Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama’s New Kind of Politics as Usual

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:24 pm - May 31, 2010.
Filed under: Democrats & Double Standards,HopeAndChange

On the Administration attempt to push Joe Sestak out of the contest for the Democratic Senate nomination in the Keystone State, the editors at the Wall Street Journal observe:

It’s possible that all we really have here is a case of the Obama White House playing Washington politics as usual, which the White House refused to admit for three months because this is what Mr. Obama promised he would not do if he became President. However, this is clearly what he hired Mr. Emanuel to do for him, and given his ethical record Mr. Clinton was the perfect political cutout. So much for the most transparent Administration in history.

Read the whole thing.

Memorial Day

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 10:30 am - May 31, 2010.
Filed under: Military

As a military member, on this day, I pass on the thanks of a grateful Nation to those who came before me, earned honor for the uniform I wear, and upon whose shoulders I stand. To those who paid the ultimate price for our Liberties, I fly my flag at half-staff until noon today, then raise it in honor of their sacrifice.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Jack Abramoff: Charisma, Cunning & Craft

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 9:03 am - May 31, 2010.
Filed under: National Politics,Random Thoughts

In the course of this journey across the country, I have gotten reacquainted with a number of old friends via Facebook, including now three of my former colleagues as College Republican state chairman.  I served as year as head of the Massachusetts federation in the (Jack) Abramoff era.

In our conversations, Jack invariably comes up.  We all have our stories, some involving the man’s amazing charisma — how he could sweet talk almost anyone, other relating to the dirty tricks he authorized — how he convinced us to participated in some underhanded endeavors (none illegal at that time).  

Now, recalling some of those underhanded endeavors, we could say that we all saw his illegal activities coming.  But, then again, if he had been elected the first Jewish president (as some of us predicted) or achieved renown for some other great honor, we could also have said we saw that coming too.  You see, Jack Abramoff was, in many ways, a lot like the Greek hero, Achilles, a man of amazing contrasts, accomplishing, in one moment, some pretty remarkable things and in the next, some pretty contemptible ones.

Given his charisma, I dare say we would still recall him as we do today.  Despite his stature (he was pretty short), he had a powerful presence.  But, had he not had his legal troubles, I wonder if we still talk about him as much as we do now.

RELATED:  The Tragedy of Jack Abramoff.

Strange course toward DADT Repeal

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 9:00 am - May 31, 2010.
Filed under: DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell)

In the course of my cross country travels and conversations with friends, I found time to respond to AOL’s request to opine on the sudden, swift forward motion on repeal of DADT.

Let me whet your appetite with the first few paragraphs:

Some day, perhaps, when someone writes about the legislative record of the Obama administration, they might better be able to understand the bizarre manner in which the president’s team moved forward on repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT).

Unlike the previous Democrat to occupy the Oval Office, President Obama didn’t rush to act on gays in the military in the first days of his administration. President Clinton’s clumsy attempt to repeal the ban on gay service in the military led to DADT, codifying the ban in law, whereas previously it had been an executive order that the president could repeal at his discretion. 

This time, the current president acted with greater deliberation, sometimes indeed it seemed excessive deliberation. While Obama had promised in his campaign to repeal DADT, his team didn’t give any indication of forward motion until last October, when administration officials asked Sen. Joe Lieberman to spearhead legislative efforts to reverse the ban. Well-respected in military circles, the Connecticut Independent who caucuses with the Democrats often sides with Republicans on matters of national security. 

You can read the rest here.

RACE DAY IN CHARLOTTE!

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 11:52 am - May 30, 2010.
Filed under: NASCAR

In just a few hours, 200,000 of our closest friends will gather at the Charlotte Motor Speedway for the Coca-Cola 600 NASCAR Sprint Cup Race.  Those of you not attending can watch all of the action on FOX Sports.  The pre- and post-game coverage will be live from the CLT Speedway on SPEED.

To whet your appetite a bit, here is some footage I took from the Grand Opening of the NASCAR Hall of Fame on May 11 here in Charlotte, NC.

Dale Earnhardt’s #3 “Intimidator” car at the NASCAR Hall of Fame

Throughout the day, I’ll be posting photos and videos to my Twitter account and to my new Flickr photo page.

