Gay Patriot Header Image

State of the Union–Quick Take

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 10:30 pm - January 27, 2010.
Filed under: National Politics,Obama Watch

Didn’t watch the whole thing, saw the beginning and the last 20 years minutes.  He seemed defiant, sounded like he was still a candidate running for office and against the party in power and not the leader of the power that has been in power for well over a year.

Not just that, when he talked about bickering and partisanship, he was taking issue with the very kind of rhetoric that has, by and large, defined his attitude toward his predecessor and ideological adversaries.

UPDATE:  Reading through the transcript, and found he made the commitment,but wonder if he follow through:

This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.

Kudos to the president for saying this.  Would have been nice if he could have gone a little more in depth.  Let’s hope he has a plan to make this line a reality.  And if he gets it repealed, it won’t matter that he only devoted one line to the topic in tonight’s address.

The Mary Cheney Factor

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:36 pm - January 27, 2010.
Filed under: Gay America,Strong Women

Ever since I saw the Gallup poll showing a 12-point shift in the number of conservatives favoring allowing openly gay men and lesbians to serve in the military, I wondered what it was that caused such a significant change.

That shift in attitude took place in what was supposed to be a dark age for gay Americans.  The older poll was taken showing 46% of conservatives opposing restrictions on gay people’s service the same month George W. Bush was winning reelection.  The next poll was taken just four months after he left office.

Was it just the increasing tolerance of gay people in American society which accounted for this 26% jump in the number of American conservatives developing a more favorable attitude toward gay service members?  Or were there other factors?  Were there any prominent stories about the topic?

There was, to be sure, a lot of heat generated around the publication of Mary Cheney’s book.  Hugh Hewitt had this charming and well-spoken lesbian on his show for a full hour.   Maybe her exposure to Hugh’s conservative audience caused some of his listeners to reconsider their attitudes toward gay pepole.  We will never really know whether Mary’s brief turn on the national stage accounts for the entire shift.  Still, it must have played a role.  When American conservatives learn that one of their heroes has embraced his openly lesbian daughter, that’s sure to register.

Mary Cheney may well be the most consequential Vice Presidential Progeny in American history.

And she’d rather be rock-climbing.

“Trying to stifle debate on an important issue”

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:00 pm - January 27, 2010.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage,Liberal Intolerance

It was not the arguments of pro-choice advocates which caused me to shift my view on abortion, no longer favoring laws banning the practice out right.  I found it all too easy to tune out the case they made as all too many dismissed the arguments of their pro-life adversaries as “anti-woman” or “rooted in the past.”  Or some such.  Ironic that they’d label a movement overwhelmingly female as “anti-woman.”  Guess those pro-life women are really, to borrow an expression from Gloria Steinem, just plain ol’ “female impersonators“.

It was in talking to women who had abortions that I began to understand the complexity of the issue.

And so it was with gay marriage, at least as it relates to my vote on popular initiatives in the Golden State.  As I have expressed frequently on this blog, I’m pretty ambivalent on the issue, content with domestic partnerships, not beholden to having the state call our unions “marriage.”

Ever since the proposition which would come to be numbered as 8 qualified for the California ballot, I expected I would vote against it.  While opposed to the state Supreme Court’s decision mandating state recognition of same-sex unions, I also did not think it appropriate for a state constitution to define marriage.  In large part because of my ambivalence on the issue and the mean-spirited attacks of gay marriage advocates on the Proposition’s proponents, I did waver in the last few weeks before the election.

My resolve to defeat the proposition strengthened when I saw two friends of mine together, lesbians who gotten married in the window between the court’s decision and Election Day.  I knew from following their example (and that of another lesbian couple) that they understood what marriage meant.  I voted, “No.”

In many ways, the attacks of the gay marriage advocates on their adversaries resemble those of the pro-choice zealots.  Each side bristles at any expression of opposition to their cause  Via Mark Tapscott, we learn of another example of pro-choice zealotry.  The National Organization for Women (NOW) is “mounting a campaign to force . . . off the air” a TV spot slated for the Super Bowl telecast where University of Florida football star Tim Tebow and his mother talk “about the fact he might have been aborted had she listened to a doctor who encouraged her to have an abortion due to complications in her pregnancy.

They are, says Tapscott, paraphrasing CBS News legal reporter Jan Crawford, “trying to stifle debate on an important issue“. (more…)

Good News for the Golden State

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:50 pm - January 27, 2010.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,Economy

Oregon voters pass tax increasing measures by big margin:

Oregon voters bucked decades of anti-tax and anti-Salem sentiment Tuesday, raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to prevent further erosion of public schools and other state services.

The tax measures passed easily, with late returns showing a 54 percent to 46 percent ratio. Measure 66 raises taxes on households with taxable income above $250,000, and Measure 67 sets higher minimum taxes on corporations and increases the tax rate on upper-level profits.

With this action, the Beaver State becomes less of an option for wealthy Californians and over-regulated Golden State corporations seeking to move north for a more tax-friendly environment. Some may elect to stay put.

