While the tone of Robert Kuttner’s piece in the Huffington Post breathes contempt for Republicans and betrays a great misunderstanding of popular opinion, particularly in the Bay State, his title gives the game away about the real modus operandi of the Obami: Obama Rejects Bipartisan Bank Deal.

Yup, they’re the ones rejecting bipartisanship.

The Democrat’s campaign rhetoric notwithstanding, he’s not interesting in working with Republicans.  President Obama never was, provided such work meant incorporating Republican ideas into  the overall structure of his legislative initiatives.  Yeah, sure, just like his rhetoric, he’ll throw in a few minor Republican ideas as window-dressing to call it bipartisan, but when he works out his deals, he works with the most hyperpartisan Democrats in Congress, those known for their contempt for conservatives and their commitment to big government policies.

Kuttner writes:

Although Senate Banking Committee Chair Chris Dodd and his sometime Republican ally Richard Shelby continued to make noises on the Sunday talk shows about a possible bipartisan deal, both President Obama and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank have personally urged Dodd not to cut a deal with Republicans. I asked Frank point blank why Dodd would want such a deal, and he said–on the record–”I have no idea, but both President Obama and I have urged him not to.”

This is a welcome sign that Obama realizes that public opinion is moving in the direction of tougher banking reform, and that he learned from the health debate that bipartisan compromise on key reform issues is a snare and a delusion. 

Yeah, of course, Barney doesn’t want to cut a deal with Republicans.  Barney doesn’t like Republicans.  You know, he kind of blames them for everything.

And this snare and delusion?  It’s all in Obama’s rhetoric, trying to trap Republicans by pretending he’s some magnanimous figure while obscuring his liberal record and beliefs.  Kuttner can spin it however he wants, but he does admit at least that the Democrat is the one putting the kibosh on bipartisan reform.  Just like he did with health care.

David Frum, are you paying attention?

Oh come on… like I COULD make this stuff up! (h/t – Mark Steyn)

An Adelaide restaurant that refused a blind man entry because a waiter thought his guide dog was “gay” has been ordered to apologise and pay compensation.

Ian Jolly was told he could not take guide dog Nudge into the Thai Spice last May because a member of staff objected, The Sunday Mail reported.

The restaurant’s owners said a misunderstanding had arisen between Jolly’s female companion and a waiter who understood the woman “to be saying she wanted to bring a gay dog into the restaurant”.

“The staff genuinely believed that Nudge was an ordinary pet dog which had been desexed to become a gay dog,” the owners said in a statement to South Australia’s Equal Opportunity Tribunal.

The tribunal on Friday ordered the restaurant to pay Jolly $1500 and offer him a written apology for discriminating against him on the grounds of disability.

Actually, I’d like to find out this technique to “desex” a dog and make it a “gay dog”.  I actually think there is a business opportunity here….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

If I did not, on occasion, check Pam Spaulding’s blog, I would have been unaware that Michelangelo Signorile had hosted a LGBT Leadership Townhall meeting on Thursday afternoon (EST).  Well, it’s probably for the best, given that of the seven speakers (counting Signorile), none were Republicans.  If the organizers of this town hall had wished to accurately reflect the diversity of our community, they would have included at least two Republicans on the panel.

In a post on the summit, Pam reports how she took HRC President Joe Solmonese to task

over his definitive statement at the HRC Carolinas dinner that DADT will be repealed in 2010. . . .  He couldn’t unring the bell, so his position now is he still believes, not knows, it will be repealed, which clearly isn’t what he’s been telling donors.

Kudos to Pam for (yet again) exposing how the HRC head bends over backwards to please his Democratic Party patrons.  Here’s the real news that came out of the summit:

. . .  SLDN has been put in the dog house by the admin because it has been openly critical of the manipulation going on. It’s looking petty and juvenile, in my opinion. Leaving SLDN out of meetings with Jim Messina regarding DADT is ludicrous, so HRC was the “good, compliant gay org” invited. Don’t you remember Obama asking people to challenge him to do the right thing? Well, look what it got SLDN.

Now, Pam and I don’t agree about too much, but it seems we both hold SLDN in pretty high regard.  And yet, the White House, until very recently as per another Pam post, has shut them out merely for standing up for the principles and asking the president on a promise he made as a candidate.  Seems this Administration shows its pettiness even to its erstwhile supporters.

In this post, Pam offers a roundup of reaction to the summit, including this from Kevin Naff’s editorial in the DC Agenda, “HRC, Solmonese in the hot seat“:

There were plenty of barbs sent Solmonese’s way, including a pointed question from Get Equal’s Robin McGehee, who asked if Solmonese and HRC’s David Smith would resign if key LGBT legislative priorities are not achieved this year.  Solmonese responded that his continued employment is up to the HRC board. (Note from Pam -Joe has apparently opened the door for the LGBT community to give the board independent feedback on his performance)

It is too bad gay leaders can hold onto their jobs even in the absence of real accomplishments.  Well, as one less conservatively inclined gay friend once replied when I asked him to detail HRC’s accomplishments, “They do raise a lot of money.”