Something tells me the media will not pay as much heed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s mean-spirited swipe at Americans opposed to the President’s health care plan, including many Nevadans, as they did to then-Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott’s 2002 suggestion we’d all be better off had Strom Thurmond, running on a segregationist platform in 1948, won the White House.

At the time, the media made much of Lott’s insensitive comment.  And conservatives, doing the right thing, rose up demanding his ouster as Senate GOP Leader.  Lott acceded to their demands.

So, will media take Reid to task for calling townhall protesters “evil-mongers“?

(I grant the Lott comparison isn’t perfect, but it is closest comparison–a Senate Leader making a comment denigrating a class of Americans.)

Let’s watch the President’s celebrated comment on the success of private sector package delivery services as compared to the flailing public option so we can put his remarks in context:

He’s trying to tell us that a public option won’t crowd out the private providers already there.  But, that’s not what we learn by studying this example.  His comparison show much more effective the private options are and betrays a limited understanding of the industries he’s comparing.

Let me explain.  In the world of parcel delivery, FedEx and UPS were created long after the Postal Service, that is, the public “option” preceded the private ones.   According to the Post Office’s website, it was founded in 1775, with the appointment of Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General.  By contrast, the forerunners of the companies which would eventually be known as UPS and FedEx were founded in 1907 and 1913 respectively.

In the health care arena, however, the President is proposing the exact opposite, a new public option created long after the private ones.

And those two companies have grown in large part due to disatisfaction with the Postal Service.  And today, while the private companies are, in the president’s words, doing “just fine,” the public one is “having problems.”

That is, the very creation–and marketplace success–of these companies was due to resourceful individuals, on their own, meeting a need the government-backed industry could not fulfill.  Over the years, as the federal government has relaxed some (but not all) restrictions on the postal service’s monopoly on parcel delivery, these companies (and other package delivery services) have continued to find new markets, improving delivery across the country and earning profits for their shareholders.

Were Pesident Obama to apply the lesson of the success of FedEx and UPS to the health care industry, he would advocate the kinds of deregulation that facilitate the entry of new private companies into the market for health insurance.

In recent days, against my better judgment perhaps, I have spent a good deal of time perusing the comments section to our posts.  And I found that no matter how many facts you offer to counter the assumptions certain critics make about the GOP, Republicans in general and the people protesting the President’s proposed health care overalls at townhalls across the country, they still hold to their narrow view of the GOP.

It’s long since time to call these people what they are:  prejudiced.  According to Merriam-Webster’s, a prejudice is a

2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

All these apply to some of our critics.  We say that the protesters are a diverse lot, they define them by the most extreme membes and focus on a supposedly compromised organizer.  We say we have legitimate concerns about the president’s health care plan, they tell us we’re astroturfing tools of the insurance lobby.  We make arguments against health care, they call us racists, suggest we are Nazi sympathizers or call us “evil-mongers.“*

This is not to say all those who criticize Republican ideas are prejudiced.  Many, if not most, are not.  It’s not that they criticize us (and our ideas), it’s how they see us.  While my junior Senator is clearly prejudiced against Republicans, her senior colleague, with a similar voting record, is not.

If they make judgments about us based on their perceptions rather than the facts, then they are prejudiced.  If they manifest an”irrational hostilty” against us because of our affiliation with the GOP or our stand on certain issues, then they are prejudiced.

But, if they hold a different opinion than we do, but do not denigrate us for our difference, then they merely hold a different opinion.  Why, I wonder yet again, do so many assume the worst about those who hold a different opinion than they do?

* (more…)

It is all but impossible to attend a gay confab without the leaders touting their commitment to diversity, singing paeans to the ideal of diversity or apologizing for not being diverse enough.   And sure enough, at most such confabs, you’ll see that there are representatives from a great variety of gay interest groups, from transgender activists to spokespeople of associations of any number of ethnic groups.

One group which you almost never see represented is Republicans even as GOP candidates continue to win a greater share of the gay vote.

And given how Republicans have overwhelming opposed state recognition of same-sex marriage, you’d think that gay activists would want to target this demographic as a source of support for their initiatives.  After all, if it was the failure of their outreach efforts which caused voters to approve Prop 8 last fall, they failed most spectacularly among Republicans.

