Gay Patriot Header Image

Carly Fiorina Opposed “Stimulus,” Opposes “Card Check”

Earlier today, I had the chance to interview Carly Fiorina on her campaign for the Senate; I expect to devote at least two posts (including this one) to the conversation.

Given that one of my readers had wondered whether the former HP CEO had backed the $787 “stimulus,” that has failed to fulfill its promise to keep unemployment below 8% and so set it on a downward trend, my first question was to address that reader’s concern.  I asked  her if she supported the “stimulus” (as some of Chuck DeVore’s campaign material suggests).  She began her reply with an emphatic, “No.”  She pointed out that she had such as much on Fox and CNN in March.  Her opposition, she reminded me, has been “consistent and on the record.”

She doesn’t believe the “stimulus” attacked the real problem and asserted it wouldn’t create jobs.

When I brought up “card check,” she said she “adamantly” opposed the legislation, adding that she “cannot understand” why anyone would want to undermine the secret ballot in union elections.

Two things most impressed me about the interview.  First, Carly undertands how government regulation impedes innovation in the marketplace and hurts entrepeneurs, preventing employers from creating jobs.  Second, she recognizes the importance of new media, intending to use “technology aggressively” in her campaign.

To be sure, I’m not on board with Carly on every issue.  She, for example, supported Prop 8.  But, I do like the general gist of her campaign:  to use new media to promote conservative reform the federal government and so to promote free enterprise and job creation.

Ignoring Sarah Palin’s Record in Reviewing Her Book?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:33 pm - November 23, 2009.
Filed under: Media Bias,Real Reform,Sarah Palin

Slowly reading Sarah Palin’s book amidst various obligations and amusements (taking a friend to Disneyland yesterday for her birthday), I’ve now completed slightly over half the book, just getting to the part where John McCain’s has announced the successful Alaska reformer as his running mate on the Republican ticket in 2008.

So far I haven’t found any of the whining and “victim-playing” that various left-wingers and Democrats say defines the book, well, that is, unless you count it as whining when a woman addresses inaccurate commentary in the press and sets the record straight by offering facts to contest critics’ allegations and accusations.

As I read her book, I am constantly scribbling notes in the margin (or attacking post-its or other stickies to the page) to identify passages where she so contests those allegations and otherwise discusses her record of bipartisan cooperation and reform.  Given that the AP assigned 11 fact-checker to review this book, I’m assuming that if they didn’t mention a fact in their “fact-check” on the book, it checks out.  I mean, the only “facts” the “news” service brings up are those they contest.

All this means is that there is a lot of information in this book which shows Sarah Palin’s real record as Governor, a record obscured by “journalists” oblivious to her accomplishments.

Did Yahoo! Ever Run Headline Saying Democrat Limited Crowd Interaction?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:30 pm - November 23, 2009.
Filed under: Media Bias,PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome)

Jus’ wondering ’cause this headline now appears on its mainpage: Palin limits crowd interaction at NC’s Fort Bragg.

Carly Fiorina: Mainstream Conservative

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:24 pm - November 23, 2009.
Filed under: 2010 Elections,Blogging,California politics

I enjoy Michelle Malkin’s blog and find that while her rhetoric is sometimes a bit overheated, she always gets her facts right. During the 2008 campaign, for example, when other conservative bloggers breathlessly covered the “Drudge-promoted story of a McCain volunteer claiming to have been attacked by a black man whom she accused of carving a “B” in her face after spotting her McCain bumper sticker“, Michelle refused to jump on the bandwagon, finding from the outset that the story smell “awfully weird.”

Well, today, she gets her facts right in a piece on Carly Fiorina, but makes a very poor comparison, contending that that conservative woman is channeling in “her Dede Scozzafava” when she levels (what Malkin calls) her “strongest argument against DeVore [that he’s] a white man and she’s not.

While I support Carly, I agree that this was not the best argument for her to make.  Fiorina is as much a mainstream conservative as DeVore.  Indeed, to compare the former HP CEO to Scozzafava only shows how different the two women are.   Fiorina opposed the “stimulus” and is against “card check” legislation, two items on the Democratic agenda the New York Republican backed.  On every major issue on which the Californian has offered an opinion, she has shown herself to be in the mainstream of American conservatism, even, alas, in her support for Proposition 8.

No wonder such Senate conservatives as Tom Coburn, Jon Kyl and James Inhofe I have backed her. (more…)

‘Like Nixon But Without the Press Coverage’

So says a reader at Instapundit about the latest revelations regarding the firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin.  The reader’s comment comes in response to Byron York’s reporting today on the Friday info dump by the White House on the brewing AmeriCorps scandal.

