Gay Patriot Header Image

Thank you, Ma’am!

I never thought I’d be grateful for anything my state’s hyper-partisan junior Senator has said or done, but it seems Mrs. Boxer is bound and determined to prevent Obamacare from passing.  According to law professor William A. Jacobson, Ma’am “is proclaiming she has enough votes in the Senate to block the equivalent of the Stupak Amendment from being attached to any Senate health care bill.”

Without the Stupak Amendment, the bill would have lost a number of pro-life Democrats in the House and would not have passed.  I dare say they won’t vote for the final bill without such language. Indeed, one of Ma’am’s own Democratic colleagues, Nebraska’s Ben Nelson told Politico (via his spokesman) that he “could not support anything less than Stupak amendment.

Without the abortion language, a Senate bill to overhaul the nation’s health care system will lose that Democratic vote and all but guarantee a successful Senate filibuster.

So, thank you, Ma’am, your pro-abortion extremism will likely sink Obamacare!

A Friend’s Quixotic Quest for Congress

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:18 pm - November 10, 2009.
Filed under: 2010 Elections,Virginia Politics

At some point, I will have to blog about the consideration I have given to runnig against my big-spending Congressman Henry Waxman, a man who has spent 35 years representing Hollywood while doing nothing to stop the steady drain of entertainment jobs from his district.  Ol’ Henry, like all too many on his side of the aisle, is more concerned with liberal ideology than the issues of his constituency.

Here, however, as in only a handful of districts across the country, including Virginia’s 8th Congressional District, representing the Old Dominion’s close-in suburbs of Washington, D.C., he can get away with it.  For all too many here in Hollywood, like their ideological confrères in our nation’s capital region, liberal politics trumps all else, even box office success.

The ideological makeup of Virginia’s 8th is not deterring my friend Matthew Berry from throwing his hat in the ring against his mean-spirited Representative, Jim Moran.  Matthew announced today the formation of a congressional exploratory committee as he pursues the Republican nomination in that inside-the-Beltway district. He vowed to run a clean office, pointing out that Moran “is currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for his involvement in a scandal involving the PMA Group.”

Importantly, Matthew vows to stand up to a spendthrift Congress:

The federal budget deficit this year is more than $1.4 trillion, over three times the previous record, and under current projections the national debt will grow by over $9 trillion in the next ten years. . . . This Congress is taking the United States down the road to insolvency. During this Congress, the United States has lost over 3.5 million jobs and unemployment is now over 10 percent. . . he performance of the current Congress can be summed up in just ten words: too much debt, too few jobs, and too much spending.

Matthew may know what issues resonate with voters across the country, but inside the Beltway, bigger government means more jobs. For, while the jobs picture remains bleak across the nation, it’s not nearly so bad in the nation’s capital.

All that said, I know Matthew. He’s a smart guy and a principled man who would stand up for fiscal discipline. Congress could use a few more men like him, so I wish him well his quest, quixotic though it may be.

Has anyone ever asked Boxer about her double standards on sexual harassment?

More than eighteen years ago, a Congresswomen from the San Francisco Bay area led a group of her Democratic female House colleagues in marching across Capitol Hill to demand a delay in the confirmation hearings of then-Judge Clarence Thomas.  That woman, a Ma’am Barbara Boxer, was upset because that good man had, in a conversation with a female co-worker, supposedly made references to pubic hairs on a can of Coke and talked about a pornographic movie.

The person, a Miss Anita Hill, leveling those lurid accusations could find no one to corroborate the crime.

Well, seven years later, Ma’am would find herself in the Senate, with a man from her party in the White House.  That man, a Mr. Bill Clinton, would stand accused of sexual indiscretions, all corroborated and all of which, unlike those leveled against Mr. Thomas involved physical contact.  It wasn’t just Monica Lewinsky.  That Democrat groped one woman in the White House while another woman accused him of raping her when he was Attorney General of Arkansas.  Unlike Miss Hill, Juanita Broaddrick had corroborating evidence.