Indeed, the Golden State’s leading gay activist group, Equality California, routinely touts its commitment to diversity with its Executive Director Geoff Kors boasting yesterday that “18 [recently-hired] field organizers that reflect the diversity of California.”  Actually, they don’t.  In a state where 34.3% of registered voters identify as Republicans, representatives of the EqCA could not identify a single Republican among those new hires.  If they were truly committed to diversity, they would have made sure to include Republicans among their supposedly diverse cadre of field organizers,

In response to my query about the number of Republicans in this number, Jay Davis, EqCA “Online Community Director” wrote,

We don’t have an exact number of our field organizers who are Republicans. We don’t ask about political affiliation when we hire. I can say, having met all of our organizers, that they represent a number of different points of view.

While they say their field organizers reflect the diversity of the state, they also say they’re not interested in political diversity. (more…)

Awesome.

(click here for full view of letter)

Dear President Obama:

I write you today simply to ask two questions about the new White House program to monitor information released about the proposed health care reform:

1 – How will the “fishy” information collected via flag@whitehouse.gov be used?

2 – Will the people who are flagged as “fishy” be made aware that they’ve been reported?

The debate about proposed health care reform has become heated over the past months.  I cannot see how this debate can be advanced in a productive manner if people can no longer speak freely without fear that they may be reported to the White House. The privacy of those who are reported could potentially be put in jeopardy, as email addresses, IP addresses and other identifying information will undoubtedly be forwarded along — perhaps without the author’s knowledge.

I look forward to your reply to my questions and hope that you will take to heart the concerns fo the American people over this program.

Sincerely,

Sue Myrick
Member of Congress

Barack Obama, on the other hand, gives the strong impression that his religion is strictly of the photo-op variety, assumed for political purposes, and that he worships not at an altar but at a mirror.

John Steele Gordon

The Fed/CNN/DC elite join with the archangels and proclaim loudly today “the worst is over!”

All Hail Obama! (on CNN’s FRONT homepage)

The Federal Reserve said Wednesday it appears that the U.S. economy has halted the longest period of decline since the Great Depression, although it cautioned that economic activity is likely to remain weak in the near term.

Meanwhile, out in the real world… we know differently:

Retail sales disappointed in July and the number of newly laid-off Americans filing claims for unemployment benefits rose unexpectedly last week. The latest government reports reinforced concerns about how quickly consumers will be able to contribute to a broad economic recovery.

“There is really no positive spin to put on these numbers,” Jennifer Lee, an economist with BMO Capital Markets, wrote in a research note. “The U.S. consumer remains very weak. The jobs situation, while slowly improving, is still dismal.”

And this item is buried wayyyyy back in the CNN Money section:

Two key reports Thursday showed one thing: happy days are not here again for American consumers.

Retail sales fell in July after two straight months of gains, the government reported Thursday, a drop that surprised economists. Without car sales from the “Cash for Clunkers,” the numbers would have been even worse.

And Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, reported an unexpected decline in its key measure of U.S. sales.

“From a consumer finance position, people are still struggling,” said Scott Hoyt, senior director of consumer economics for Moody’s Economy.com. “Wages have fallen from the previous year and consumers don’t [still] have alternative sources of cash.”

Yes, all hail.  You know, those Obama hailstones are really starting to hurt.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In the course of the debate on health care, we should bear in mind these three public comments made by the two Democrats holding two of the (three) highest constitutional offices in the United States of America.

First, the President:

But there is no doubt that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments.

Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.

Third Presidential Debate, October 15, 2008

UPS and FedEx are doing just fine . . . . it’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.

Portsmouth, New Hampshire, August 11, 2009

Now, the Speaker of the House:

The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.

November 8, 2006

I have Yahoo! as my home page on my Safari browser, largely to make sure I always see a “mainstream” source of news, even on my busiest days.  More often than not, I discover a left-leaning article leading the news, with headlines almost always more favorable to the Democrats than Republicans.  But, oftentimes, they do link fascinating articles about astronomy or archeology.  And sometimes, they’ll surprise us by linking an article which paints conservatives in a favorable light.

As I was checking the news before bed Wednesday night, I was delighted to discover an article which painted an unbiased picture of some of the people in Pennsylvania protesting ObamacCare.  At first, I thought, the article, Just who are these health care protesters?, would make them out to be mind-numbed robots, mesmerized by talk radio or paid and bussed in by insurance companies, but instead well, they found a diverse crowd.

Reporter Erica Werner reported from State College, Pennsylvania where she reported on a crowd gathering at a town hall for Pennsylvania Democrat Arlen Specter.  She did note that the central Pennsylvania crowd was “white, conservative and working class” which she did not note pretty much reflects the demographics of the region.  (Yes, I know PennState is in the area, but I’m referring to the broad demographic of the region.)

