Gay Patriot Header Image

The Political Cost of Democrats’ Nasty Massachusetts Campaign

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:46 pm - January 14, 2010.
Filed under: 2010 Elections,Mean-spirited leftists

Remember that guy you started dating who thought you were all sweetness and light up until the point you told him you didn’t want to date him, when you spurned even his request for “no-strings” sex?  You know, when he starts reacting in a manner that, well, is not likely to endear him to you.

It seems that guy has taken the helm of the Coakley campaign in Massachusetts.

Seeing Bay State voters considering rejecting their gal, he’s had her (campaign) go on the warpath against Scott Brown (you know the guy who looks like we imagine ourselves to look).  To be sure, the situation is not entirely parallel, but the attitude is.  Massachusetts Democrats and their special interest allies have subjected their state to a barrage of negative ads while Scott Brown has maintained the high ground, making a positive case for his candidacy. In a strange video more about himself than Martha Coakley, even the President has has joining the braying fray, calling the Republican an “opponent of change.”  Guess his New York’s resolution to promote unity doesn’t kick in until January 20.

The airwaves, according to Boston friend of Bill Kristol “are blanketed with negative ads attacking Scott Brown.
 Frankly, I think that most of them are so over the top that they are
 unlikely to be productive.”  He’s not the only one to speculate about the effectiveness of Democratic bile.   Rating the race a toss-up, Stuart Rothenburg believes the ads might backfire:

Late Democratic efforts to demonize Republican Scott Brown, to make the race into a partisan battle and to use the Kennedy name to drive Democratic voters to the polls could still work. But the advertising clutter in the race works against them, and voters often tune out late messages, which can seem desperate.

Quoting an e-mail from a Bay State friend, Jim Geraghty provides some anecdotal evidence to back up Rothenburg’s point: (more…)

Will Obama’s Fake Garden Produce Get as Much Media Coverage as W’s Real Thanksgiving Turkey?

Remember back in 2003, when lefties raised a ruckus on how when then-President George W. Bush flew to Iraq to celebrate Thanksgiving with the troops, he walked in carrying a fake turkey?  The media was all abuzz with this supposedly all-important hoax.

Despite all the hootin’ and the hollerin’ on the left, even the New York Times had to admit that, well, yes, um, the turkey was real:

An article last Sunday about surprises in politics referred incorrectly to the turkey carried by President Bush during his unannounced visit to American troops in Baghdad over Thanksgiving. It was real, not fake.

Note the admission was in a correction.  Wonder now how the ol’ Gray Lady (and the rest of the media) will react to some food fakery in the Obama White House.  As Michelle Malkin informs us, the Iron Chief’s “revelation about Michelle Obama’s produce is entirely in keeping with Obama Theater”:

The Jan. 3 “Iron Chef America” drew 7.6 million viewers, the highest-rated show in network history. In it, superstar chef Mario Batali teamed with Emeril Lagasse, and Bobby Flay with White House chef Cristeta Comerford to cook five dishes using the secret ingredient: produce from the White House garden.

Except for one thing: As first reported on AOL’s Politics Daily blog, the fruits and vegetables used on the show weren’t from the White House. They were stunt produce. Ringers.

At the beginning of the two-hour special, the chefs were shown picking sweet potatoes, broccoli, fennel and tomatillos from the White House garden. Then the chefs were seen walking into Kitchen Stadium, produce in hand. One problem: The show is filmed in New York City.

For some reason, I don’t think we’ll be hearing as much as by the stunt produce as we heard about the supposedly stunt turkey.

Scott Brown Can Stand the Cold

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:18 pm - January 14, 2010.
Filed under: 2010 Elections

Just look at the subtle messaging of this ad. Shortly after Democrat Martha Coakley balks at the notion of shaking hands in the cold, the Scott Brown campaign puts out a spot with him campaigning in neighborhoods with snow on the ground:

People are even wearing hats and winter coats!   Surely, soon some Democrats will be complaining about his negative ads, using subtle imagery to show just how faint-hearted is his opponent.

This Anti-Republican Campaign is Just Going Too Far

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:12 pm - January 14, 2010.
Filed under: 2010 Elections,Republican-hatred

Just look at the level to which the opposition is taking the campaign to demonize the Republican candidate for the Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy (and Daniel Webster):

(H/t: Jim Geraghty.)