Check ‘em out.  I may update the blog if I can — but the place to be for my NASCAR updates is Twitter!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Has Bill Clinton Broken Federal Law?

Wouldn’t be the first time…. 

But check out this passage from 18 US Code, Section 600 (in reference to the Clinton offer to Sestak for an “unpaid job”).

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Will Bill Clinton or Rahm Emanuel be a fall guy and go to jail for Barack Obama?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Gulf Oil Spill & the “dominant narrative of Katrina”

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 10:12 am - May 28, 2010.
Filed under: Katrina Disaster,Media Bias

Before I left LA, I had wanted to post on the contrasting narratives of Katrina and the Gulf Oil spill, but due to the press of a number of obligations, did not get the chance to do so to the degree that I would have liked.  And doubt I will be able to address this is in a timely matter.

Fortunately, some other bloggers have been looking into the matter, one of whom is the ever-insightful Jim Geraghty who offers:

The dominant narrative of Katrina made no room for the normal human errors and snafus that mark any response to a giant problem; righties are naturally objecting to the sudden reinstatement of the “Hey, sometimes stuff happens, what can you do?” standard under a Democratic president.

Read the whole thing.  Jim also offers links to other insightful observations.

It does seem that the MSM used Katrina to do what they had failed to do in 2004, bring down George W. Bush.  And with that good man, but flawed executive, then having an inept communications operation, they succeeded.  (If not in throwing him out of office, in at least, portraying him as inept.)

RELATED:  “OBAMA’S KATRINA: ‘The media started riding Bush about his response to Katrina within a couple of days. Obama got a pass for over a month.’”

Why sudden swift action on DADT repeal?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 9:51 am - May 28, 2010.
Filed under: 111th Congress,DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell)

Like Bruce, I was surprised at the swiftness of the sudden movement on DADT.  For his first sixteen months in office, President Obama failed to use his executive powers to limit the reach of the ban, making it more difficult to dismiss service members who happen to be gay.

Now, all of a sudden, Congress acts.  To be sure, I am pleased with this move in the right direction, but troubled by the paucity of debate on the current bill.  And  concerned that there does not appear to be a timeline for executive action once Congress passes repeal.

All that said, what I most wonder about is why, after all this shilly-shallying around, Democrats decided to suddenly, swiftly taken action.

Big Gay’s Cozy Relationship With…. Wait For It…

… BIG OIL!

Aiming to blunt a regulatory and political backlash as oil continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico, BP PLC has revved up its influence machine, relying on heavy hitters with deep Democratic roots.

BP is one of the biggest spenders on lobbying in the oil and gas industry, which as a whole has spent a total of $625 million since 2004 to represent its interests in Washington. After the Obama administration took office in 2009, BP’s annual spending grew by half, to $16 million.

During the first quarter of 2010, it spent $3.5 million on lobbying, second to ConocoPhillips, according to figures compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Since the April 20 oil rig explosion that started the Gulf spill, BP’s lobbyists and crisis communications experts have helped to shore up congressional opposition to measures punishing oil companies, and moved to position BP as an ally with the government to manage the crisis.

After the spill, the company brought on crisis communicator Hilary Rosen, former Democratic congressional staffer, former chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, and a current editor-at-large for HuffingtonPost.com. Ms. Rosen heads the Washington-based office of U.K. communications firm the Brunswick Group.

If Hilary Rosen’s name sounds familiar to you gays & lesbians out there – well it should.  She lead the “leading gay rights organization” for many years.  None other than the Human Rights Campaign!

On January 22, 2003, Rosen announced that she would resign as head of the RIAA at the end of 2003, in order to spend more time with her partner, Elizabeth Birch, and the couple’s twins (a boy and a girl). She began a television commentator career first with CNBC and then with MSNBC. She signed with CNN in April 2008. Rosen and Birch separated in 2006.

