers a great comment to my post wondering if gay Republicans should boycott gay confabs (until they start including us in the program):

One expects, from their name, a group seeking some sort of middle ground. But of course its nothing of the sort, its a group that has no intention of budging an inch from their position.

Not that there’s anything wrong with forming a group to push a political agenda, but its important to note how consistently dishonest they are about everything.

Yeah, how can they expect to “meet in the middle” if they’re not willing to budge one inch from their left-wing rhetoric and with a speakers’ roster that tilts to the left, left even of the left-wing “center” of today’s Democratic party.

Even though the MSM drooled over the Obama’s $24,000 Broadway date to NYC on Saturday, the fact of the matter is the Obama’s are millionaires and they used taxpayer funds to go on the junket.  UPDATE:  Or was it actually $70,000?

In addition, using the website GreenStudentU.com, I have calculated the Obama’s “carbon footprint” for their trip.  I believe this is a VERY conservative estimate.

GreenStudentU estimates that three planes flying to/from DC to NYC used approx 0.4 tons of CO2. This is probably a low estimate as they were private planes and the carbon footprint was spread over fewer people than a commercial airline.

Then I estimated the carbon footprint of at least a 6 car Lincoln Navigator motorcade to/from The White House and Andrews AFB, and then the necessary driving in and around New York City.   Motorcade’s carbon footprint?  0.24 tons of CO2.

Total Obama Broadway Cost To The Environment?  0.63 tons of CO2 for less than a day.  (As a reference, I calculated my home’s carbon footprint for a year:   3.82 tons of CO2 – for a year.)

If you are as furious as I am about the Obama’s carelessly using taxpayer money for a Broadway junket, please sign my petition to ask for the full cost of the trip to be refunded to We, The People.

Thank you for your time.  It will be interesting to see the next stunt that “Ovita” pulls with taxpayer money.  Oh yeah, $30B more today for General Motors — I forgot that.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Perhaps, it’s because most of our readers know us only as guys who blog primarily about politics that they assume politics is all we do.  And sometimes, a lot of news relates to the things we blog about, it sometimes seems that way, to me at least.

And yet, Bruce loves his dogs and is fascinated by the explorations of Lewis & Clark (and I think I do detect a budding interest in NASCAR) while I love mythology, history, movies and literature and am devoted to my nieces and nephews (and wondering why their parents refuse to bring them to Southern California so I can take them to Disneyland).

I had had a whole list of topics I wished to address this wish, from dating to monogamy to acting to writing, family literature and movies that I had wished to address this past week, but because of the press of obligations surrounding the California Supreme Court’s decision on Proposition 8, found myself devoting the better part of last week to topics political and judicial.  Perhaps, it’s the reason I so focused on the Yard Sale later in the week, in my actions as well as my thoughts. It may not have been fascinating per se (as I claimed), but just that it wasn’t politics.

The Yard Sale even gave me a new idea for a screenplay (actually several ideas based on one notion, a buyer finding an intriguing item in a piece of clothing she buys).  So, I played with that idea–as well as several others all weekend.  Of the notes I scribbled, most deal with subjects other than politics, but alas only a few (but definitely more than none) dealt with my much delayed dissertation.

Perhaps because I had just blogged about acting on Friday and participated in a Yard Sale organized by an actress, I have also been thinking much about actors and acting this weekend.  And having watched so many acting friends work so hard for so little reward, I have frequently been impressed with their determination against almost unimaginable odds. (more…)

I’d always admired former House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill for returning to Massachusetts after he stepped down as Speaker of the House.  That move showed that he saw himself as serving the people who first elected to Congress rather than as a part of a permanent Washington establishment.  While an accomplished politicians, politics was not all there was to this very liberal man.

Indeed, the last picture I recall seeing of the Democrat was enjoying a Red Sox game with his grandchildren shortly after his retirement.

I’ve often wondered how many of his fellow partisans follow his example when they lose (or otherwise leave) office.  While the first Republican to succeed O’Neill as Speaker seems to have made the nation’s capital his home, I’ve often thought that a greater percentage of former Republican lawmakers return to their jurisdictions than do Democrats.  It’s just a thought, but given our philosophy that government should play only a limited role in our lives.

But, then again, given how Republicans of late have lost sight of that philosophy, maybe they remain in the nation’s capital, still sucking at the political teat.

It would be interesting to see if anyone had ever studied this.  For now, I’ll just put the thought out there for discussion — and perhaps some diligent reader can google to see if there’s any date to support (or dismiss) my notion.

(BTW, this idea crossed my mind as I was pondering the post which should lead this on the first Monday of June, hence the absence of links and the question mark in the title.  It’s more a question than a conclusion.)