The new documents support the Republican investigators’ conclusion that the White House’s explanation for Walpin’s dismissal — that it came after the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, unanimously decided that Walpin must go — was in fact a public story cobbled together after Walpin was fired, not before.

Walpin was axed on the evening of June 10, when he received a call from Norman Eisen, the special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, who told Walpin he had one hour either to resign or be fired.  The next day, congressional Republicans, led by Grassley, objected, charging that Walpin’s dismissal violated a recently-passed law requiring the president to give Congress 30 days’ notice before dismissing an inspector general.

The new documents show the White House scrambling, in the days after the controversy erupted, to put together a public explanation for the firing. On June 11, less than 24 hours after Walpin received the call from Eisen, the board held a conference call.  The next day, Ranit Schmelzer, who is part of the corporation’s press office, sent an email to board members giving them talking points to use if contacted by reporters seeking information about the matter.

I thought Obama was going to be the most “transparent” President?  Yeah, transparently inept, terrible and corrupt.

I wonder….does “Rahm Emmanuel” mean “H.R. Haldeman” in Yiddish?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Why The Global Warming Lies?

I’m glad Dan did a post on “Climategate” earlier this morning.  As usual, he took the words right out of my head.

I wanted to add my thoughts but then got my daily email from the Wall St. Journal Online.  James Taranto sums it up better than I:

What the [Washington] Post describes is not a vigorous debate but an attempt to suppress debate–to politicize the process of scientific inquiry so that it yields a predetermined result.  This does not, in itself, prove the global warmists wrong.  But it raises a glaring question:  If they have the facts on their side, why do they need to resort to tactics of suppression and intimidation?

It makes me think of the SEIU thugs at the Tea Parties this summer… and the Black Panthers in Philadelphia brandishing weapons and blocking voters in November 2008.

As the Joker might say, “Why the intimidation?”

UPDATE: Rand Simberg says this at PajamasMedia…

In fact, when scientists become politicians but continue to pretend to be doing science, that is the real crime. The theory being promoted by these men was being used to justify government actions that would result in greatly diminished future economic growth of the most powerful economy on earth (and the rest of the world as well). It would make it more difficult and less affordable to address any real problems that might be caused in the future by a change in climate, whether due to human activity or other causes. It could impoverish millions in the future, with little actual change in adverse climate effects. And when such a theory has the potential to do so much unjustified harm, and it has a fraudulent basis, who are the real criminals against humanity?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

On the unthinking nature of global warming zealots

Last week, I wrote two posts questioning Newsweek‘s cover story calling global warming crusader Al Gore “a thinking man’s thinking man.”  I held it was wrong to consider him a thinking man because the former Vice President refuses to debate those who contest his theory of anthropogenic global warming.  Not just that, he claims repeatedly that the debate is over, that scientists have reached a consensus in favor of his favorite theory when, in fact, they haven’t.

Wonder how that thinking man is reacting to the e-mails released on Friday showing that some of the leading advocates of his theory had been doctoring the data, perpetrating, in the words of one lawyer who has read those e-mails, “a knowing and deliberate hoax.”

But, if this guys were really such dispassionate fellows, thinking guys, you know, what did they harbor so much animus against scientists who reached different conclusions in studying the same phenomena?  According to the Washington Post, Al Gore’s allies in the scientific community, had “venomous feelings toward skeptics“:

And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain’s Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.

In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

So, instead of putting the work out the questioning academics out there so it can be reviewed and dismissed (which they should easily be able to do if their science doesn’t hold up), they want to suppress it.

Interesting how the Post article, while revealing the tactics of intellectual intimidation practiced by advocates of anthropogenic global warming concludes not with what the revelation of these tactics means for the debate on global warming, but by reverting to norm (as if nothing had changed).  Post writer Juliet Eilperin even ends her article by quoting such advocates who continue to maintain evidence of such warming is “incontrovertible,” therefore, maintaining the only question is what to do.

Um, actually, no, the e-mails reveal that the evidence is not so incontrovertible, indeed, suggests it is very “controvertible.”   Whether Eilperin wants to accept it or not, the status of the debate has changed these past 72 hours.  There is more information available now to buttress the case of global warming skeptics, much of it in the very hand of those who seek to ignore their arguments.

One might better believe those critical of the skeptics if they expressed their criticism through scientific arguments rather than emotional outrbursts (or by attempts to suppress their findings). (more…)

I guess that means the thrill is no longer running up his leg

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:24 am - November 23, 2009.
Filed under: Media Bias,Obama Worship & Indoctrination

CHRIS MATTHEWSObama “Carteresque.”