On November 30, 2004, Rosen became the interim director for the Human Rights Campaign, a leading GLBT lobbyist organization, following the ouster of Cheryl Jacques. Hilary’s partner, Elizabeth, was the executive director of HRC for eight years prior to Jacques’ assumption of the post. Since May 2005 she’s been a contributing blogger at The Huffington Post and a consultant to companies in the media industry such as XM Radio, Viacom and Snocap.

Wow.  Rosen sure knows how to work it, huh?  She found that Nepotism is the Best Strategy for the HRC.  Unreal.

Now answer me this:  Since when does taking money from Big Oil constitute a gay rights issue?  Just curious!!!  Do liberals really have no shame?  There are so many “progressives” in the pocket of BP, one might believe abortion was somehow involved with oil exploration.

Despite this history of safety problems, BP has made allies of some Democrats and environmentalists with its support for climate-change legislation, which company lobbyists helped write. It is a key member of the United States Climate Action Partnership, which aims to convince businesses that renewable energy and putting a price on industry emissions of heat-trapping gases can be profitable.

Among BP’s lobbyists is Tony Podesta, who heads the Podesta Group, a lobbying powerhouse founded by Mr. Podesta and his brother, former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, who headed President Barack Obama’s transition team. John Podesta now leads the Center for American Progress, the liberal think tank whose scholars have presented the White House with ideas like forcing BP to devote its first-quarter profits, or some $5 billion, to a fund for Gulf cleanup. It also has criticized potential BP-related conflicts of interest within the government.

Tony Podesta confirmed Podesta Group was working for BP on the Deepwater Horizon issue, but responded by email that “they have asked us not to talk to press.” BP paid the Podesta Group $320,000 a year in 2008 and 2009, and $60,000 this year through March 31, said the Center for Responsive Politics.

… that it is amazing that Obama even knows there is an oil spill from his Corporate ATM.

American Progressives — Where Hypocrisy Doesn’t Cost Much To Buy.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Death Threat: “Liberal Tolerance” On Full Display

My first death threat.  I feel proud.  This message was sent to me on Thursday via Twitter from out of left (literally) field.

steve (@stevexumba)
5/26/10 4:04 PM
@GayPatriot I hope that a homophobic teabagger beats you to death and leaves you to die, you uncle Tom motherfucker

Pleasant, huh?  I can’t say I’m surprised, though.  Some of the most vile hate speech on the Internet comes from the American progressives.  You rarely see the kind of language on conservative blogs as you do on DailyKos, Democratic Underground or AmericaBlog on an hourly basis.

I’m happy to report that the Twitter community rallied in support of me and trashed the liberal troll up one side and down the other.  In fact, he has deleted all of his postings to me completely.  But the Internet saves EVERYTHING.  And thanks to the Library of Congress’ agreement with Twitter, Steve’s death threat is part of recorded American history!  His Mom must be so proud.

I wonder if my last response to him on Twitter had anything to do with his trying to erase the evidence?

GayPatriot (@gaypatriot)
@stevexumba Under Federal & state laws, your statement to me does constitute a threat that can be pursued with criminal and civil charges

Ah, the cross we conservatives have to bear in America by standing up to political intimidation.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Congress Moves At Speed of Light on DADT Repeal

**UPDATE – 10:18PM – House passes DADT repeal amendment – 234-194.  Newest Congressman Djou (R-HI), endorsed by GOProud, voted in favor of repeal.  GOP votes in favor were Cao, Djou, Biggert, Ros-Lehtinen, Paul.  26 Democrats voted against repeal.  The roll call of the vote will (eventually) appear at THIS LINK. (h/t – AllahPundit)

Damn!  As I said on Twitter…..

 … if the Congress would only secure our borders as quick as they are moving on #DADT.

…  imagine if Obama found the ability not to lie as quickly as Congress is moving on #DADT !!!

Just sayin…

Anyway, I’m glad this Clinton-era, legislated discrimination is on the pathway to repeal.  Earlier this afternoon, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 to move toward repeal of DADT.

Senators took the first step toward allowing gays to serve openly in the military Thursday evening, with a panel voting 16-12 to approve an amendment to the Defense authorization bill that would repeal the don’t ask don’t tell policy.

“Today’s action by the Senate Armed Services Committee is an important step to end this discriminatory policy,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) the panel’s chairman, who described debate on the amendment as “lively.”

