Gay Patriot Header Image

Prediction: No DADT Repeal This Year–Or Possibly This President

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 8:58 pm - March 4, 2010.
Filed under: Congress (111th),DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell)

While I’m heartened that Joe Leiberman, seemingly the Left’s only remaining hawk cogent foreign policy thinker has introduced legislation to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, I’m afraid I can’t be as optimistic about its chances as my host and co-blogger.

I am a big advocate for the repeal as a matter of national security (and no, not because of the meme that it’s hindering recruitment or the fantasy that we’re losing some imagined ungodly number of Arabic linguists because of it). You can find a lengthy long-winded explanation of this stance here, a series I wrote just over four years ago that I believe still stands up (at least as a demonstration of my position on the matter). It gives me no pleasure to pour cold water on the prospect of changing this policy. However,

Given the (to repeat myself) Charlie Foxtrot that Democrats have made of the health care catastrophe, win lose or draw on that issue, what Senator or Representative would be willing to stick his neck out for gays in the military in this atmosphere? (Carl Levin, his co-sponsor isn’t up for re-election until 2012, and Vic Snyder who’s sponsoring in the House won his seat witn 77% in 2008) Safe Democrats will sign on to this and support it fully. But that species is definitely endangered in 2010.

What’s ironic, if you’re willing to see it, is that the sheep fellow-travelers in the “gay” “rights” “community” “leadership” who have been so full-throated in their exhuberance over the president’s Stalinization of health care plan are actually partly to blame, in fact. Were it not for this overreach by the Democrats (led by Obama, Reid, and Pelosi), there may still have been some political captial left in their bank to try to push this through. However, having blown their credibility with the American populace, they’ve also lost much of their authority when it comes to leading.

I’ll be very elated if I’m wrong about this, but bottom line, don’t look for this to happen anytime soon. And that is a shame.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

Are House Democrats Prepared to Live With the Senate Version? Is America?

I’ve been wondering this on the periphery of my mind for a while, and now that I’ve seen not only Rich Lowry over at NRO but also even one-time would-be Obama’s Commerce Secretary Judd Gregg mention it, I suppose I’ll put it out there:

Given how brazen and contemptible the president and his fellow Stalinists in Congress and the Senate have been so far with regard to doing whatever they feel they need to do in order to shove socialized medicine down the throats of an unwilling populace, why would they even bother with reconciliation after the Senate monstrosity is passed by the House (a necessary first-step in order to use that procedure)?

After all, if it’s passed, and those Democrats who’ve signed their political suicide pact with the Speaker have already cast their lots, what incentive would the Senate have to even consider health care again this year? Given the—-er, Charlie-Foxtrot (to use a military term) that it’s been for over 13 months now, what Senate Democrat in his right mind would want to bring up the issue again as he slid through the spring and summer into November’s elections?

Considering the sausage-making spectacle that should cause, spending the months between passing the Senate bill in the House (and the president’s signing it) right before Easter and the summer recess when they start campaigning in ernest tinkering with “fixes” to the Obamacare LAW, it could only put Democrats in an even less tenable situation.

Keeping all that in mind, do you suppose it’s possible that House Democrats could be being set up for a bait-and-switch whereby they are snookered into passing the Senate bill with the promise (please excuse my salty language here) of “cleaning it up” in reconciliation only to have the rug pulled out from under them by an understandably exhausted (or worse, conniving all along) Senate?

The bottom line is that, even if there’s no funny business going on, there’s a very real chance that if the House does what President Obama wants them to do (pass the Senate bill), that might be what we’re left with as the law of the land.

I imagine there are probably 39+ House Democrats who at least have a little itch in the back of their minds about that.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

UPDATE: Yuval Levin puts a different fine point on it (and with fewer spelling mistakes).

Can Gay Democrats Do No Wrong?

Now, I don’t know much about the specifics of the allegations leveled against outgoing Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), save that House Majority Leader  Steny Hoyer knew about them before Massa’s announcement yesterday.  So, it seems they are pretty serious.  One thing I do know–or pretty much can assume based upon reaction to past such scandals–is that should this Democrat indeed have sexually harassed a male staff member, gay groups will dismiss it, perhaps even celebrate him as some kind of victim.

Yet, if he had had a (R) after his name, well, he’d be defined as some kind of self-hating pervert.

