Gay Patriot Header Image

Needed: A Tea Party Compact

Shortly after Scott Brown’s victory, Michelle Malkin warned establishment Republicans not to crow:

January 19 was an amazing day for grass-roots conservatism. But the Beltway GOP should be warned against unjustified triumphalism. They were late to the game. Activists still haven’t, and won’t, forget the massive amounts of money Washington, D.C. Republicans wasted on Dede Scozzafava. . . .

The GOP brand is still damaged. And instant exploitation of the Brown win — see the NRSC website here — isn’t going to help matters. As I’ve said for many years, the Republican Party needs to clean its own house before it demands that the Democrats clean theirs.

While I think Michelle is a bit harsh on the GOP, I do agree she’s onto something.  Still, while grassroots activists can win without the GOP, they can’t win by running against the GOP.  The party needs show that it’s learned from past defeats as have candidates in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts.  Other candidates can show they understand the unrest across the country by following my gal Carly’s lead and sign sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

Now, it’s time to add a new pledge, let’s call it the “Tea Party Compact” where candidates for federal office sign an agreement not to support big-government solutions to various economic and social crises.  We would draft language on health care reform, cap and trade, the various Democratic stimuli/bailouts and regulatory reform.  Social issues would be taboo (for this compact), save perhaps a provision opposing federal funding of abortion.

And at the end perhaps a line, “If I break this compact, throw me out.”

Those who draft it must make the language clear so the compact does not preclude a signer from supporting real health care reform that would eliminate those regulations which reduce competition and drive up costs and provide for tort reform.  But, it also needs to be short, simple and sweet no more than 300 words.

West Hollywood Fundraiser for Haiti, Thurs. 01/28

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:50 pm - January 21, 2010.
Filed under: LA Stories,Worthy Causes

The American Jewish World Service is holding Fundraiser for Haiti, Thursday, January 28, 8:00 to 11:00 p.m. at Coco De Ville, 755 N. La Cienega, West Hollywood, CA  Click this link for more information and to RSVP.

Members of AJWS’s staff will be on hand at the event to give up-to-date information on relief efforts and how you can help. The charge for admission is $20, all of which will go to the Haiti Emergency Relief Fund.  And five percent of the bar’s proceeds between 8:00 to 11:00 p.m. will be donated to this cause.

There will be appetizers early in the evening and DJs will be spinning all night.

By avoiding gay issues and focusing on economic ones, GOP candidates can more readily repeat Scott Brown’s feat

While gay leaders and activists are rending their garments and gnashing their teeth in the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s victory in John Kerry’s Massachusetts, in a fit of pique not seen since Brokeback Mountain failed to win an Academy Award for Best Picture, they’re missing one of the big stories of the race, perhaps the biggest for gay people.

Were these activists not so determined to bind their gay identity to their partisan loyalty, they might have realized that this Republican who once supported a referendum on a state constitutional amendment to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the state constitution, pretty much avoided gay issues on the campaign trail.

Indeed, when I did a few google searches to investigate the claims of gay left-wingers that Brown was anti-gay, I could find no evidence he harbored animus against homosexuals and only one time he addressed gay issues in the campaign.  And he wasn’t the one who raised the issue.  It came up in a meeting with editors of the Boston Herald. He said gay marriage was “settled law” in Massachusetts; “People have moved on.”  And so had he.

In his campaign, Scott Brown ignored gay issues to address the economic and national security concerns of his constituents.  If Republicans in other left-leaning jurisdictions wish to repeat his feat this fall, they would be wise to take heed.  Demonizing gays or harping on gay marriage is not the means to win election.

Focus on the idea, freedom, and the issues, reducing the size of government and providing for the common defense, which unite our party.

Is John Kerry Familiar with the History of his State?

In today’s Political Diary, John Fund detects a painful ignorance of American history in John Kerry’s rhetoric:

Democrats, on the other hand, either ignored or ridiculed the Tea Party sentiment boiling up in [Masachusetts]. Take Senator John Kerry, who launched a fundraising appeal for Democrat Martha Coakley by warning that Mr. Brown’s “allies in the right wing dream of holding a ‘tea party’ in Kennedy country.” Huh? This galumphing failure to recognize the historical resonance of the words “tea party” is typical. Long before Massachusetts was “Kennedy country,” it was the home of the original Boston Tea Party, which every schoolchild used to know about.

Stand With Hillbuzz

Seems the folks at Hillbuzz are learning a lesson familiar to those of us gays on the right side of the political aisle, that when you challenge the left-wing orthodoxy, you face the wrath of its self-proclaimed guardians.  Now they’re receiving threats worse that any of those we have yet faced.  According to that lesbian diva Cynthia Yockey:

The Daily Kos and Democratic Underground have outed Kevin Dujan as the owner of the blog, Hill Buzz. They are smearing him with the false charge that that he is a racist. They are urging their readers to destroy his career and attack him physically.

Now, we don’t always agree with the folks at Hillbuzz, but do support their spunk.  Gay, like us, they were big supports of a woman we have long derided, but, in the course of the 2008 campaign, came to appreciate for her tenacity, defying the prognosticators and keeping up her campaign even as the media were trying to bring her down.  Even with the media working against her, Hillary Clinton won the better part of the Democratic primaries in the concluding months of the race for her party’s nomination.

And Hillbuzz stood with her, even as she (and they) faced the wrath of the PC gays, eager to rally behind the choice of their party’s left-wing.

