Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama’s Leadership Fail

Back when I was a lad, every summer our family loaded up the Chevy Suburban (or Ford Van which replaced it) and headed West or Northeast for a camping trip.  One year, we visited Wyoming, Montana and Alberta.  After hiking i Yellowstone National Park, our parents planned to take us to Montana’s Bob Marshall Wilderness, but one of my younger brothers took ill. They changed the plans, we headed to Great Falls to seek medical attention.

A visit to a doctor and a few days rest at a local Holiday Inn and soon my brother was back to normal.

The lesson of this anecdote should be familiar to anyone who has found himself in a position of responsibility.  When the circumstances change, you need to change your plans.  My parents recognized that with my brother’s illness, we could not continue the trip as planned.

So too should Obama recognize that with increasing evidence of a growing terror threat and continuing uncertainty about the economy, he has to turn his attention from regulatory schemes like health care and cap and trade and focus on jobs and national security.

Sometimes, I wonder if the president pushed through such a massive “stimulus” at the outset of his Administration, assuming that releasing so much cash would be certain to create jobs.  The economy would pick up, allowing Democrats to focus on their pet big-government projects.

But, things didn’t work out as planned.

That’s why this Democrat needs to learn from FDR.  Had it not been for the wars in Europe and the Far East, had that Democrat bid for a third term in 1940, he likely would have lost the presidential contest that fall, to be known to history as an inspiring failure.  But, as the threat to Western Civilization grew, he pivoted to meet the emerging challenges.  Magazine covers notwithstanding, the latest Democrat to occupy the White House shows few signs of following in his illustrious predecessor’s footsteps.

The “stimulus” hasn’t worked.  He needs develop new and different programs to increase employment.

His national security team offered a ham-handed response to the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253.  He needs shake up that team and devote greater attention to the terrorist threat.   Obama, as Rudy Giuliani contends, may have “turned the corner” in his understanding of that threat, but he needs show that he has made countering it a priority. (more…)

Could GOP Flip the Senate in November?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:10 pm - January 8, 2010.
Filed under: 2010 Elections

When I read Charlie Cook’s assessment of the 201o electoral landscape (via Jim Geraghty), I wondered if Republicans could win the Senate back 10 months hence:

Come November, Senate Democrats’ 60-vote supermajority is toast. It is difficult, if not impossible, to see how Democrats could lose the Senate this year. But they have a 50-50 chance of ending up with fewer than 55 seats in the next Congress.

Difficult, possibly impossible for Democrats to lose the Senate.  But, at this point thirty years ago, no one was talking about the GOP winning the Senate, but riding Reagan’s coattails, 12 Republicans were elected in states previously represented by Republicans.

I looked at the 18 Democratic seats up this fall and realized that while it was unlikely the GOP could recapture the Senate, it is possible should the GOP recruit or nominate strong candidates against seven incumbents and in one seat made open this week (Connecticut).

First, let’s look at the seats that are out of  play, the three unbeatable Democrats, alas that two (New York’s Schumer and Vermont’s Leahy) are among the Senate’s most obnoxious partisans.  The other, Hawai’i’s Daniel Inouye, turns 86 this fall.  If he should retire, Governor Lingle might have a chance should she throw her hat in the ring.  But, the eight-term incumbent has given no indication that he intends to step down.

Then, let’s look at the bright side, the four likely GOP pickups, Arkansas, Nevada, North Dakota and Pennsylvania.  In a subsequent post, I will detail how I have become more bullish on the Keystone State in the past few days.

Now, we move to the two tossups which lean Republican Delaware (because of Mike Castle’s popularity) and Colorado.  That brings us to 46.  With a good campaign, Mark Kirk should flip the Land of Lincoln.  Recall that in Democratic year (’06 and ’08), he held a seat which Obama won by a margin nearly identical to his statewide margin.  Kirk’s is a suburban seat and the Chicago suburbs shift to the Democrats in recent years accounts for their dominance in the state.  The ’09 elections showed Republicans doing well in Northeastern suburbs.  Should they extend that to the Midwest, a Republican win easily win the seat once held by the president.

Should Carly Fiorina win the GOP primary and raise $25 million, she will certainly give Ma’am a run for her money.  The state economy should put voters in a throw-the bums-out mood.  That brings us to 48 (presuming no GOP losses). (more…)

Obamanomics in Action: More Job Losses

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:18 pm - January 8, 2010.
Filed under: Economy

Remember now nearly a year when the newly inaugurated president and his fellow partisans in Congress were lecturing us on the need to act swiftly and pass a multi-hundred trillion dollar stimulus to prevent future job losses?

Well, it’s been nearly 11 months since Obama signed said legislation–and approximately six since the Democrat promised us unemployment would peak at less than 8% and today we learn that unemployment remains at 10% with employers continuing to lay off employees:

Lack of confidence in the economic recovery led employers to shed a more-than-expected 85,000 net jobs in December even as the unemployment rate held at 10 percent. The rate would have been higher if more people had been looking for work instead of leaving the labor force because they can’t find jobs.

