Gay Patriot Header Image

Looks like the thrill has found its way to Larry King’s leg

Well, the thrill may no longer be running up Chris Matthews’ leg, but over at CNN, his less partisan counterpart, seems to have gotten whatever thrill the MSNBC host lost.  Just got back from doing cardio at the gym and was treated to three-quarters of an hour of breathless coverage of President Obama’s first state dinner honoring India’s Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh.

Sally Quinn, fresh from questioning Sarah Palin’s faith on the O’Reilly Factor and on her blog, was gushing over the First Lady’s dress.  Her eyes lit up and she became animated when Larry King gave her the chance to talk about Mrs. Obama’s wardrobe.   “This is high fashion!”  “What a striking woman!”  “Jackie O has met her match!”

Then, they brought on Neeam Khan, the man who designed the dress for this most divine woman.  “Oh what a gift to humanity you are!” gushed Ms. Sally.  “That you have it within you to clothes worthy of this striking woman!”  “Clearly you must be the first man to design the peplos for the next Panathenaia!”

Wonder if Larry ever so convered a state dinner during the George W. Bush years and if ever brought on the designer of any of Laura’s dresses while having a Republican partisan coo over the excellence of that classy First Lady’s attire.

Chuck DeVore: Misleading Californians about Carly’s Conservatism

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:18 pm - November 24, 2009.
Filed under: 2010 Elections,California politics

Carly Fiorina’s conservatism notwithstanding, Chuck DeVore is bound and determined to make the contest for the opportunity to defeat perhaps the most partisan U.S. Senator one between a conservative and liberal Republican.  To do that, his campaign has had to twist the former HP CEO’s positions so they match those of Dede Scozzafava.

Only problem is that the Carly has made clear she opposes many of the policies DeVore says she supports.  In a press release yesterday, his campaign said, “Carly Fiorina supported the Obama stimulus.” In fact, she made her opposition to that budget-busting boondoggle crystal clear. He says she can’t decide whether or not “she opposes cap-and-tax.” The week she announced for U.S. Senate, she called the bill a “job killer for small businesses [and] farmers.”   Last week, she repeated this description of the legislation on the Kudlow Report, saying she would not vote for the bill.

Look, it’s entirely fair to criticize Carly for the stands she has taken.  I, for example, have taken issue with her for voting for Proposition 8.  But, the DeVore campaign, in its eagerness to make this a liberal versus conservative race, has made claims about their rival that could be dismissed with a couple of keystrokes.  Simply put, they’re not doing their homework.

And while Devore suggests Carly has equivocated on Obamacare, she has said she is “adamantly opposed” to both the House (Pelosi) and Senate (Reid) legislation to overhaul our healthcare system. Indeed, she slammed Barbara Boxer’s vote to open debate on the latter bill, saying that Ma’am “put partisan politics over the interests of the people of California. This $2.5 trillion bill creates a government-run healthcare bureaucracy that will increase taxes and not improve the quality of healthcare for Californians.”  That ain’t no equivocation.

The race for the GOP nomination to take on the spendthrift Mrs. Boxer is not a contest between a mainstream conservative and a liberal Republican, but between two conervatives with different backgrounds and different appeals. (more…)

Obama is no Reagan:
His is a Personal Narrative, the Gipper’s, Philosophical

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:00 pm - November 24, 2009.
Filed under: Conservative Ideas,Obama Watch,Ronald Reagan

On George Eliot’s birthday, Glenn Reynolds linked a Maureen Dowd column which showed that while the New York Times columnist does have a jaundiced view of the GOP, she does at least understand part of Sarah Palin’s appeal, what she calls the “visceral,” her ability to connect with people, a capacity that Barack Obama had on the campaign trail, but appears to be losing in the White House:

He’s a highly intelligent man with a highly functioning West Wing, and he’s likable, but he’s not connecting on the gut level that could help him succeed.

The animating spirit that electrified his political movement has sputtered out. . . .

Like Reagan, Obama is a detached loner with a strong, savvy wife. But unlike Reagan, he doesn’t have the acting skills to project concern about what’s happening to people.

Obama showed a flair for the theatrical during his campaign, and a talent for narrative in his memoir, but he has yet to translate those skills to governing.

Dowd, however, is only half right about the Gipper.  He was able to project concern because he really did care what was happening to the people.  And the animating spirit which electrified his political movement wasn’t just his image but his ideas.

Perhaps, if, like Ronald Reagan, Obama had a knack not just for personal narrative, but also for an ideological/philosophical one, he would not be losing favor with the American people as rapidly as he has while leading his Administration which seems adrfit.  A  “dean in the Beltway foreign-policy establishment” (and lifelong Democrat) called Obama’s latest foreign policy initiative “Amateur Hour at the White House.”  On domestic issues, he seems to have found a rudder not in his own convictions, but with the left-wing congressional leadership.

