According to a CBS News/ New York Times poll, the wording of the question makes a significant difference:

In the poll, 59 percent say they now support allowing “homosexuals” to serve in the U.S. military, including 34 percent who say they strongly favor that. Ten percent say they somewhat oppose it and 19 percent say they strongly oppose it.

But the numbers differ when the question is changed to whether Americans support “gay men and lesbians” serving in the military. When the question is asked that way, 70 percent of Americans say they support gay men and lesbians serving in the military, including 19 percent who say they somewhat favor it. Seven percent somewhat oppose it, and 12 percent strongly oppose it.

Wish that I had more time to blog right now, been trying to follow the news in Iran (Michael Ledeen is always a good source) while taking care of a lot of odds and ends at home in anticipation of my out-of-town guests and a busy 48 hours playing uncle. to an “adoptive” niece.

Will try to get a few short posts up when I take a break from those odds and ends and my dissertation research/writing, but do want to draw your attention to Little Miss Attila’s thoughtful post on blogging guidelines (via Instapundit). Do like what she says about hate comments:

I allow misogyny in my comments section, because it is generally directed at me, and I feel it shows the true colors of the woman-hating commenters. Any anti-male, anti-Asian, anti-gay, anti-tranny, anti-black, anti-American Indian, and anti-Jewish comments, though (or ones that look like they might be indicative of biases in that direction) generally get a warning, and a reminder that repeated offenses are subject to redaction, and banning.

I tend to err on the side of inclusion of such remarks for the very reason Miss Attila identifies:  ”it shows the true colors” of those making such nasty statements.  And isn’t sunlight the best disinfectant?

Still, maybe there are occasions when we should ban.  Read the whole thing.  She has a lot to say–and not just about comments.  Her post is well worth your time.

She turns 46 today and as one of my straight friends said the other day, the older she get the hotter she gets. Maybe that’s why she bedevils Democrats and liberals so. She can command the respect of a conservative crowd and still turn the heads of men. Not to mention her husband is a hunk.

She has become the voice for a lot of the people who feel their government has left them behind and has stood up for the ideals of our founders and help articulate the vision of Ronald Reagan. Happy Birthday, Mrs. Palin!

One year after the “stimulus” passed, we’re a little bit older and $787 billion deeper in debt* and the Democrats want another go-round.  Since it didn’t work the first time and there are now fewer Americans employed than there were a year ago while the unemployment rate has climbed even higher than the president told us it would  if we didn’t pass that legislation, Democrats want to spend even more of our money.

Didn’t California’s junior Senator tell us that the “stimulus” was all about creating jobs?  Didn’t Obama promise us that unemployment wouldn’t top 8% (if his “recovery” act passed?

Seems the Democrats attitude is that if didn’t work the first time, the same thing is bound to work the second time.

Wasn’t it Albert Einstein who defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results“?

Or maybe the Democratic plan is working. While private sector unemployment is down, “the federal workforce is at all-time high“:  ”More than 2.1 million government workers will be on the federal payroll by the end of 2010.”  And they’re earning more than their private sector counterparts.

So maybe Democrats just sound insane; they do have a sound strategy (from their political standpoint with all this spending):  reward the special interests who favor their party.

* (more…)

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s senior health care advisor has told Congress Daily that congressional Democratic leaders have settled on a strategy” to pass the health care overhaul without securing the 60 votes they need in the Senate to stop a filibuster, all but guaranteeing that Republicans will win back both Houses of Congress in less than nine months time.

Wendell Primus, aforementioned advisor

. . .  admitted top Democrats have already decided on the strategy to pass the Senate’s pro-abortion, government-run health care bill.

“Primus explained that the Senate will use the controversial reconciliation strategy that will have the House approve the Senate bill and both the House and Senate okaying changes to the bill that the Senate will sign off on by preventing Republicans from filibustering.

“’The trick in all of this is that the president would have to sign the Senate bill first, then the reconciliation bill second, and the reconciliation bill would trump the Senate bill,’ Primus said at the National Health Policy Conference hosted by Academy Health and Health Affairs.

(Emphasis added.) Should this “trick” work, it will do double damage to the Democrats, first, voters will punish them for passing an unpopular bill. Second, having thrown Republicans out for their legislative shenanigans, they’re sure to do the same to Democrats, especially given that people are paying more attention now to the legislative process. (more…)

That was the year of the great Lisbon Earthquake.

Eve Ensler tells Joy Behar that tsunamis and earthquakes help prove global warming.

If ABC News were to tap its senior White House corespondent Jake Tapper to host This Week (a choice favored by a plurality of those chiming int to this online poll), it would represent a step in the right director for network news.  The strapping reporter is probably the best in his business, at least of our generation.  He plays no favorites and asks tough questions of both sides, covering public figures warts and all, regardless of their political affiliation.