The amendment was the most-watched part of the Senate Armed Services Committee’s mark up of its annual defense bill, which also passed Thursday evening.

The bill was soundly opposed by the Republicans on the committee and Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who explained in a statement that he didn’t want to repeal the ban while the Pentagon is in the midst of reviewing how it should implement the change.

The White House and the Pentagon both approved a compromise contained in the amendment that allowed Congress to act, while granting the President, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff the ultimate authority to implement repeal when they were satisfied that the military’s readiness, recruiting, retention and morale would not be adversely impacted by the shift in policy.

And now, suddenly Speaker Pelosi (who voted for the Clinton-signed DADT law originally) is hammering a vote through the House tonight with nearly no time for debate.  Tyranny rocks!  That Constitution is such an old, worn out thing — ain’t it, Nancy?

In all seriousness, I am pleased at this momentum — though there is much more to go before a repeal is complete.

But also in all seriousness — have you EVER seen Washington move this quickly on ANYTHING?  There must be a lot of Homolobbying going on behind closed doors!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Why Don’t People Smile as Much in Our Nation’s Capital?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:08 pm - May 27, 2010.
Filed under: Dan's Cross Country Odyssey,Random Thoughts,Travel

The three things I have most noticed about DC since returning for only the third time since I lived here in the 1990s is how few people smile (compared to LA), how many more smokers there are and how oppressive is the humidity.

Perhaps, oppressive is a bit harsh, but it does take some getting used to when you’re walking around downtown, especially when wearing a jacket and tie and toting a laptop.

It is weird to be back, a stranger in a city which was once my home.  I remain familiar with many of the places I pass, but they all seem different in some way.  Not to mention the new construction.  

The oddest thing though is how easily I have been able to navigate the city’s streets.  I quickly remembered how things fit together.  When driving in, I didn’t need look at a map to find my way from I-95 South to central Arlington.

Why is it, I wonder, that people don’t smile as much as they do in LA.  Is it just the weather?  Was it like this when  I last lived here (in the Clinton era)?  Or does everyone now take themselves far more seriously now that a new man’s in charge.

Obama on My Metro Pass

Today, when I bought my Day Pass for the DC Metro, I was a little surprised to find a familiar face on the card:

So, what is the president doing on a ticket to the public transportation system in our nation’s capital.  It says it’s celebrating his presidential inauguration.  But, I don’t recall seeing the image of Bill Clinton on such tickets when I lived in DC during his inaugural in 1997.  Nor do my friends require such images during his first inaugural.  Or for either of W’s.

And anyway, the inauguration was 16 months ago.

This is not where Americans place the image of our president.  This is something they do in authoritarian countries.

Could California Gay Bar Be Required to Serve Man Wearing “I Hate Fags” T-shirt?

Telling his readers how much he hates “California Nazis“, Glenn Reynolds linked David Bernstein’s piece at Volokh on a troubling case coming from the (once-)Golden State on the abuse of the public accommodation provision of Civil Right laws.

You can read the whole story here.  The gist of it is this:  Four neo-Nazis went to a restaurant in Long Beach sporting lapel pins with swastikas on them.  

The management asked them to take off the lapel pins. They refused. The management asked them to leave. They refused. The management called the police, who arrested them.

Then, remarkably, the Southern California ACLU gets involved, and sues the restaurant for calling the police on the Nazis! This much I’ve confirmed from media accounts. According to the commenter who first alerted me to this story, “the defendants’ insurer eventually settled following unsuccessful pretrial challenges to the complaint, believing they could not prevail under California law!”

The lawsuit was brought under California’s Unruh Act, which provides that “all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”

So, since that law also includes sexual orientation, it seems the ACLU’s interpretation of the law would then prevent the proprietor of a gay bar from evicting someone sporting an “I Hate Fags” T-shirt.  Indeed, if the management asked him to remove it (or cover it up), the group would take the side of the anti-gay guy.

This guy could argue, as the Nazis apparently did, that that was his way of expressing his sexual orientation.

 I believe a gay bar owner should have the freedom to remove such a fellow.  But, current law apparently deprives him of that freedom.