Conservative Confab Won’t Give In to Pressure to Exclude GOProud

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:54 pm - January 14, 2010.
Filed under: Conservative Ideas,GOProud

It’s too bad Wayne Besen’s colleague can’t let go of his distaste for gay conservatives long enough to realize the significance of the news Wayne linked on his facebook page and that colleague reported on his website:

Liberty University Law School has withdrawn as a co-sponsor of next month’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington because a Republican homosexual activist group is being allowed to co-sponsor the event.

That “homosexual” activist group is our friends at GOProud.  While the colleague uses the occasion to slam gay conservatives, we have an (yet another) example of the increasing tolerance conservatives are showing for gay people.  Ridden out on a rail we are not.

Kudos to CPAC for standing up to pressure from a social conservative group seeking to keep gays out of the conservative movement.  And kudos to GOProud for reaching out to the conservative movement.  Their efforts help break down prejudices against people like us, promoting a broad-based conservative movement, based on the ideas of Ronald Reagan rather than the prejudices of Pat Robertson.

Gay activists should welcome this news; it shows that Americans of all stripes are becoming increasingly tolerant and accepting of gay people.  And shouldn’t their goal be an America were gay people are welcome in all endeavors?  But, it seems that trashing conservatives has become such a part of the modus operandi of some gay leftists that even as the facts change, their prejudices do not.

So, let’s sum up, this is great news, particularly for broad-minded conservatives; a leading conservative organization, perhaps the leading conservative group, would rather lose the sponsorship of a prominent social conservative institution than exclude a fledging gay conservative organization.

Democrats Go Ugly in Their Own Backyard

Well, that brave new future Obama and his Democrats promised for America didn’t last long.  The age of a new kind of politics, you know that post-partisan kind, has been brought to an end before the first anniversary of the Chicago Democrat’s taking the oath of office as President of the United States.  Well, that is, unless  you count taking the politics of his home town to the national level as a new kind of politics.

In their attempts to hold the Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy, a seat that has been in Democratic hands since the twilight hours of the Truman Administration in a state which hasn’t elected a Republican Senator since the Nixon Administration, which hasn’t picked a Republican for President since the Reagan Administration and which last sent a Republican to Congress in the Clinton Administration, Democrats and their special interest allies have bought up hours of TV to attack the Republican nominee. And they’re going all negative, all the time.

In a state where John McCain barely got a third of the vote, where George W. Bush was held under 40%, where every Democrat this century won over 60% of the popular vote, the Democratic candidate isn’t running on her record or her party’s policies, she’s attacking the Republican.

Guess they realize that even in Massachusetts (the state without a single Republican in its congressional delegation), it’s not a good strategy to run on the party’s ideas.

Democrats could hold this seat in next Tuesday’s election, but they can only win ugly.  No matter what happens on January 19 in Massacusetts, the GOP will have scored a moral victory.  And the Democrats revealed for playing the kind of attack politics their most recent standard bearer once so famously eschewed.

Gay Left Smears GOP Senate Hopeful

Below is my op ed published today by the DC Agenda on the smearing of US Senate candidate Scott Brown (R-MA) by the gay left.

Next Tuesday, voters in Massachusetts will go to the polls for a special election to replace U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (D). Recent polling shows Republican State Senator Scott Brown in a virtual tie with Democrat Martha Coakley. As the polls get closer and closer, Democrats and their allies on the left get more and more desperate. Democrats are unable to defend their record on taxes, spending, the economy, job creation, healthcare or the global war on terror, so instead they predictably turn to smears, distortions and name-calling.

The gay left, always willing to do the bidding of the DNC, is attempting to characterize Scott Brown as ‘anti-gay’. This paper ran a headline that blared “Could an anti-gay Republican win Kennedy’s Seat?” The Edge, a New England gay paper, had a similar headline in December, “Anti-gay Mass. Pol Seeks to Succeed Kennedy.”

Unfortunately there are far too many folks in this country who deserve the label anti-gay, and some of those folks are politicians. Indeed some people in this country make a living demonizing gay people and our families. However, attaching the label “anti-gay” to every single politician or person who is not 100 percent aligned with the political agenda of the gay left is not only unfair but wildly counter-productive. In the case of Scott Brown, the gay left is guilty of being little more than the partisan boy who cried wolf.

What’s the truth about Scott Brown? I will concede up front, that Scott Brown doesn’t support same-sex marriage. Brown, however, has stated that same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is settled law and that he personally supports civil unions. Brown has also said that he believes marriage is a state issue and that each state should be free to make its own law regarding same-sex marriage. Sound familiar? It should, because it’s the same position taken by President Barack Obama.