Remember Gerry Studds, the late Massachusetts Congressman who had had in 1973, while a member of the House of Representatives, a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male page?  Or Barney Frank who let his lover run a brothel out of his home while he signed off on that pimp’s parking tickets?  Or Jim McGreevey?  Or Kevin Jennings? They do get a bit better treatment from the gay groups than say do folks like Mark Foley.

It’s not about the behavior, it’s about the partisan affiliation.

When Studds died, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese called Studds a “pioneer”,  saying that older gays had an obligation “to tell a story of courage, hard work and remarkable oratory . . . [to] a younger generation who did not know Gerry Studds“.  Two years previously when then-New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey was caught in a scandal, involving putting a potential male love interest on the state payroll, Solmonese’s predecessor Cheryl Jacques did not fault the Democrat’s bad behavior, instead portrayed her fellow partisan as courageous:  “Coming out is a deeply personal journey and Governor McGreevey today showed enormous courage.

There are many gay people whose examples we can and should emulate, like Mary Cheney, Ellen DeGeneres, Neil Patrick Harris and Jim Kolbe.  Yet, there are gay people who do behave badly.  They deserve condemnation as much as do such charlatans as John Edwards.

John Edwards does not represent straight men.  In a similar manner, Frank, McGreevey and Studds are not representative of gay men.  Their behavior is embarrassing to gay people.  And the heads of gay organizations should criticize them for behaving badly.

But, perhaps because of that all-purpose (D) after their names, they become immune to criticism from those who claim to speak for our community.

On the nobility inherent in men & its needed nurturing

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:10 pm - March 4, 2010.
Filed under: History,Sex Difference

Yesterday on AOL’s Politics Daily, Ria Misra wrote a piece on a study comparing the sinkings of the Titanic and the Lusitania, now nearly a century ago which, well, I can’t get out of my head.  Perhaps because it relates to a matter I address in my dissertation, the civilizing of men.

According to a “study published in the journal Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences

On the Titanic, children were about 15 percent more likely to survive and women approximately 50 percent more likely to survive than men on the ship. Young men were more likely to die on the Titanic, but on the Lusitania, young men were almost 8 percent more likely to survive than other passengers. Researchers attribute the difference to the extra time — just 2 hours 22 minutes — in which they say that social norms (“women and children first”) made it more likely that they were given seats on lifeboats.

You see

The Titanic sank slowly, over a period of 2 hours 40 minutes, while the Lusitania slipped beneath the waters in a matter of just 18 minutes. And that difference in time had a huge impact on who survived — a discrepancy researchers attribute to passengers on the Lusitania acting instinctively in self-preservation, and on the Titanic, passengers first helping other passengers.

Our first instinct as men is self-preservation, but when we have time to think, as did the passengers on the Titanic, we consider others.

We men do have noble instincts; they just need developing nurturing.

Reagan Embarks on his Path to Greatness

Fifty-eight years ago today, Ronald Wilson Reagan began his path to greatness when he married Nancy Davis. The Gipper was born good; she made him great.

The Obama Lip Synching Scandal?

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 9:35 am - March 4, 2010.
Filed under: Obama Arrogance,Obama Incompetence,Obama Watch

Priceless.

I told Tammy Bruce that the voice at the end sounds like Urkel!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Lieberman Introduces Bill to Repeal DADT

One of the smartest moves this Administration has made has been to delegate to the 2000 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee the task of introducing the bill to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.  And yesterday, that good man introduced legislation to that effect:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) introduced the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, legislation that would lift the ban and prohibit discrimination against gay service members. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said he expects his panel to take up the measure in May as part of the annual defense authorization bill.

Given the respect the soon-to-be senior Senator from the Nutmeg State enjoys in military circles, advocates for repeal (including yours truly) could better make the argument that repeal won’t compromise military readiness or unit cohesion.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it was a smart move to put Lieberman at the forefront of this effort.

Now, let’s hope that where there’s a will, there will be a way.  And that the superextended vote on health care won’t sap the energy out of Congres from moving forward on repeal.

Hate Speech on MSNBC: A Mix

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:54 am - March 4, 2010.
Filed under: Mean-spirited leftists,Media Bias,New Media

A smart young blogger put together an interesting compilation of some of the hate speech on the White House’s favorite news network: