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)

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).

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.

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.

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.

Priceless.

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

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

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.

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

As we’ve filled our table for the Claremont dinner, one of our readers is organizing a brunch for blog readers to welcome Bruce and his partner to Los Angeles on Sunday March 28th at 1 PM.

Please drop me an e-mail by Friday March 26 if you’d like attend.

When President Obama delivered his 35th speech today on health care reform today, he was surrounded by five health care professionals in white coats and one woman in scrubs.  Wonder if they passed them out before the talk?

Now, my older brother is a doctor (in fact, he’s a neurosurgeon) and I’ve only seen him a few times in a white coat, but never at a political (or social) function.  All those times (I saw him in a white coat) were when I visited him at the hospital where he worked.  I have never seen him in scrubs, but assume he wears them when he, in my nephew’s words, fixes people’s brains.

Guess they must have been been preparing for surgery today in the White House.

Or maybe the latest speech was some kind of costume drama.

Wow, I should have come up with this category long ago.

Here, this time we have an example of what a cynic might call payola. The details?

Today we hear that President Obama, in trying to persuade ten Democrats (who seem to care more about silly things like the Constitution, their constituents’ wishes, and the solvency of the United States than they do about the president’s socialist agenda) who voted against the Stalinization plan for the US health care industry last fall to change their sides, will be hosting them at the White House tonight. Well that makes sense. Heck, even for the Super Bowl, he hosted a whole one Republican at the White House. Anyway, though…

But what’s this?!

One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson’s brother, Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Now, if you weren’t watching closely enough, you might think that perhaps the president is trying cynically to buy the elder Matheson’s vote in the House by throwing a bone to his little brother in the form of a 10th Circuit Court nomination.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

You just can’t catch a break being a Democrat in Washington these days.  Or a Hill staffer being pounced upon by dirty old men…

Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) will not seek re-election after only one term in office.

According to several House aides – on both sides of the aisle – the House ethics committee has been informed of allegations that Massa, who is married with two children, sexually harassed a male staffer.

Massa, whose departure endangers Democrats’ hold on a competitive seat, told POLITICO Wednesday afternoon that no one has brought allegations of misconduct to him.

Asked about the sexual harassment allegations, Massa said: “When someone makes a decision to leave Congress, everybody says everything. I have health issues. I’ll talk about it [later].”

Massa recently suffered from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and he has said that his experience with cancer drove his interest in running for office so he could help reform the health care system.

A 20-year Navy veteran, Massa was elected to office last November. He serves on the Agriculture, Armed Services and Homeland Security committees.

Massa is scheduled to hold a conference call at 3:30 this afternoon to announce his decision, which came as a complete surprise to several of his freshman Democratic colleagues in the New York delegation.

As a freshman representing New York’s most Republican House district, Massa was one of the most endangered Democrats in the delegation. Republicans had been aggressively targeting his seat and landed top recruit Tom Reed, the Republican mayor of Corning, to challenge him.

Massa is now the 15th House Democrat to announce retirement plans, with 11 of them leaving districts that Republicans are aggressively contesting. House Republicans face 19 retirements within GOP ranks, but most of their departing members hail from safe seats.

More on this story as we get it!

UPDATE (from Dan):  As per my Rangel post, something tells me that Mass won’t get the Foley treatment.  It’s that all-purpose (D) after his name.

UP-UPDATE (from Dan):  Just fixed the title.  He’s retiring at the end of his term, not resigning.  Now, didn’t Mark Foley resign when he got caught?  Guess there are different standards for different parties.  That all purpose (D) again.

UP-UP-UPDATE (from Dan):  Well, looks like Bruce could see into the future.  :-)  Massa is going to resign.

Yep, I’ve scored two great guests.  First at the top of the 10:00PM hour, TV’s Andy Levy from the Fox News Channel’s top-rated “RedEye” program.  I’m expecting that the 30 minutes will be filled with two dry senses of humor battling each other!

Then at 10:30PM, I’ll be joined by Jimmy LaSalvia — Executive Director of GOProud.  We’ll talk about the CPAC fallout, plus current issues that the gay conservative group is working on.

Tune in LIVE or listen to the recorded show later.  But you just can’t miss these two great guests tonight!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

At least since last fall, when polls showed that the momentum in the health care debate among the American people, was against a radical overhaul of the kind Washington Democrats are proposing, the president (and his partisan allies) have been projecting their views onto their fellow citizens.  Today, the Associated Press reports:

Declaring the nation is “waiting for us to act” after a year of debate, President Barack Obama urged Congress Wednesday to enact his signature health care legislation swiftly. He said it now contains the best ideas from both political parties.

Um, actually, no, Mr. President, most polls show that Americans would rather you didn’t act on the type of proposals you’ve been pushing.  We’re are more concerned, much more, about jobs and deficits.

Still, he presses on, even pretending to be bipartisan:

In a bit of political sleight of hand, Obama said he might include four GOP-sponsored ideas in his plan, even though virtually no one in Congress or the White House thinks it will procure a single Republican vote.

Might include?  Might?  Yeah, that is a sleight of hand.  Even if he does include these ideas, they will be little more than window-dressing.  He’ll be pasting them on his proposal to make it look bipartisan, but won’t be eliminating any of the program’s regulatory aspects which limit our freedoms and most concern Republicans.