Despite Brown being in favor of civil unions, opposing a federal marriage amendment and having the same federalist approach to marriage that President Obama has, the gay left would have us believe that the future of gay rights hangs on the Democrat winning this special election. Indeed, Michael Mitchell, executive director of National Stonewall Democrats, said helping Coakley win the special election “couldn’t be more important” for LGBT people because a 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate is needed to advance LGBT rights in Congress.

What has 60 Democratic Senators delivered for gay families so far? Unemployment over 10 percent, spending spiraling out of control, an expansion of discriminatory government-run healthcare, and an administration unwilling to confront the spread of radical anti-gay Islam. (more…)

If you can’t stand the cold, stay out of the Bay State

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:00 am - January 14, 2010.
Filed under: 2010 Elections

Like Martha Coakley, I spent four winters in Williamstown, Massachusetts.  As I recall, it gets pretty darn cold at that time of year in that part of the Bay State.  It goes with the territory, you could say.

Now, it would seems to me that someone who wants to represents the Bay State in the United States Senate would, appreciate what her constituents have to endure every winter.  But somehow, when it comes to the cold, this Democrat is pretty faint-hearted.  Responding to charges that she hasn’t been campaigning aggressively enough, she retorted that she has better things to do than face Massachusetts winters:

Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive.

“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ she fires back, in an apparent reference to a [Scott] Brown online video of him doing just that.

Wonder how her constituents, many of whom must spend hours in the cold every week in the winter, doing their jobs, getting to their jobs, shoveling show so they can get to their jobs or just plain working outdoors as some folk do.

It seems that someone who bristles at the notion of campaigning in the cold probably shouldn’t be representing a state were it gets pretty darn cold every winter.  And sometimes in the fall and even in the spring.

(H/t Legal Insurrection.)

They forgot to bring a rail to Westside Republicans meeting

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:18 am - January 14, 2010.
Filed under: Hysteria on the Left

One of the most telling aspect of the left-wing prejudice against conservatives and Republicans is how people who have never been to a meeting of a Republican committee, club or auxiliary or rarely associated with conservatives (if at all) will tell us just exactly what our party and our movement is all about.  Matched up against their prejudices, our experiences count for nothing.

I can decide in order to have a story to tell that when I went to the Republican National Convention as a credentielled blogger, I’d come out as gay as often as possible in order to gage people’s reaction.   It won’t matter that my sexual orientation barely elicited a raised eyebrow because, you see, well, Republicans hate gay people and would never allow a single one who openly professed his preference for his own sex within their midst, much less as a guest at their national convention.  Heaven forfend!  They’re just so bigotted, intolerant and all around not nice.  And they have bad hair too!

For ten of the last fifteen years, I have been out a a gay man in Republican circles and yes, I have encountered some of my fellow partisans less than pleased with my orientation, with at least one, scratch that, with just one wondering if I were aware of Exodus Ministries (or some similar outfit).  Another woman once cut short a conversation upon learning I was a homosexual (she couldn’t bring herself to speak the word, “gay”), but was remarkably polite in doing so.  Contrast that with the rudeness of the gays who learned I was Republican.

On the whole, I have found my partisan peers remarkably welcoming, even those who have religious objections to expressions of homosexuality.  Yet, our experiences notwithstanding, our liberal friends know better just how our party should treat us.   (more…)

How Did Pat Robertson Learn Details of Pact with the Devil?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:12 am - January 14, 2010.
Filed under: Annoying Celebrities

Just wondering if any of Pat Robertson’s followers are asking how he knows the details of a pact made with the devil.  I mean, wouldn’t he need an inside source to get that information?  So, Pat, better lay off talking about this kind of deal, not just that it’s just bad form at a time like this, but, well, people might start wondering about your associations.

As, you may know, shortly after falling off his rocker*, the minister offered an explanation for the earthquake in Haiti:

Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. . . . They were under the heel of the French … and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you’ll get us free from the French.’

Now, Pat wasn’t around two hundred years ago when the Haitians threw off French tyranny.  So, I don’t think the Haitians around back then would be able to inform him.  And when I studied Haitian history (for a paper on the Vodou mythology) and didn’t find any details of such a pact.   And, well, since it’s not in history books, the only way Pat could know is if . . .


*Yeah, I know, it’s been happening a lot lately.  Someone needs get him that model with a seat belt.