But, what’s marginally good for California businesses ain’t so good for the Oregon economy.  Michelle expects “affected business owners to start Going Galt en masse.

Standing Up For James O’Keefe

So by now, you have probably heard that the young conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe was arrested this week on charges that he was attempting to wiretap (or something) the offices of US Sen. Mary Landrieu. O’Keefe came to public attention last year when he exposed the corruption in many ACORN offices around the USA in a hidden camera expose.

My first reaction to O’Keefe’s arrest was “oh how stupid of him.” Upon further reflection, I have changed my mind. I think O’Keefe is a patriot and was probably onto something that We, The People should know about involving Sen. Landrieu.

Since the media no longer investigates corruption among the liberal elite, the burden falls to brave souls like O’Keefe.

The American Left praises and honors such real criminals and murderers as Castro, Che, Mao and Mumia Abu Jamal. Surely I’m not going to throw O’Keefe under the bus until I know all of the facts. And if he was in the pursuit of truth, then I think his actions were justified.

James O’Keefe is no less a patriot than Ted Kennedy is a murderer. After all, the Democrats in Washington continually ignore our nations’ laws and the US Constitution. Perhaps it is time for We, The People to join the fight on their terms.

These are indeed times that try men’s souls and our time sometimes requires extraordinary measures to expose lies and stand up for Liberty.

UPDATE (from Dan): Bruce, this appears to be an area where we disagree, though appreciate this defense from a commenter at Althouse. Right now, I’m with Malkin, “Know your limits. Know the law. Don’t get carried away. And don’t become what you are targeting.” That said, I’ll wait until the facts are in before rendering a final judgment.

Benchmark for Republican Success

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:09 pm - January 27, 2010.
Filed under: Random Thoughts

If Republicans win back control of the federal government, we’ll be able to tell they’re doing their jobs when property values plummet in the Washington, D.C.-metropolitan area.

Score one for gay leftie bloggers if . . .

. . . Obama proposes repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell tonight in the State of the Union address.  While the heads of most of the gay organizations were playing patsy with the White House, gay leftie bloggers would have none of the president’s inclination to put gay issues on the back burner.

They criticized him for not keeping the promises he made to our community, with a push to boycott the Democratic National Committee which began among bloggers making the cover of the latest Advocate.  As Jamie Kirchick put it in his cover story:

In the wake of the Maine defeat, a coterie of liberal bloggers and activists called for a temporary moratorium on DNC donations. The fledgling movement, which has adopted the motto “Don’t Ask, Don’t Give” and has attracted the likes of legendary gay rights activist David Mixner, hopes to discourage donations to the party until the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the repeal of both “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act.

With scuttlebutt suggesting Obama plans to push the passage of DADT tonight, their threatened boycott may well have served as the spur which pricks the sides of Obama’s intent.  They will have accomplished more blogging in their pajamas on second-hand laptops than have the well-heeled lobbyists of HRC in their swank offices in downtown D.C.

So, kudos to bloggers at Pam’s House Blend, Queerty and AmericaBlogGay (and other websites with which I’m not familiar).

DSCC Proposes Taking Coakley Strategy nationwide

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:16 am - January 27, 2010.
Filed under: 2010 Elections

Perhaps, because I was dining with my fellow Ephs (graduates of Williams College) last night that I defended our fellow alum Martha Coakley as I had on this blog just after her defeat last week.  She was waging the right kind of campaign for a special election in a jurisdiction which overwhelmingly favored her party.

When, however, she began to realize she had a race on her hands, her campaign had about ten days to shift strategies before voters trooped to the polls.  Now, in the wake of her defeat in that overwhelmingly Democratic jurisdiction, national Democrats are already hitting the panic button even though there are more than nine months until Election Day.  While Democrats don’t have the full length of a human gestation cycle to come up with a new strategy, they have time.

Instead, they’re trying to come up with a strategy on the fly, much as Coakley did, and pulling from their old bag of tricks and their own prejudices about Republicans.  Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) Chairman Robert Menendez’s tack, as Jennifer Rubin puts it, “is to force their opponents to answer wacky questions and then make them out to be extremist nuts“:

Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen? Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards? Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place? Do you think President Obama is a socialist? Do you think America should return to a gold standard?

Democrats want to win not by defending their record but by splitting the GOP.   They’re assuming, of course, that if the Republican answers, “Yes,” to the first question and “No” to the others, he’ll instantly lose the support of the party’s enthusiastic “right-wing” base.  But, seems Scott Brown did not answer the way those wing-nuts would have wanted him to answer and guess, well, as soon as Harry Reid’ll have him, he gets to be a U.S. Senator.

For some reason, I just don’t think this strategy will work when people are so angry at Washington.   (more…)

Krauthammer Channels Monty Python in Criticizing Obama’s Freeze?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:39 am - January 27, 2010.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,Random Thoughts

He calls his spending freeze a “Q-tip.”  Using a Q-tip to cut the deficit. Sure sounds like something I saw in some Monty Python sketch.

(H/t Instapundit.)