One liberal pundit claims that the President is now looking to one of his most sucessful forebears for inspiration.  Howard Fineman is right that the incumbent has much in common with the Gipper; both men have a warm public presence and a flair for public speaking.  This comparison, however, only works up to a point.  Even Fineman, with his strong bias against the Gipper’s policies acknowledges, “following Reagan’s script is harder than it looks. It requires an obstinate clarity of message that the current president has not always achieved“.

Reagan, as Jennifer Rubin puts it, “had a firm vision of where he wanted to take the country, and it defied conventional, Beltway wisdom.”   (more…)

Climategate: ‘The Scandal Of The Century’

Clearly, this is the blogosphere-story-of-the-year (if not decade).  It matters not that the Mainstream Media is covering up this scandal, the free-wheeling democratized Internet is getting the information out.

Here’s another great summary from Robert Tracinski at RealClearPolitics:

For more than a decade, we’ve been told that there is a scientific “consensus” that humans are causing global warming, that “the debate is over” and all “legitimate” scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this “consensus” really means. What it means is: the fix is in.

This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It’s the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being “confused” by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.

As I stated on Twitter earlier today… “Can we at least all agree now that Global Warming is a political philosophy and not a scientific enterprise?”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

OFFICIAL: KY Census Worker Committed Suicide,
Not Killed By Right-Wing Extremists

Wow…. it seems that all of the liberal lies are falling apart this week ….

A U.S. Census worker found dead in a secluded Clay County cemetery killed himself but tried to make the death look like a homicide, authorities have concluded.

Bill Sparkman, 51, of London, might have tried to cover the manner of his death to preserve payments under life-insurance polices that he had taken out. The policies wouldn’t pay off if Sparkman committed suicide, state police Capt. Lisa Rudzinski said.

“We believe it was an intentional act on his part to take his own life,” said Rudzinski, who helped lead the investigation.

Bill Sparkman, the census worker found hanged Sept. 12 in a remote patch of Daniel Boone National Forest in Clay County. An autopsy report is pending. Photo courtesy of Corbin Times-Tribune. AP – FILE – In this undated 2008 photo, Bill Sparkman speaks to a 7th grade class during a lesson about sound waves. Authorities have released Sparkman’s body to his family nearly a month after he was found dead with a rope around his neck in rural eastern Kentucky. (AP Photo/The Times-Tribune, File)

Sparkman’s nude body was found Sept. 12 by people visiting the cemetery. There was a rope around his neck tied to a tree, and he had what appeared to be the word “fed” written on his chest in black marker.

You might remember the psychotic Andrew Sullivan’s screech when the death was first reported:

But the most worrying possibility – that this is Southern populist terrorism, whipped up by the GOP and its Fox and talk radio cohorts – remains real. We’ll see.

Will Andrew admit he was wrong and maligned 40% of the USA who self-identifies as conservatives?

Don’t count on it any more than Algore admitting his culpability in the largest world wide hoax and conspiracy ever committed.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Scientists Rejecting Data Due to Faith in Global Warming Creed?

While I have long counted myself as one of the skeptics of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), I don’t believe advocates of the theory invented it out of whole cloth.  Aware of efforts to “seed clouds” and create rainfall, I know human activities can impact the environment  Indeed, the recent snowfall in Beijing was caused by Chinese meteorologists when they sought to end a drought in the Middle Kingdom

If chemicals deliberately released into the atmosphere could create rainfall, then chemicals released into the atmosphere as a byproduct of industrial activities could have similar effects.

But, much as I take the science seriously, I question the zealotry of some advocates of this theory, particularly Al Gore.  Many refuse to debate those who have come to different conclusions, dismissing the scientists offering such views as tools of corporate interests and otherwise insulting skeptics.  And the disclosure of the e-mails from the University of East Anglia reveals that this attitude extends to scientists as well as activists.

With the release of those e-mails, we find Dr. Kenneth Treberth befuddled that “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment“.  He’s confused because the data don’t much the theory, leading Ed Morrissey to wonder if he’s not a scientist, but a believer:

Do scientists use data to test theories, or do they use theories to test data? Scientists will claim the former, but here we have scientists who cling to the theory so tightly that they reject the data.  That’s not science; it’s religious belief.

My skepticism of the theory of AGW arises as much for the zealotry of its followers as it does from the arguments of its critics (and skeptics).  The release of these e-mails only increases my skepticism.  Others believe it is evidence of fraud and have demanded an investigation.