Yet, while pointing out that yes, indeed, some were drawn by talk radio, she also focuses on an actual couple:

Instead, the Snyders and many Americans like them are adding their voices to a populist backlash evident in the taunts, jeers and rants at lawmakers’ health care forums around the country in the past week and a half. The contentious sessions highlight the difficulty for President Barack Obama and the Democrats as they push for a comprehensive remaking of the nation’s health care system.

Many of those raising their voices and fists at the town halls have never been politically active. Their frustration was born earlier this year with government bailouts and big spending bills, then found an outlet in the anti-tax Tea Parties in April and has simmered in the punishing recession.

While she does seem to reduce the activism of those portrayed to “taunts, jeers and rants,” Werner does report the couple’s genuine concerns in a broadly favorable manner.  And when she points out that some of the opposition is organized, she notes that, well,  so is some of the support:

There is an element of organized opposition, just as on the other side unions and Obama’s political organization are trying to turn out supporters to town halls and other events.

Indeed, she compares the movement to that which fueled Obama’s election:

The emerging protest movement is almost the mirror image of the grass-roots campaign that helped sweep Obama into office by pulling in people who’d never been politically active. This time Obama is seeing the other side of what can happen when people are motivated, connect over the Internet and seemingly reach a tipping point that turns them from onlookers into activists.

Guess, then, if those protesting the President’s policies are astroturf, so too were the rallies for Obama.  As the activism increases, so too does opposition to the President’s policies increase in the polls–as did support for Obama.

Looks like some Democrats owe these protesters an apology. (more…)

For once, I agree with the leaders of “Equality California.”  In an e-mail today its Executive Director, Geoff Kors, after conducting outreach among various communities and listening to their members and supporters, wrote in an e-mail to its listserv that his group has decided to push off a ballot initiative to repeal Prop 8 until 2012.

After reviewing all the information, research and feedback from our coalition partners and the community-at-large and in view of our aggressive determination and dedication to win marriage back as soon as possible, we support committing our energy, resources and leadership to helping the community win a ballot initiative to restore marriage at the November 2012 election.

I think they’re very smart to wait for many of the reasons Kors outlines in his e-mail, including the time needed to organize, the expected demographics of the 2010 turnout.

Still, the one thing he doesn’t address (because if it did, it would require him to resign) is the needed leadership change of the various California groups which worked last fall to defeat Proposition 8 and would likely be spearheading the efforts to pass an initiative designed to repeal that Proposition.

While they’ve “met with the leadership of LGBT organizations that work in communities of color to find out what they think it will take to carry out a strategic effort to move voters in their communities,” there is no evidence from Kors’s letter (or my own research and observation) to indicate that hs group-or any other working to repeal Prop 8-has reached out to Republicans.  Indeed, when I called Vaishalee Raja, their Communications Director, she did not know what percentage of the newly-hired “18 field organizers that reflect the diversity of California” included any Republicans.

Given that 34.3% of Golden State voters are registered Republicans, 18 field organizers reflecting the diversity of the state would include six Republicans. (more…)

When I read that citizens in Maine were seeking to gather signatures to overturn the legislation passed by the elected representatives of the people of the Pine Tree State to recognize same-sex marriage, I hoped they would not gather the 55,087 signatures needed to place a “people’s veto” on the state ballot.  It did seem a large amount of signatures to gather in a state so small.  But, last month, leaders of the Stand for Marriage, a “coalition of Mainers who support the traditional definition of marriage” “delivered a stack of cartons holding petitions with more than 100,000 signatures to the Secretary of State’s office.”

While I believe the appropriate means for opponents would be the traditional republican method, working to defeat those representatives who voted for the legislation at the ballot box, these opponents have acted within the framework established by the state’s constitution.  That said, these folks have less to grouse about than did supporters of California’s Proposition 8.  The law recognizing gay marriage was passed by an elected legislature, signed by an elected governor, in a state which had never previously voted on the issue.

it was not as if courts had overturned the popular will.

All that said, 100,000 is a lot of signatures to gather in three months.  It shows that the Stand for Marriage folks have a good grassroots effort which will help them significantly this fall.  Without a marquee race (like President or Governor) on the state ballot, this referendum will hinge on turnout.

That is why it is imperative that those spearheading the movement to veto the people’s veto not repeat the mistakes made by the folks behind the “No on 8″ effort last fall in the Golden State.  (more…)

Peruse the left-wing web-sites and you’ll see them making much of the “mean signs” and associated right-wing extremists at the various protests against the Democratic health care overhaul.