The sharp drop in the work force — 661,000 fewer people — showed that more of the jobless are giving up.

Guess they’re giving up because they don’t have much confidence that there will be jobs available.   Seems the president need develop a plan which will hope enterprises which create jobs to do just that.

But, I don’t think increasing the burdens on small businesses with his massive health care overhaul will make it any easier for employers to innovate and expand.

Reporting From The Tundra

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Knocking Down The Liberal Lie About Islamic Terrorism

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 9:40 am - January 8, 2010.
Filed under: Post 9-11 America

The typical lie that liberals present to “really defeat” terrorism is this: “If we stop the poverty, famine and despair of Muslim youth, they will stop blowing us up.”  This line of crap specifically comes from one of American’s chief Islamic terror apologist groups – CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations)

Enough of this bull Can someone please name one Muslim terrorist who was impoverished, starving, poor or underprivileged??

The 9/11 crew gambled in Vegas and hired whores.  The London transit bombers were living in the UK and were not poor.  And our buddy, The Crotch Bomber, comes from a very wealthy family.

So enough. This is an idelogical and political war launched against the Western liberal democracies.  Unless we come to grips with the facts, more Americans will die at the hands of wealthy Islamic terrorists.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Gay Conservatives Come Out

Posted by LibertyDC at 7:29 am - January 8, 2010.
Filed under: Post 9-11 America

This week I was pleased to write an op ed explaining GOProud’s sponsorship of CPAC in Metro Weekly. The op ed can be found here and below.

In mid-February thousands of conservatives will descend on D.C. for the annual Conservative Political Action Conference — better known as CPAC — the premiere political event for conservative leaders and activists. CPAC sponsors represent the broad spectrum of conservatives and libertarians: economic conservatives, foreign policy conservatives, social conservatives and traditional libertarian groups. This year, gay conservatives will have also have a voice at CPAC thanks to GOProud.

This isn’t the first time a gay group has sponsored CPAC. In 2005, as political director for Log Cabin Republicans, I worked hard to secure Log Cabin’s sponsorship of CPAC. While Log Cabin’s current leadership, and indeed the leadership that preceded it, no longer considers CPAC a worthwhile investment, we at GOProud feel strongly that it is.

For years, gay men and women have been told the importance of coming out to friends, family and colleagues. Indeed, according to poll after poll, it’s one of the most important things you can do because one of the largest factors in determining how an individual feels about gays and lesbians is whether they personally know someone who is gay or lesbian.

According to a May 2009 Gallup poll, a plurality (49 percent) of those who personally know someone who is gay or lesbian support legalized same-sex marriage, while 72 percent of those who do not personally know someone who is gay oppose it.

Conservatives, who oppose same-sex marriage at a significantly higher rate than liberals, also are far less likely to know someone who is gay. According to the same poll, 71 percent of self-identified liberals know someone who is gay, while only 55 percent of conservatives do.

Indeed, Gallup concluded that the data showed “that many views toward gay and lesbian issues are related — in some instances, strongly so — to personal experience with individuals who are gay or lesbian.”

Given these facts alone, one would expect gays and lesbians of all political stripes would welcome — heck, even encourage — GOProud’s participation at CPAC. Sadly, that hasn’t been the case. Not by a long shot.

In a case of truly strange bedfellows, the gay left has joined the most radical elements of the social conservative movement in attacking GOProud’s participation. You can understand the fear of extremists on the far right: They know the impact GOProud’s sponsorship will have on undercutting their anti-gay message. These people rely on manipulating fear of what is unknown or different. But why is the gay left so angry about it?

The answer is simple. They are far more interested in politics then they are in achieving equality of opportunity for gays and lesbians and their families.

For much of the gay left the world is divided into two easily definable camps: Democrats, who by definition are infallible and should be defended at all costs; and Republicans, who regardless of their positions on LGBT issues are the enemy.

The leadership on the gay left has repeatedly made excuses for inaction by the Obama administration and the Democratic House and Senate on the gay and lesbian issues they claim are critical to our community. While they make excuses for the failures of Democrats, they ignore — or in some cases actively oppose — policies promoted by Republicans that would improve the lives of gays and lesbians.

Want to end the inequality of the tax code? Replace the current tax scheme with the Fair Tax, a sales-tax-based approach. Want to end the inequality in the Social Security system? Try allowing people to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in personal savings accounts that can be left to their partners or anyone else. Want to end the inequality in the health care system? Then don’t expand a discriminatory government-run system. Instead, try expanding access to domestic-partner benefits by using free-market reforms to make health care individual, portable and more competitive.

These are the types of policies being advocated by conservatives and the types of policies being advocated by GOProud.

It is time for the gay left to recognize that political diversity is a sign of strength in our community and a sign of a mature movement. It is time for the gay left to recognize that GOProud’s sponsorship of CPAC is a tremendous opportunity for our community regardless of our partisan political differences.

Christopher R. Barron is chairman of the board of GOProud.

-30-