He would be a welcome replacement to the Clinton official who currently hosts the Sunday talk show.  Via Julie Mason at the Washington Examiner‘s Beltway Confidential who offers:

Beltway Confidential’s partiality to ABC News’ Jake Tapper is no secret. He sticks up for his colleagues, sticks it to the man and is as fair and tough as you’d want in a White House correspondent. He’s also hot, but don’t worry about that right now. . . .

From Dartmouth ’91, Tapper went from cartoonist, to the City Paper (where he parlayed a blind date with Monica Lewinsky into a minor role in the Clinton saga) then covered Bush’s first campaign for Salon and eventually ended up as White House correspondent for ABC News — in line to host “This Week.” Totally weird, offbeat trajectory — but we dig it

Sorry, fellows, he likes the ladies, having wed Jennifer Marie Brown in 2006.

Just as Obama Democrats blame everything on Bush, seems global warmists attribute all weather phenomenon to global warming.  Just caught this on Yahoo!’s home page: D.C. Snowstorm: How Global Warming Makes Blizzards Worse.

Can’t these folks just acknowledge that they might be wrong?

UPDATE:  Doug Ross “the text of the article is something out of a rejected SNL skit: it’s just too preposterous.”  Read the whole thing!

Just caught this link on Instapundit, skimmed the article, but don’t have time to offer much additional commentary, save that it confirms a lot of stuff I’ve been saying about lifting the ban on gays serving openly in our our armed forces:

ILYA SOMIN: “The Australian, British, Canadian, and Israeli armed forces are all among the best in the world. If they allow gays to serve openly with no ill effects, that strongly suggests that the US can as well.”

I’m up in Carpinteria right now where I just heard a friend defend her dissertation and have basically spent the past day focused on myth (and movies), all but oblivious to politics.  In the past few weeks, after revisiting the myth of Phaeton and realizing how relevant it was to my dissertation, I have been writing it at the most furious pace since I started this project.

Now, I’m here also to have some meetings relative to my paper and won’t be back in Los Angeles until later in the afternoon–at which time I to do hope to get back to blogging, but with a friend visiting from Utah and his daughter wanting her Uncle Dan to take her to Disneyland coupled with the head of steam I have built up for my dissertation, I may not have as much time to blog as I have had in recent days.

Sometimes it’s just nice to get away from politics.

Perhaps unwittingly, Ezra Klein last week got at why Democrats are unlikely to pass their health care overhaul:  they lack the will to do so:

If 51 Democratic senators and 218 Democratic congresspeople are dead-serious about passing a bill, they can, and will, pass a bill. . . .  If that many Democrats were committed to this project, the other chamber won’t fear their colleagues leaving them hanging out to dry. It’s a fairly straightforward path to passage, and they’d begin walking down it. That they haven’t moved is evidence that will is missing, not that the rules are too complex.

And methinks that in the wake of Scott Brown’s election last month, there is even less will to enact health care reform than there was when the House passed its version of Obamacare last November, with 219 Democrats and 1 Republican voting in favor.

Over at Redstate, Moe Lane does a rundown of the votes Obamacare proponents have lost since November.  And how many of those remaining in the chamber who voted “yeah” are getting cold feet now as the 2010 campaign heats up, with polls showing ever-growing opposition to the president’s plans?

The White House, various liberal and left-wing pundits as well as the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate may have the will to push through this health care overhaul, but I would dare say such will is lacking among members of their party’s rank and file.  They may indeed favor such an overhaul, but given the electoral landscape at present, would rather not bring it up for a vote.

Reporting that the “largest gay rights group in New Jersey has just voted unanimously to stop giving contributions to all political parties (they only gave to Dem. committees)”, John Aravosis predicts:

I suspect we’ll see other state gay rights groups follow NJ’s lead, which is based on, whether intentionally or not, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Give campaign that . . .  our Netroots allies, launched in November. And perhaps it’s time that national gay rights group did the same, rather than simply serving as an appendage of the Democratic party instead of serving their own community.

(Emphasis added.)

As I’ve written previously, I believe the boycott that John has spearheaded has helped spur the Administration to move forward on DADT.   That said, I’m  delighted to see John recognize yet again what we and other gay conservatives have been saying for many years about HRC and their allied groups.  They act more like the gay auxiliaries of the Democratic Party than independent groups advocating for gay rights.

To be sure, while we offer similar criticisms, we would likely seek different solutions.  We agree on repealing DADT, but part company on other issues.  All that said, I admire anyone who stands for their principles without engaging in name-calling and misrepresentation (or any other form of mean-spirited attack).  From all that I have read on this issue, John, the folks at Queerty and Pam Spaulding have focused on their opposition to Democratic Party inaction on issues of concern to them.

So, kudos to them for standing tall for their beliefs.  And special thanks to John for giving me a great title for a post.