Lately, they’ve been dwelling on gun-toting William Kostric who showed up outside the President’s “townhall” meeting yesterday in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, with Chris Matthews even inviting him onto his MSNBC show “Hardball.”  While conservatives denounce the guy as “nuts,” the left is determined to portray him as representative of the right.

Okay, fine, I’ll play that game.  If they believe that extremist is representative of the GOP, then anti-gay nutbag and Democrat Fred Phelps is representative of the President’s party.

There are kooks on both sides, but somehow all too many liberal pundits and left-wing bloggers see such nutcases as representative of the GOP (and conservatives in general), but as aberrations on the left.

If there’s one expression which explains the hysterical reaction of Democrats and their allies among left-wing bloggers and the liberal punditry to the growing grassroots protests against President Obama’s plans to increase the size of the government and limit our freedom, it’s the opening line of a recent Michelle Malkin column, “The activist Left can’t stand competition.“  It’s as if they believe they have a monopoly on protest and patriotic dissent.

When Obama won last fall, with increased Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, they thought that the demoralized would just roll over and play dead.  They did not expect nor do they get that Republicans and allied independents would express their frustration — and fears– about Democratic proposals as they have, by taking to the streets.  Only left-wingers, er, progressives, do that.  That’s how it’s been since the 1960s.  Hence, their need to discredit, denigrate and demonize what they do not understand.

But, they should understand these gatherings, indeed, the Obama team should understand their frustration better than most, given how their candidate was at pains, during the campaign, to plea for fiscal prudence in the wake of Bush Administration profligacy, promising a line-by-line review of the federal budget and a “net spending cut.”  It is the concern about the growing size of the federal government which, as Michael Barone writes today, which has become “the battle-line issue“:

And the tea party and health care protesters, in their often unsophisticated way, are raising an issue that seems to have become central to our politics: Should we vastly increase the size and scope of the federal government?

By suggesting in the campaign that he too was concerned about the growing size of the federal government, Obama helped convince wavering independents and even some Republicans upset about then-President George W. Bush’s failure to hold the line on domestic spending, to pull the lever for the Democrat.

Perhaps, the Obama team thought they could get away with this masquerade, that once elected, they could remove their masks, knowing that small government types aren’t likely to protest as do their statist, er, progressive, counterparts.  They forget that it was people protesting an intrusive national government which led to the birth of this nation.

We’re just following in the footsteps of those who tossed tea into Boston Harbor.

Although having no remorse for supporting Barack Obama, Camille Paglia still manages to confess her “dismay bordering on horror at the amateurism of the White House apparatus for domestic policy“:

There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama’s aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.

. . . .

I just don’t get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.

. . . .

Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government. It isn’t conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it’s the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves.

Emphasis added.

In her post where she also skewers House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Paglia offers little love for the GOP.  As with anything by Paglia just read the whole thing.

She gets at the essence of the opposition.  With the Administration handling this in a ham-handed, haphazard manner, people fear they are being left out of an overhaul of a sector of society with which they are, by and large, satisfied.  Not just that, this reform is coming from a man, who as presidential candidate promised a new era of transparency, but is relying on back room deals and lobbyist support to craft the health care reform bill.

Paglia is right (and wise) to note that no final bill exists.  If Obama wishes to be true to the platform on which he ran, he will request that Congress recess once the final bill has been drafted and posted on the internet.  He would ask each Representative and Senator to hold townhall meetings advertised at least two weeks in advance to all their constituents.  In short, they wouldn’t vote on final passage until they’ve discussed the bill with the people they were elected to serve.

Yes, this will take a bit of time, but it is a major industry overhaul with far-reaching consequences.

Serving his last term in the United States Senate, Pennsylvania opportunist Arlen Specter observes, “There is more anger in America today than at any time I can remember.”

This might have something to with it–brought to us by a President who promised “a net spending cut,” but keeps proposing new ways to spend the people’s money (as well as that their children and grandchildren have yet to earn) and regulate their lives:

Two of our readers, Leah and JuJu, attended the townhall Congressman Adam Schiff (D-California) held last night in Alhambra on health care.  Each had a different take on the turnout with Leah saying it was 3-4,000, but JuJu counting about half that.

Leah thought that roughly 60% of those there supported the President’s plan, yet notes “Looked like unions brought people in for the pro side. They had printed signs, our side was all handmade.”*  Seems to be a common theme of the sign.  Even the pro-ObamaCare signs saying “mean things” were pre-printed.  Hmmm. . . . and which one counts as Astroturf?

