While David Frum frequently posts intelligent policy pieces advocating conservative reforms and regularly makes thoughtful comments lambasting big-government Democratic initiatives, all too often he buys into the liberal narrative, you know those Administration talking points, about the GOP. One such talking point is that while President Obama reached a hand out to the GOP in an attempt to work with them, Republilcan legislators replied by turning their backs (or spitting in his face).
Yeah, to his credit, after taking office, the President did meet with House Republicans, but the Democrat also retorted, “I won,” when Republicans raised concerns about the cost of the “stimulus.” Democratic intransigence notwithstanding, Frum buys into the Democratic narrative and blames Republicans for Democrats’ unwillingness to compromise. He even blames the Administration’s decision to impose carbon controls by administrative fiat on the GOP’s efforts to block cap and trade. (He fails to mention Democrats from coal-producing states who have raised concern about the regulatory scheme.)
What other conservatives liken to Mafia tactics, Frum ascribes to GOP rejectionism:
The furious rejectionist frenzy of the past 12 months is exacting a terrible price upon Republicans. We’re getting worse and less conservative results out of Washington than we could have negotiated, if we had negotiated.
If we had negotiated? We? Huh? Does anybody seriously believe the Democrats wanted to negotiate? Let’s see, they crafted the “stimulus” package without seeking input from the GOP, then moved heaven and earth to get a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. Just last week, “no Republican lawmakers were on the list of attendees” at the President’s job summit.
Hardly evidence of an Administration eager to compromise. (more…)
In response to the debate in Uganda over legislation that would impose criminal penalties on gays and lesbians living in the African nation, Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of GOProud, has called on the President to speak out:
If the President wants to start earning the Nobel Peace Prize he is accepting, he can start by speaking out against this outrageous Ugandan law. . . . President Obama’s lack of leadership on international human rights issues is appalling. . . From his refusal to confront the radically anti-gay regime in Iran to his refusal to speak out against this proposed Ugandan law – this President’s silence speaks volumes about his priorities.
While the president has been silent about a bill which, in some versions, has even called for the death penalty or life imprisonment for being gay, two Republican leaders have spoken out. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee said she was “deeply saddened and troubled that such blatantly ignorant and hate-filled legislation would see the light of day anywhere in today’s world. It needs to be stopped in its tracks immediately.”
Even Tom Coburn, one of the Senate’s most conservative members has also weighed in:
Over the past two decades, political, religious, and community leaders in Uganda have united to promote a rare, winning strategy against HIV that addresses the unique and common risks of every segment of society. Sadly, some who oppose Uganda’s common sense ABC strategy are using an absurd proposal to execute gays to undermine this coalition and winning strategy. Officials in Uganda should come to their senses and take whatever steps are necessary to withdraw this proposal that will do nothing but harm a winning strategy that is saving lives.
Liberal blogger/activist Michael Petrelis asks that his readers “give the man his due on this matter“. I agree.
Just got another piece of spam from “Equality California” asking:
“How are we going to win marriage back in California?” and “Why do we keep losing at the ballot box?”
Filled with a the same sort of mumbo-jumbo we hear from this left-wing organization, the e-mail was just another (of the all too many) fund-raising solicitations I regularly receive from gay groups. So, I wrote back a hasty response:
Actually, you’ll win when you get a (sic)* leadership at Equality California that is not prejudiced against Republicans.
Wonder if the Advocate will count this as anti-gay and our critics will use this a proof of the oft-repeated slur that gay conservatives are self-hating.
*I typed in haste and included an unnecessary, indefinite article.
It seems that just as soon as I start trying to verifying one story about Kevin Jennings and the conferences he sponsored when at the helm of GLSEN, another one comes along requiring verification. An undated clip on a conservative blog suggests GLSEN hired security to prevent parents from seeing what was going on a conference they sponsored. This appears to date back to 2001, but is it indicative of more recent conferences?
Jim Hoft has been all over a book that was distributed four years later:
The children who attended Kevin Jennnings’ GLSEN 2005 Conference also left with their own “Little Black Book – Queer in the 21st Century”.