Unlike some Democrats, these folks didn’t fall into line once Mrs. Clinton conceded.  They continued to raise questions about the Democratic nominee.  And many of their questions and concerns have proven prescient in the past year.  They may, as most bloggers do, go over the top from time to time, but they do not merit the kind of abuse they have been taking in the wake of the Scott Brown campaign: (more…)

A Good Day For Freedom

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:25 pm - January 21, 2010.
Filed under: Congress (111th),Freedom

Pelosi: House lacks votes to pass Senate health

Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

UPDATE:  Ed Morrissey on the first headline above:  “And now that the blinkers have begun to come off, Democrats realize that most people didn’t consider this a priority in the first place“:

it’s an ignominious defeat for Obama and Pelosi, whose radical approach and “I won” attitude finally caught up with them.  Even with massive majorities and a filibuster-proof caucus, they could not jam down a massive government intrusion into the private sector through Congress.  They overreached, and now they have been exposed as radicals in the middle of an election year.

Hey, Larry, I said it first! GOP Could Flip Senate This Fall

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:24 pm - January 21, 2010.
Filed under: 2010 Elections

Well, well, well, not even two weeks ago, I wondered if the GOP could flip the Senate this fall.  While I thought it unlikely, I said Republicans could make major gains if we recruited good candidates in states like Indian, New York, Washington and Wisconsin.

And guess what?  Larry Sabato is now saying the same thing:

A few months ago, even GOP leaders said that taking over the Senate was a pipe dream, and it is still not probable. But as some independents sour on the Democratic Party, the possibility for a GOP majority can no longer be dismissed out of hand. . . . .

Among the senators who could be endangered by a new wave of Republican entries are Evan Bayh (Indiana), Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), Patty Murray (Washington), and Russ Feingold (Wisconsin).

(H/t Jim Geraghty.)

UPDATE:  From Politico (via Glenn):

Several Democratic incumbents said later that none of the 19 Democratic seats up this year are safe — and that fundamental parts of the agenda need to be re-examined to win over voters back home.

“Every state is now in play,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who faces the toughest reelection battle of her career — most likely against wealthy Republican Carly Fiorina.

All 19?   Chuckie, too?

Wonder why they described my gal Carly as “wealthy.” Does DiFi get the same adjective?  And Carly earned her fortune, Feinstein married hers.

DiFi Gets It, but does Ma’am?

In the Senate, the Golden State is represented by two Jewish women, both Democrats, each originally serving jurisdictions in the Bay Area, but with entirely different temperaments.   Our senior Senator, Dianne Feinstein, shows respect for her more conservative colleagues and has worked with them to see 26 of the bills she has introduced (since first her first election in November 1992) enacted into law.  You can imagine her taking criticism, civilly offered from a constituent, without questioning his motives.

Our junior Senator, on the other hand, Barbara Boxer berates her ideological adversaries and has seen a total of three of the bills she introduced become law.  And she took office only two months after her colleague (Feinstein was elected to fill the remainder of the Senate seat Pete Wilson abandoned when he was elected Governor in 1990 and was sworn in soon after she ousted appointed incumbent John Seymour).

Mrs. Feinstein joins her Indiana and Virginia colleagues in reading the tea leaves in the wake of the Massachusetts special Senate election; she understands “the situation has changed dramatically“:

You see anger. People are worried. And when they’re worried they don’t want to take on a broad new responsibility, [like health reform] . . . .

I think we do go slower on health care. People do not understand it. it is so big it is beyond their comprehension. . . . (more…)

Brown Victory: “The Most Significant Non-Presidential Election”?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:30 am - January 21, 2010.
Filed under: 2010 Elections

So sayeth Hugh Hewitt: The Most Significant Non-Presidential Election of my Lifetime, and the Most Surprising Result Period.

Is he right?

Despite its reputation, Massachusetts did not deliver the highest percentage of its votes to the Democratic nominee in the most recent presidential election.  Obama did better in his native Hawai’i and Illinois and also in New York, Vermont and Joe Biden’s Delaware.  But, only once since 1956 has a Republican won a majority of votes in the Bay State in a presidential election.  The Gipper won with a plurality in 1980, winning a smaller percentage of the vote there than in did in Minnesota which he lost.  (John Anderson drew 15% of the vote in Massachusetts, but only 8% in the Gopher State.)

Fliippety-Floppety, Flippety-Floppety, Brown Victory Makes Barney Act like a Fish out of Water

Must be something about being a Massachusetts Democrat on the national stage.  Seems like ol’ Barney’s got something in common with John “I actually did vote for the $87 billion dollars before I voted against it” Kerry.  He’s changed his mind again on Obamacare.  First, he said Democrats shouldn’t bypass Tuesday’s returns where voters in his district preferred a Republican Daniel Webster’s Senate seat over than the Democrat he backed.

Right after Scott Brown was declared the victor, the unhappy Congressman realized it would be impossible to work “out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate healthcare bills.”  With Republicans holding 41 votes in the Senate, that approach, Frank said “is no longer appropriate.”  Well, he’s done a 180 again.  According to Dan Riehl, he appears to “backing away what seemed to be a death blow to health care reform.

Now, he’s saying move the Senate bill forward and fix it later:

“You have to pass the Senate bill as is and the President signs it. Then people have to be assured that you can get the amendments through the House and the Senate,” Frank said. “Because then the argument would be, ‘Look, the bills already passed so now the question is whether you’re willing to amend it or not.'”

Isn’t that kind of like buying a new house, knowing that it needs a lot of work and expecting the seller to negotiate about repairs after you’ve signed the deed?