It would be one thing to include Republican ideas while sitting down at the table with Republicans as he crafts a bill, but quite another to pick and choose among them–without changing the overall program.  It’s like a chef, determined to bake a cake as the main course for a meal, responding to concerns that he prepare more healthy fare by topping his cake off with spinach–and maybe using yogurt in the frosting.

But, it’s still a cake–and not a healthy meal, despite a few nutritious ingredients included in the revised recipe.

On September 28, 2005, Tom DeLay relinquished his post as Majority Leader (then a Republican post) of the U.S. House of Representatives, a full year before the 2005 elections.  Today, one of the most powerful Democrats announced that he is temporarily stepping aside as chairman of one of the House’s most powerful committees:

Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York announced on Wednesday that he would temporarily step down from his powerful post as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee in an attempt to avert a politically bruising fight over permanently stripping the gavel from his hands.

Just as the mainstream media kept the DeLay story in the headlines–even after he resigned from Congress–I don’t think they will pay much attention to Rangel now that he’s no longer a committee chair (not that they did as stories about his questionable conduct accumulated).  But, note this from the Washington Post:

Rangel, 79, becomes the highest-ranking House member to resign a leadership position amid an ethical scandal in four years, since then-Reps. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) stepped down as, respectively, majority leader and administration committee chairman amid the Jack Abramoff lobbying investigation.

This is a pretty big deal–at least as big as those stories of GOP corruption which Nancy Pelosi exploited in 2006.  Well, now, as Michelle Malkin puts it, “The Culture of Corruption chickens are coming home to roost.”

Now, it’s been over four years since Ronnie Earle, a left-wing District Attorney filed charges against DeLay–and still has not brought the case to trial.  Sounds like all the sound and fury about the scandals surrounding DeLay signified nothing (as an aside, I’m no fan of DeLay, am glad he’s no longer GOP leader, but don’t think he’s a crook).  So, will we get as much sound and fury about Charlie Rangel’s scandals?  Or does that (D) after his name render him immune from such scrutiny?

Methinks not it does (in the eyes of the MSM).

NB:  Corrected this as my rhetorical flourish (originally) answered the first question in the penultimate paragraph and not the second as it now does.

If we hold the incumbent president to the standard, to which many of his supporters held his predecessor, well, then, he’s a liar–and a serial one at that.  I won’t go so far, but will note his opportunistic principles.

When I read this morning (Pacific Time), that the President “will suggest that if it is necessary, Democrats will use the controversial ‘reconciliation’ rules requiring only 51 Senate votes to pass the ‘fix’ to the Senate bill,” I recalled viewing his comments–and those of his then-Democratic colleagues on the Senate–opposing a simple majority for judicial confirmations.  Iowa’s far-left Senator Tom Harkin is leading the charge for reconciliation, announcing earlier today that reconciliation is a go.

As Mark Tapscott puts it at the Washington Examiner, Democrats “had a different view of reconciliation when it was a Republican majority using it to pass measures advocated by President George W. Bush.”  And not just on federal judges:

Here’s what then-Senator Obama had to say in 2005 about reforms in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) welfare program that he and other Democrats opposed:

“The TANF program affects millions of American children and families and deserves a full and fair debate. Under the rules, the reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes and the wrong place for the proposed changes to the TANF program. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning. A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt.”

Guess when it comes to ramming an unpopular program through, the rules change.  It’s all about control.

UPDATE:  Obama Flashback: Dems Should Not Pass Healthcare With 50-Plus-1 Strategy (Video)

On Monday night, I had a late dinner, preparing it while talking with a friend on the phone.  I’m pretty sure I put too much Lawry’s Seasoning Salt into my turkey burger before I slapped it onto the George Foreman Grill.  The following day (yesterday), my tummy was feeling a little off (and so was I).

Well, toward the end of the day, during which I had had little appetite, I decided to eat a yogurt with some honey.  Not only did I gobble it down, but felt better with each tasty spoonful.  When I returned to my desk, I was better able to focus and get things done.  So, this morning, I’m logging on to check my e-mail and follow this link on Yahoo! to The 5 foods you should eat every day. Here’s #5:

Making yogurt part of your daily eating routine can improve your digestion — if you’re buying the right stuff. Check that the label lists “active cultures” to make sure you’re getting healthy probiotics, and pick a yogurt rich in vitamin D to prevent osteoporosis.

Wondering now if I had had that earlier if I would have felt more centered during the day.

UPDATE:  I’m not the first to call lit a miracle food:

(Well, I’m sure I wasn’t the only one).  ”Leno counters [Letterman] with Palin as his first guest.”

Alright, two quick things first:

Point One: James Bunning is a 7-time All-Star, Hall of Fame pitcher who retired with a 3.27 ERA (albeit in the National League). He kicks ass.

Point Two: He’s not handled his interactions with the press very well. Perfect example is his confrontation with ABC’s Jonathan Karl we’ve all seen a million times by now. Okay, Karl was asking a very stupid question that Bunning had answered a million times already (see more below) and was just goading him for dramatic effect. But Bunning, someone who’s been in Washington since 1987, should be better at such things.

Okay, now on with the post:

THANK GOD FOR JIM BUNNING
(more…)

I mean this…. (h/t – UrbanSurvival.com)

…. is obviously Bush’s Fault ™.  What other possible reason could there be?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)