Simply put, the more laws we have, the less freedom we have.  And it is left to government bureaucrats and judges to determine just what the meaning of those laws are.

The Long Beach restaurant owner should be allowed to tell neo-Nazis to cover up their pins. Indeed, he should be allowed to evict such folks from his restaurant if he so chooses.  But, relying on state law, the ACLU disagrees.  Indeed, by their very logic, they would demand that an anti-gay person be allowed to advertise his animosity in private establishments we seek out to be among “our own kind.”

NB:  bumped this post.

Maybe 2010 Won’t be 1994 Redux

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 10:47 am - May 27, 2010.
Filed under: 2010 Elections,Obama Health Care Tax/Regulation

Even before the Democratic victory in PA-12, I was beginning to wonder if this fall would be the banner year that some Republicans and pundits forecast.  While more people are inclined to support the GOP than were in the final days of the 2008 campaign and the early weeks of the Obama Administration, Republican party identification remains relatively stagnant.

They support the GOP because they’re not happy with the direction in which Obama’s Democrats are taking the nation.  They’re still not convinced that the opposition party will reverse that direction.  They could still move back into the Democratic column.

Perhaps, if we see a much stronger economy with real job growth, Democrats can help swing swing voters back to their side.  Or maybe just an effective campaign.  (Don’t think bashing Bush is going to do it.  People know he’s gone back to Texas where he maintains a low profile.)

They may not even need do that to prevent large Republican gains.  As Jim Geraghty observed yesterday  on Campaign Spot:

. . . Obama’s approval is still even with or slightly above his disapproval in most polls, the generic ballot is still bouncing around and averaging close to a tie, and there are still incumbent Democratsin economically depressed parts of the country who are polling pretty healthily. (I can’t believe Californians are taking Jerry Brown’s gubernatorial bid seriously.) Massachusetts voters really want to endure another four years of Deval Patrick? Ohio’s willing to hope that Ted Strickland does better in a second term?

Americans are clearly dissatisfied with where they are, and a chunk blame the (mostly Democrat) incumbent governing class. But not quite enough of them are ready to see the 1994-on-steroids scenarios some have discussed. Of course, there’s five months to go. But I think the wilder visions of GOP gains aren’t in the cards yet.

Looking at polls in individual races, Michael Barone is more optimistic about Republican prospects:

Back in 1994, I wrote a column for U.S. News arguing that Republicans had a serious chance to capture a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. The article appeared on the newsstands on July 11, and was the first article I’m aware of that suggested that Democrats might lose the majority they had held for 40 years. My argument was based on a number of polls showing Democratic incumbents trailing Republican challengers. Usually House incumbents don’t trail challengers in polls at any point in the campaign, because they almost always start off better known. For an incumbent to trail in a poll is a sign of serious danger.

Such signs abound for Democrats these days. (more…)

Will MSM give as much attention to gay participation in Tea Parties as they do to racist involvement?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 10:08 am - May 27, 2010.
Filed under: Media Bias,Tea Party

In the course of this cross country trip, I have met readers from a number of jurisdictions (Chicago, Washington, D.C. and Charlottesville) who have participated in Tea Parties, with most being quite open about their sexuality.  And, well, guess what?  None of them has had a problem.  They have all been welcomed.

Indeed, each of these participants has more evidence of a welcoming attitude toward homosexuals than he does of widespread racism among activists.  Yet, we have seen numerous articles in the MSM and posts on left-wing blogs about that supposed racism.  At the same time, in those media, I have uncovered no stories about gay participation in Tea Parties.  (If you have seen some, please let me know and I will update this post accordingly.)

Seems an interesting story that the most dynamic grassroots movement in America today — which happens to enjoy broad support among American conservatives — has been so welcoming of gay people.  Yet, the media ignore it  while focusing on a much, much, much smaller segment of the movement.

As I e-mailed a friend who has been active in the Charlottesville Tea Party, “If the Tea Parties are racist because of a handful of kooks, then they’re at the forefront of the gay movement because of a handful of homosexuals.”  And reports from our readers indicate that there have been more than a handful at Tea Parties across the nation.