Let’s have that investigation and do so by considering the facts and not calling each other names.

On the Origins of Andrew Sullivan’s PDS

Sometime late last summer shortly after John McCain announced he had tapped Sarah Palin as his running mate, a reader e-mailed me a comment from Andrew Sullivan where that former conservative had kind things to say about the then-Alaska Governor.  “Even Sullivan likes her!” ran the e-mail.*

Soon thereafter not only would he drink the Democratic Kool-aid on Palin, but would become one of the most outspoken critics of this charismatic Republican woman, pushing strange theories about her youngest child.  Yesterday, Ann Althouse, wondered if Andrew “with the same intensity and standards” that he’s “aimed at Palin” would go “through the things Barack Obama has said and written”.

And I wondered if he had gone after Palin with such intensity to make up for the kind things he had once said about that accomplished woman.  He didn’t want it to appear that he was at odds with his post 02/24/04 friends on their villain du jour (well more like villain de la décennie).

You know, what they say about the zeal of a convert.

* (more…)

Carly Fiorina, Katie Couric & the Integrity of New Media

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:56 am - November 24, 2009.
Filed under: Blogging,Integrity,Media Bias,New Media

Perhaps it was because I caught sight of my print-out of Katie Couric’s inteview, with the CBS Anchor’s questions highlighted, after my phone interview yesterday with Carly Fiorina that I linked the two exchanges in my mind.  In both cases, individuals with a bias interviewed accomplished women running for federal office, albeit one (namely myself) has a considerably smaller audience.

That’s not the only difference.  I acknowledge my bias, having put it out there that I’m a conservative blogger who supports Carly Fiorina’s bid for the Republican nomination for the United States Senate. Failing to acknowledge what a comparison of her interviews with the two rival candidates for the Vice Presidency last fall so readily reveals, Miss Couric shows an incredible lack of integrity.

To confirm this hypothesis (my recollection of her tougher questioning of the Republican), I went back and reviewed her interview with the 2008 Democratic nominee for Vice President,* even printing out the transcript (which is incomplete, not reflecting the entirety of the interview, only that which CBS broadcast).  And while, in her interview with Sarah Palin, that left-leaning anchor asked tough questions, sometimes asking the then-Republican Vice-Presidential nominee to defend GOP policies against left-wing talking points, she tossed softballs to Biden.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s entirely appropriate for a “reporter” to ask tough questions of elected officials and those aspiring to elected office.  But, if you’re going to put yourself forward as an even-handed purveyor of the news, then you should be asking tough questions of officials (and candidates) on both sides of the political aisle.  Instead, she asked Biden, “How is it preparing for the debates?”  She didn’t ask him about his views on various issues, only about the campaign itself.  She didn’t ask him to detail legislation Barack Obama supported that might have forestalled the market meltdown last fall.

And she didn’t follow up on any of his lame answers, particularly when he talked about FDR going on television when the market crashed.  (Maybe her knowledge of history was as lacking as Joe’s.) (more…)

Elite Republicans Should Quit Griping About Palin & Remember the Gipper

As I read Dan Riehl’s impassioned plea for Republican elitists to stop denigrating grassroots conservative favorites (like Sarah Palin), I recall how, a few years back, many such elitists of a previous generation had similar concerns about a conservative politician beloved by the grassroots, a man who could communicate his ideas while showing that he understood their concerns.

When he was the Republican nominee for President in 1980, he won 44 states.

Like Dan, I believe we need both the elites and the grassroots.  In his 1980 general election campagin, Ronald Reagan succeeded in bringing the two together, a success which would come to define his political career.  Once in the White house, he tapped smart conservative intellectuals to advise him and serve in his Administration while keeping up his correspondence from a number of people in the heartland, always responding to concerns they raised in their letters.

While Sarah Palin has a long way to go to attain the Gipper’s familiarity with conservative ideas, she does have many of his gifts.   “She,” as Dan notes, echoing something even a number of conservative intellectuals have pointed out, “connects with people to the extent they see her as one of them.”  He reminds those  elites who are skeptical of Sarah Palin that we need someone who can communicate with the American people:

Until elitist Republicans get over this fear they have of the media turning our latest personality into a perceived liability, Republicans and conservatives are never going to be able to reach out into the electorate as broadly as they need to do to win.

As the Gipper well understood, the GOP needed the bluebloods as well as blue collar workers to win.  And today, we need the Charles Krauthammers and John McCains as well as the Rush Limbaughs and Sarah Palins.  It’s not an either/or situation, it’s both/and.

And the sooner we learn that, the quicker we recapture our majorities.