Gay Patriot Header Image

Is PR Always to Blame for Obama’s Failures?

Jennifer Rubin has a great post today which really gets at the failure of the president’s so-called “smart diplomacy” in the Middle east.  The problem is not their policies, you see, but  that they just need “some more PR. Because it is always about a PR deficiency and never a policy problem with this gang.”

I think the root problem of the Obama officials goes back to the 1980s.  Back then, few of the smart set could accept the success of Ronald Reagan’s policies and the popularity of the man himself, so they decided the “amiable dunce” (as one of their number dubbed him) could attribute his amiability and achievements not to his ideas or policies, but his means of expressing them.

Now, I’ll grant there’s something to that.  The Gipper was better able to communicate conservative ideas than was Barry Goldwater.  But, that doesn’t mean the ideas themselves were unpopular.  I mean, even today, with lackluster Republican leadership, the Gipper’s ideas as gaining greater currency as both Gallup and Pew polls have shown.

So, ignoring polling data about popular attitudes toward big government, Administration officials hold to their assumption that because they support a greater role for the federal government, the American people must also support big government–if Obama could only communicate his vision as did the Gipper did.  Or, as in the case Rubin presented, because we support this Middle East policy, it must be a good one, even if it that policy promotes no progress.

And the same people faulted the incumbent’s predecessor for his stubbornness.

RELATED: Krauthammer: Obama may be president, but he’s not “the arbiter of American political discourse”.

Will Democrats Differentiate Themselves from Hate Speech in Oregon?

By the Barney Frank standard, proof continues to emerge that Democratic critics of Sarah Palin countenance name-calling.  Don’t think the unhappy Massachusetts Democrat (or any Democrat for that matter) has “differentiated” himself from the angry signs that greeted the arrival of the former Alaska Governor in Eugene, Oregon:

To the woman carrying sign dubbing your burg a “Hate-Free Zone,” I wonder why you’re not faulting the person standing right behind you hoisting a “Hope She Chokes” Sign.  Seems kind of hateful to wish death on someone.

But, I’m sure that irony escapes here because these leftists seem to think that hate comes from one side only.

Via Gateway Pundit who has more including this, these folks “need to concentrate more on spelling and less on indoctrination“.

UPDATE:  Commenting on this picture, Ed Morrissey offers:

It’s a darned good thing that the person holding the sign that says, “Hope she chokes” (with the Obama logo a nice touch, by the way) is doing so in Eugene’s “hate-free zone.”  Why, if someone had displayed a sign at a Tea Party rally that said something about our President choking, it would have been declared a symptom of the violence inherent in the conservative system, with apologies to Dennis the Peasant.  

Pretty much sums it up.

Bush-bashing as artistic genre

Over at his blog, our pal Sonicfrog does a great job taking apart a New York Times review of the Broadway show, “American Idiot,” and speculates that the reviewer may have so loved the piece because the eponymous idiot is the immediate past president of the United States:

The good ol’ days. Back when it was OK to hate the President. Of course, bashing Bush was not exactly edgy or breaking new ground by the time “American Idiot” came out – Dixie Chicks, Keith Olberman, and Rosie “fire has never melted steel” O’Donnell had already blazed that trail. What makes the Green Day album notable was not the music – I doubt many could name a single song from the album, or hum one of the tunes – but the fact that the anti-Bush sentiment was marketed so prominently as a feature of the album. I know the “American Idiot” album won a Grammy, but does anyone really think it would have been nearly as successful if it wasn’t an exercise in Bush bashing?

He concludes:

But I find it hard to believe that a musical based on such shallow material could lift itself to the heights that this critic portends. I find it sad that the material that this is based on is the best they could do when deciding to produce a rock opera of this nature.

Now, I don’t know as much about the distinctions in musical genres as does our “amphibian” friend, so encourage you to read the post where he questions reviewer Charles Isherwood’s understanding of contemporary music (and other things). (more…)

Draw Mohammed, May 20th

After having dilligently scrubbed through all the posts here in the past three days so as to not run afoul of our intrepid readers ;-), I submit likely one of the most useful things to come from Dan Savage in about a decade. (Not that I don’t like his stuff, but rarely is he this good.)

Over at The Stranger, Dan asks his readers (and I ask ours) to join him for “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” on May 20th in support of my fellow Centennial StatesmenTrey Parker and Matt Stone: (more…)

Catholic League: “Not All Gay Sex Is Abusive”

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:08 am - April 24, 2010.
Filed under: Gays & religion

When I saw that headline on Memeorandum, naturally my curiosity was piqued as I was delighted to see this Catholic organization acknowledging what the Greeks had figured out at least since Plato’s time — and other cultures certainly acknowledged well before that.

In this short release, Catholic League president Bill Donohue merely takes issue with the New York Times for calling a twenty-year sexual relationship between a young man and a priest abusive.  The Old Gray Lady detailed a gay romance ” between Chilean priest Fr. Fernando Karadima, now 79, and Dr. James Hamilton, now 44.”  Donahue elaborates:

According to the Times, it all started with a kiss. Let me be very clear about this: if some guy tried to kiss me when I was 17, I would have flattened him. I most certainly would not go on a retreat with the so-called abuser, unless, of course, I liked it. Indeed, Hamilton liked it so much he went back for more—20 years more. Even after he got married, he couldn’t resist going back for more.

So what about the priest? He is a disgrace. Throw the book at him for all I care. But let’s not be fooled into thinking that Dr. Hamilton is a victim. The real news story here is not another case of homosexual molestation, it’s the political motivation of the New York Times.

I gotta agree with the general thrust of his argument. Hamilton is not a victim, not if he, willingly, over a period of two decades, returned to the priest for continued intimate contact.

All that said, what the priest did when Hamilton was 17 was clearly wrong.  But, Hamilton is no saint.  That he would carry on even after getting married suggested a man clueless as to the meaning of his vows.  And that applies to the priest as well (as per the meaning of his vows.)

But, to call Hamilton a victim after he reached the age of maturity, would be to suggest that any man who engages in a relationship illicit or licit for that matter with another man is by dint of participating in said relationship incapable of exercising sound judgment.