And as this information came out, you’d have expected a woman like Mrs. Boxer, so concerned about a Republican’s supposed boorish conversation would, upon learning of the aggressive actions of the then-President of the United States, have stormed the White House gates.  But, not our Ma’am.  She was silent, never chastised the Democrat, even thanked him after winning reelection in 1998.

Given Ma’am’s obvious double standards, you’d think the media might ask her why she was so upset about a Republican’s conversation, but indifferent to a Democrat’s behavior.

Seems for this woman, partisan politics trumps all else, even the welfare of her fellow females.  And she styles herself a feminist.  Let’s hope that in this era of new media, Ma’am’s constituents learn of her double standards and her partisan zealotry.  The MSM certainly hasn’t done its job about telling the truth of this hypocrite.

Sexual Fascism

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:15 pm - November 10, 2009.
Filed under: Liberal Hypocrisy,Sex Difference

Jonah Goldberg could find inspiration in Anne Moir and David Jessel’s Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women for a sequel to his book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change.

The problem is that it is the apostles of sexual sameness who set the agenda; they would enact the laws and ban the books in a vain attempt to divert children from their natural sexual identities.  But the idea that we are all born with a clean slate of mine, a tabula rasa, ready for society to print its message upon, is a totalitarian’s dream.  And if, after all, we are what we are because of our biology, is it not as monstrous and hopeless a task to eliminate our differences as it was to create a master race?  There is a disturbing whiff of sexual fascism in the premises and prescriptions of those who advocate sexual neutrality.

How about calling this tome Sexual Fascism:  The Secret History of Feminism, from the Social Construction of Gender to Gloria Steinem’s Defense of Bill Clinton’s Philandering?

Obama’s New Kind of Politics: All Politics, All the Time

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:46 am - November 10, 2009.
Filed under: Liberal Hypocrisy,Obama Watch

For all Obama’s noble-sounding campaign rhetoric about how he’s a post-partisan kind of leader offering a new kind of politics, he has emerged as perhaps the most partisan of presidents, offering the same old kind of politics, practiced for decades in the City of Chicago based on an art first perfected in Tammany Hall.

He didn’t bring people into the White House versed in the art of political compromise and civil discourse, but instead individuals who cut their teeth in the rough and tumble of partisan politics.  In July, Michael Barone observed that most “of Obama’s top White House staffers are politics operatives, not policy wonks.”  Just this week, linking a column which build on Barone’s point, Michelle Malkin called Obama’s policy “the Perpetual Campaign.

In that column, Dan Gerstein offered

This was meant to be an innocuous bit of inside baseball touting Gaspard’s labor roots and progressive bona fides. But it wound up revealing the Obama White House’s biggest weakness: The president’s top advisers are not just overly political, they are almost totally political. Indeed, this West Wing is stacked with “hacks”–campaign professionals who are acculturated to think, act and win in the hothouse environments of elections, not to govern a bitterly divided country in extremely difficult times.

. . . . .

Now, new presidents always bring trusted campaign advisers into their administrations. But they usually mix them with a range of serious governing professionals, who come with a very different ethos, to balance out the politicos and bring diverse perspectives into the presidential inner circle. This White House is disproportionately different. But Obama’s West Wing is devoid of governing wise men (think Leon Panetta forBill Clinton, James Baker for the first George Bush and Clark Clifford for multiple Democrats). It is stocked almost exclusively with political pros and a handful of Friends of Barack whose main and often dominant frame of reference is partisan or personal.

After spelling out the partisan pedigree of various Obama staffers, Gerstein points out what’s missing.

What’s missing from this group, besides diversity of experience and interests, is a senior adviser or two with an independent point of view who could carry Obama’s post-partisan portfolio. Someone who would wake up every day thinking about how to form broad-based coalitions, (more…)