Congressman Schiff had assembled a panel of six to discuss health care reform.  All six, as Leah put it, extolled “the virtues of the plan; no one had anything negative to say about the plan. It was simply propaganda for the obamacare plan.”  Interesting that this Democrat didn’t include any critics.  Wonder if he’s even aware of what the serious critics have to say.

All the questions were filtered through a mediator, with some read from what people had written in.

Here are some of Leah’s pictures.  Interesting to note how many of these folks wore T-shirts and tank tops.  None seemed clad in Brooks Brothers attire.  Wonder if Ma’am Boxer will now consider her constituents’ concerns legitimate.  I mean, if they were well-dressed, they couldn’t have been sincere.

*This corresponds to what W.C.Varones observed at Democratic San Diego Rep Sue Davis’s “Townhall”:

So this is a “town hall” in Susan Davis’ idea of democracy.

Her “town hall,” which was kept secret from her constituents and the public until this morning (and even then advertised only to sympathetic groups), somehow managed to attract hundreds of Obama supporters with oddly identical pre-printed sign.

Glenn, who linked the above, offers, “I can see the appeal of a friendly crowd, but what does this really accomplish? Maybe a bit of positive local media, but just as likely some negative stuff as people complain. Is it just about protecting politicians’ fragile egos?”

A clever protestor at the Alhambra Townhall.

(Via Reader Leah.)

Wonder if Julia Hall, daughter of Obama supporter Kathleen Manning Hall, was referring to signs like these when she asked President Obama about those signs saying “mean things“:

Received this from our reader Juju who snapped it outside Congressman Adam Schiff’s Townhall in Alhambra.  Commenting on the competing protest, she writes:

Nearly all of the signs of the Obots were pre-printed. They were handed out as union members filed in.

The signs of the conservatives were all homemade and much more creative.

Maybe creativity is a reflection of enthusiasm?

Signs handed out as union members filed in.  Hmmm . . . .  sounds like astroturf to me.

His drag career went bust.

Maybe that’s why the unhappy Congressman is so mean-spirited.  He just doesn’t look good in a dress.

(H/t Attila the Honey (potential blogress diva?) via the People’s Cube.)

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Jana writes, “Too bad he beclowns himself in a far more humiliating manner every day.”

Peeling away the name-calling we have experienced since we first started blogging nearly five years ago, the two most juvenile lines of attack involve those who rant and rave at us for not blogging about the issues they believe we should be addressing and those who dismiss our concerns as mere posturing or pandering.

As to the former criticism, it’s always amusing when some angry gay reader e-mails (or otherwise messages me) asking why I didn’t blog on this or that topic as have several other gay blogs.  Such readers don’t realize that the answer to their attack is in the criticism itself–other gay bloggers have already addressed the issue; we try to address issues which such blogs do not consider.

As to the second, it has come most to the fore in recent days, as it seems part of the lead Democratic talking point on demonizing their adversaries, we’re just astoturf, tools of corrupt corporate interests.  Indeed, just look at how one of our regular critics takes me to task:

Its amazing how Rick Scott happened to have an email of town hall sites on a nice spreadsheet isn’t it? Amazing how his hands’s keep turning up in these protests.  But instead of looking into this and see how your “movement” is being used, you instead play your usual victim card and talk about how unfair it all is.

GPW have you even looked into this? Does it give you pause? Or don’t you care that you are being used by a guy who has made millions defrauding our current system?

If we applied the standards this critic uses to measure the right to the left, they would easily exceed the baseline definition for Astroturfing.

I hadn’t heard of this Rick Scott fellow until left-wing bloggers brought him up–nor would I daresay have 99% of those protesting the President’s health care plans.  Most have legitimate objections to the plan, some concerned they’ll lose the coverage they now have, others aware of the problems created by increased government involvement.

In rebutting this critic, GoCon offered simply that Scott “is not using us, we are using him.”  Perhaps, this guy is as corrupt as left-wingers suggest, but then, so what?   Every political movement, even Mr. Obama’s, has its share of unsavory characters.   And note, this guy is  not running for office, just helping organize efforts to defeat a statist proposal.  How would liberals react if conservatives uncovered a corrupt official on Obama’s side and attempted to define the health care overhaul proponents by him (or her)?

Are the union thugs who beat up Kenneth Gladney representative of the organized support for the President’s plan? (more…)