Military effectiveness preserved in nations which allow gay people to serve openly

As Congress prepares to debate repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) today in Washington, our federal representatives should consider the experience of those nations which have allowed gay people to serve openly in their nation’s military.  In Politco yesterday, Maj. Peter Kees Hamstra of the Royal Dutch Army, Leif Ohlson of the Swedish Armed Forces and Lt. Com. Craig Jones, retired from the Royal Navy of Britain observe:

Moral opposition to homosexuality, while real, is just not allowed to undercut our militaries’ missions.

Nor do we think it will have any impact on yours after you repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

This is an important point because many Americans seem to believe that ending anti-gay discrimination in European and Israeli militaries faced no resistance because our cultures are more tolerant.

 In fact, our polls, rhetoric and even threats of mass resignations were quite similar to the continuing resistance in America. Yet none of the doomsday scenarios came true.

 According to research and assessments of our transitions, the new policies had no negative impact on military readiness.

Once again, the experience from nations which have allowed gay people to serve openly in the military shows that such service does not compromise military readiness or unit cohesion.

The plan before Congress appears to be a good compromise, repealing the Clinton-era legislation which prevents gays people from serving openly while giving the Administration the authority to work with the military to allow for a smooth implementation of the new policy.

Just how clueless are California’s Democratic State Legislators?

One thing I have noted since I arrived in DC in that there are fewer vacant store fronts per street block than there were in Los Angeles.  Probably has something to do with the need to provide services to the increased amount of people on the government payroll in this town.

And since tax dollars don’t flow to California cities like they do to a jurisdiction’s capital, higher taxes will only help improve the economic picture in one (once-)Golden State city–Sacramento, so it’s hard to see who the latest plan our state legislators are debating in that city will help entrepreneurs raise the capitol they need to fill those store fronts in Los Angeles:

The Democrats who control the Legislature have fired their opening salvo against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s spending blueprint, which proposed eliminating California’s welfare program and cutting deeply into other state services, by proposing that the state rely instead on billions of dollars in new taxes to balance the budget.

Emphasis added.

Seems that Democratic legislators are more concerned about maintaining existing government programs than ascertaining the causes of our state’s economic malaise.

If they want to increase the state’s revenues, they’re going to have to improve the state’s business climate.  And raising taxes while delaying corporate tax breaks won’t do anything to improve that climate, instead will prevent entrepreneurs from expanding their operations and bringing on new talent.

By contrast, lowering taxes would most help small businesses, you know those enterprises which create the most new jobs.  And you’d think that in a state where one in eight people are out of work, our state legislators would want to do something which might make it easier for those looking for jobs to find one.

A bumper sticker to make my co-blogger smile

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:30 am - May 27, 2010.
Filed under: Dogs,Humor

Walking to Matthew Berry’s debate tonight, I passed a car sporting these bumper stickers in deepest blue Arlington.

Something tells me that one would have earned a large grin from my co-blogger.

Boxer Fundraiser Costs California Workers Paycheck

Coming to California to raise money for endangered Democratic Senator Barbara “Call me Ma’am” Boxer, President Obama stopping by at a plant receiving “stimulus” funds because it creates “green” jobs. Unfortunately, the federal government did not pay the company enough taxpayer dollars, er, dollars of the grandchildren of current taxpayers, to be able to pay the salaries of employees who have to take the day off because of the president’s visit:

Construction workers at the Solyndra Plant in Fremont will be spending the day at home Wednesday without pay as President Obama visits the company to praise its work on solar panels.

Union workers have been told not to come back until Thursday because of security concerns associated with the President’s visit.  Workers tell KRON 4′s Kate Thompson this day off means they won’t get paid.

“It’s with no pay and we have no choice,” construction worker Adam Bracamontes told Kate.  “We have to take a day off and come back Thursday.  We don’t get to meet the President.  We’re the workers and we don’t get to see him.”

Wonder what the president thinks about California’s current 12.6% unemployment rate.

And about all those dollars he’s raising for Mrs. Boxer, how many of them do you think will go into ads attacking soon-to-be Republican nominee Carly Fiorina?  

Some new kind of politics.