(H/t:  Instapundit.)

While I have made clear my choice in the Republican primary for the United States Senate seat from the Golden State, I have yet to weigh in on the contest for Governor.  Up until recently, I had been equally impressed by both candidates, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman and State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner.

This is not to say that I find either an ideal candidate.  I have concerns about both.  It’s just that they would both be better than the likely Democratic candidate former Governor Jerry Moonbeam Medfly Brown.  Given the red ink our state faces, we can’t afford to have Brown back in the Governor’s chair.

I wanted to follow the gubernatorial campaign to see which Republican could better take on an out-of-control state legislature all but controlled by the public employee unions.  From their record in the private sector, it’s clear the Republicans know how to meet a payroll and how to hold the line on expenses.

I always thought I’d just wait until a few days before the primary and vote for whoever was polling better against Moonbeam Brown.  But, Poizner’s actions in recent days have caused me to question his strength of character.  When Mike Murphy, a political consultant working for Whitman, tried to persuade Poizner to withdraw from the race (he trails Whitman by as much as 30 points in polls), the Golden State Insurance Commissioner announced he’d asked law enforcement to “investigate improper conduct” that “threatens the integrity of the electoral process.”

Improper conduct to do what candidates regularly do in contested primaries?

Not the way to respond to such an offer.  Doesn’t really show much strength or confidence  your campaign.  A more secure candidate would have brushed the offer off, saying once the campaign heated up, he’d surge ahead.  A candidate who doesn’t have the fortitude to stand up to an offer from a Republican rival likely wouldn’t have the fortitude to stand up to a Democratic legislators used to pushing the Governor around. (more…)

I have praised the way the president has been moving to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) because he has been working with military commanders to develop a means to effect repeal without compromising the effectiveness of our armed forces.

To see that it is possible for gay people to serve openly while retaining military morale and unit cohesion, one only look at the examples of the nations which allow gays to serve openly in the military, including one nation which faces threats to its survival on an almost daily basis and has thus developed one of the world’s most effective armed services.  I’m speaking of course of Israel.

Thus, I was pleased to learn this week that this spring the Palm Center, a research institute of the University of California, Santa Barbara whose work of late has focused on gays in the military, will will be including officials of the Israel Defense Forces (as well as representatives of other NATO militaries) in a “Washington, D.C. summit of officials and experts from military forces that allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly“.

Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center, cited three questions raised about “twenty-five foreign forces that allow open gay service:”

Did the decision to allow open gay service undermine military readiness?  How was implementation managed?  To what extent can lessons from abroad help U.S. officials plan for an inclusive policy?

This conference can only help ease doubts among those who believe allowing gays to serve openly in the military is merely a social experiment or perhaps done to please an interest group without regard for the welfare of our armed forces. (more…)

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

Like many intellectually-inclined individuals born in the Midwest, I chose to attend college in New England and settle in cities outside my native region, first living in the Washington, D.C.-metropolitan area and now in Los Angeles.  And while many of my peers who made similar journeys share my politics, most do not.  It seems that when they pull up stakes, they lose all allegiance to their place of birth–and the people who live there.

They behave as if because they’re so much smarter than the folks they left behind, they know better how to run their lives than they do.  They heap scorn on those who don’t know the difference between Hegel and Heidegger and can’t name a single German film director from the 1920s or a French one from the 1960s.  In fact, most of the folk left behind probably couldn’t name more than one or two American directors for the 200os.

We conservatives, most of us at least, are a tad more humble.  While we appreciate the company of those with whom we can share our intellectual/cultural pursuits, we recognize that our supposed smarts don’t give us the qualifications to run the lives of our youthful companions or to question their world view.  Sometimes, we’re even aware that these folks have more practical intelligence than we do; we even turn to them for advice on matters of running our households and managing our money.

Yet, many of our left-wing counterparts just can’t accept that those in the hinterlands just don’t trust the judgments of their betters.  How, they exclaim, could anyone find the Blind Side entertaining or, in generations past, couldn’t get enough of John Wayne movies?  Just take a gander at Jacob Weisberg’s latest lament:  ”what may be the biggest culprit in our current predicament: the childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.”

He then goes on to tell us just what it is that makes the American people so ignorant and incoherent:  ”We want Washington and the states to fix all of our problems now. At the same time, we want government to shrink, spend less, and reduce our taxes.”  Guess he missed the latest Gallup poll.  The American people don’t want the the government to solve our problems, well, most of us don’t and I would dare say the better part of the 38 percent who do lives in regions near Mr. Weisberg and, well, myself.

But, I guess he just can’t let go of his prejudices.