While the guide provides helpful information about STD prevention and the perils of drug use, it all but avoids discussing the link between sexual expression and emotional attachment. Not to mention the fact that the repeated use of the word, “queer,” politicizes the whole endeavor. A good many, perhaps even an overwhelming majority of, gay people bristle at being labeled “queer” by overzealous advocates.
Although the booklet does include some essential information, it is entirely inappropriate for teenagers. And not just for the promotion of casual sex without emotional attachment — and even appears to countenance sex in public parks. The guide even provides a list of Boston area bars. Let me repeat that, the booklet that GLSEN distributed to teenagers, high school students, includes a list of gay bars in the Boston area. Now, I went to college in Massachusetts and I recall the drinking age there was 21 and also recall that it was illegal for minors to enter bars.
Doesn’t seem like something to include in a booklet distributed to high school kids, (nearly) all of whom are under 21. (more…)
The Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) best efforts notwithstanding, criticizing the organization does not mean you harbor anti-gay attitudes. If such were the standard, gay bloggers of all different stripes, from Trig truthers (& Obama apologists) to principled leftists to yours truly would all be anti-gay. And while I have not minced my words when talking about the gay auxiliary of the Democratic National Committee the liberal gay rights organization, left-of-center bloggers have used language far more choice than mine to describe HRC.
But, it seems the Advocate editors have drunk the HRC Kool-aid, having headlined their report on the Maine journalist fired for sending an intemperate e-mail to the liberal organization, “Reporter Fired for Antigay E-mail to HRC“. Here’s the text of that e-mail:
Who are the hateful, venom-spewing ones? Hint: Not the yes on 1 crowd. You hateful people have been spreading nothing but vitriol since this campaign began. Good riddance!’”
Hmmm.. . . doesn’t sound anti-gay to me. I’ve heard gay friends (not all Republicans) use equally harsh language (albeit with different words) to describe HRC.
Now, maybe the good folks at HRC think that when Larry Grard (the journalist in question) modified the epithet “hateful people” with the pronoun you, he was referring not to just the recipient of the e-mail, but to all gay people. That would then be mighty presumptuous of HRC to assume they speak for all gay people. They certainly don’t speak for me nor for most readers of this blog nor for countless others American gays, including a good number of left-wing bloggers. (more…)
I believe it was in an e-mail to Bruce sometime in the spring when I saw the first poll of popular sentiment about the newly former President George W.Bush (where that good man, but flawed chief executive saw an uptick in his favorables while the incumbent saw his in decline) that I suggested we have a contest to figure out when those numbers would converge. Well, that day may been soon upon us.
Over at the Atlantic, Chris Good reports: “only half of Americans would rather have President Obama in the White House than his predecessor, while 44 percent would prefer George W. Bush to still be president.”
He cites a Public Policy Polling survey which found:
Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama’s declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they’d rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that’s somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country’s difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited.
If Obama keeps reminding us of the “tough situation he inherited” (as he did again Tuesday), Americans might not think him up to the job. You know, when a new CEO is hired to take over a company with declining revenues, he doesn’t blame the old management, but rolls up his sleeves and figures out how to fix the mess. If he keeps blaming the old management while revenues continue to decline, the board will likely replace him at their next meeting.
Looks like the “board” of this organization is beginning to think more favorably about the old CEO, even though he has gone into a constitutionally mandated (and not entirely unwelcome) retirement. And the Constitution prevents the board from meeting for another three years. Looks like we’re stuck with the whiny CEO.
And his hapless predecessor begins to look better by contrast.
Michael Petrelis informs me that he’s organizing a vigil today, December 10, Human Rights Day from 12 noon – 12:30 PM “for Uganda’s gay community as they struggle to stop homophobic political and religious leaders pushing a draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill.” Gather at the Uganda Lamp Post/Pillar (pictured below), UN Plaza, Market Street, Near 7th Street.
He encourages people to bring placards and rainbow flags.