In the past few days, I have read two columns taking on people like Mr. Weisberg.   (more…)

Take a gander at this statement from Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee communications director Jen Crider

This is not the time for political opportunism,. . . .  Out of respect for Congressman Murtha’s family and his decades of service to our country, Republicans should put their partisanship aside and allow Mr. Murtha’s family, friends, and constituents time to celebrate his life and mourn his passing.

First of all, she’s right.  We should put aside partisanship.  But, why did she feel the need to say that, instead of focusing on the life she believes people should celebrate.  She’s lecturing Republicans on how to behave, assuming we’ll be dancing on this man’s grave.  She’s on this guy’s side and should focus on his accomplishments.  Let his opponents note their political differences, provided they do so in a manner appropriate at the time of a man’s passing.

Now, contrast her revealing statement with that of a man who had been running against the Pennsylvania Democrat: (more…)

Even if I did not admire Sarah Palin’s accomplishments as Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and as Governor of Alaska where that charismastic woman did more in short tenure to reform the corrupt politics of that great state than did the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee before he launched his bid for the White House, I would love her for how she gets under some very unhappy people’s very sensitive skin.

So obsessed are they with this good woman that she only need open her mouth for them to criticize her.  Or write something innocuous on her palm.  They practically wet themselves trying to engage in a speculative divination.  And trying to deride her intelligence when she, as many orators do, scribbled notes to herself to remind her of issues she wanted to address, they neglected to pay much attention to what she actually did say.

“The far left,” Jim Hoft opined, “The far left absolutely freaked over this non-issue rather than focus on her brilliant speech“.  They prefer to treat her as a circus sideshow that a woman with accomplishments and ideas.

At least, the mainstream media did take note of the speech and so helped elevate the former Governor of the Last Frontier.  Indeed, it often seems she gets as much attention as he.  And her supposed gaffes get more attention than his actual gaffes.

What does it say when “the losing candidate for Vice President [is] for all intents and purposes, treated as the political equal of the President of the United States“?  (Quote via Instapundit.)

Seems I may have been a bit premature in being optimistic about Obama’s health care “summit” with Republicans.  He may not be looking to have an open discussion with both sides putting their views forward on how to proceed with health care reform, but instead in using this as a back door to pick up some Republican support for his massive health care overhaul.

He has, as law professor William A. Jacobson observes, “imposed the precondition that the negotiations start with the Democratic versions of health care legislation:”

White House aides quickly rejected the idea that Obama wants to start over after nearly a year of contentious legislative haggling among members of his party.

Officials said the president will come to the health-care summit armed with a merged version of the two bills that Democrats strong-armed through the two chambers with almost no GOP backing.

“This is not starting over,” one White House official said, who requested anonymity in order to discuss administration strategy. “Don’t make any mistake about that. We are coming with our plan. They can bring their plan.”

The problem is that right now, while there are a number of Republican ideas are on the table, there is no one Republican plan.  And unless Republican settle on a single plan, the White House will try to use these negotiations to try to cast aspersions on the GOP for not having such a plan.  If the White House comes with their plan (which is something it should have done last summer), they’re all be certain to make it the focus of negotiations.

Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.  And indeed, if Republicans come well-prepared, it may be a good thing.  They can press on removing certain provisions particularly unpalatable to them (and the American people) that Democrats would be loath to remove.  And on inserting such things as tort reform that remain popular with the American people, but are anathema to Democrats. (more…)

I would offer a retrospective on the Pennsylvania Democrat‘s legacy, but they say one should not speak ill of the dead.

Instead of touching on his congressional record, I will remember him now by his military service: “he volunteered for combat” during the Vietnam War after having already served in the Marines in the early 1950s.  He gave more to this country before his 40th birthday than most of us give in our entire lives.

First, gotta give credit where it’s due.  The president made a very smart political movie when he called the opposition’s bluff, “inviting Republicans in Congress to a half-day summit” on health care  to be”televised live later this month.”  He “challenged Republicans to come to the discussion armed with their best ideas for how to cover more Americans and fix the health insurance system”:

I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues. . . .  What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas on the table… I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward.

Let’s hope he means what he says and instead of using a a proposal reconciling the House and Senate bills which passed last year as the basis for discussion, he really solicits Republican viewpoints.  Perhaps because he’s wary of the president’s sincerity, House Republican leader John Boehner welcomed the discussion, but cautioned,

The best way to start on real, bipartisan reform would be to scrap those bills and focus on the kind of step-by-step improvements that will lower health care costs and expand access.

Exactly.  If the president does just that, this move could really redound to his benefit.  He would show that like the Gipper, he’s teachable, able to make course corrections where necessary.

He’d also look good if Republicans are scattershot in their opposition, saying “No” for the sake of opposing the president instead of rejecting a proposal on its merits (or lack thereof).  That is, I believe, what Obama is banking on.  And it could work if congressional Republicans are (as Democrats believe them to be) too shrill in their opposition. (more…)