Via Instapundit comes Michael Moynihan’s reflections on Fidel Castro’s apology “for his revolution’s ‘excesses’ against gay Cubans“:
As [Mark] Hemingway notes, Castro’s persecution of gays (and black Cubans) hardly stopped in the 1970s, as this Reuters story suggests, with gay bars routinely shut down by the state security service and organizers of a 2008 gay pride march thrown in jail. But for this non-apology, designed to burnish his foul legacy, Foreign Policy magazine says that while Castro is “a bit late,” he nevertheless “deserves plaudits.” No he doesn’t. Nor did Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet deserves plaudits for his 1999 letter “lamenting” (and not apologizing) those killed during his reign—which, incidentally, no one in the media was willing to grant. And rightly so.
Great analogy. It seems that only leftist tyrants deserve plaudits when they apologize for torture and persecution while right-wingers can never (never, NEVER, NEVER) be forgiven for their wrongdoings.
When I first posted on the former dictator’s “apology,” some of our (left-of-center) readers were quick to acknowledge this admission of responsibility (with one indicating he believed the one-time leftist leader still had a ways to go).
Why do some folks on the left show a greater willingness to forgive a man who isolated, imprisoned and tortured gay people than a then-closeted gay man who advocated for traditional marriage? That man, Ken Mehlman, never harmed a single gay individual (save in the imagination of the gay left).
Seems to be a default reaction of all too many on the political left (including gay people) to show some sympathy for an anti-American tyrant — no matter his treatment of gay people. And they call us self-hating for generally supporting a party with an imperfect record on gay issues.
What do we call gay people who defend a leftist leader who persecutes gay people?
Gay conservatives have been so critical of the national gay groups, in large measure because these organizations seem more beholden to the political left in general and the Democratic Party in particular than they do to their supposed constituency. With the Service Members Legal Defense Network (SLDN) being the notable exception.
In the immediate aftermath of the 2004 elections, after a Republican president was elected to a second term in the White House and with Republicans making gains in both the House and the Senate, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), instead of picking someone who could work with Republicans, tapped a Democratic partisan (who had most recently worked for a group committed to electing pro-choice Democratic women) to helm its operation.
Guess they were more interested in playing to the left than to influencing the (then-)party in power.
That choice came to mind when I received a recent e-mail from the National Center for Lesbian Rights. When I saw the name Glenn Beck in the subject line, I thought maybe they were going to praise the conservative polevangelist* for acknowledging the obvious that gay marriage isn’t a threat to the country.
Instead Executive Director Kate Kendell (she who devoted her most recent 9/11 letter to ranting against conservatives) included a piece by the group’s Federal Policy Attorney Maya Rupert on Beck’s “Cynical Invasion of D.C.” Now the timing of his “Restoring Honor” Rally may well have been cynical, but, well, what does criticizing this timing have to do with advancing “lesbian rights”? (more…)
Guess Obama’s two-thirds share of the (late teen and) twentysomething vote in 2008 didn’t signal a generational shift to the left:
The college vote is up for grabs this year — to an extent that would have seemed unlikely two years ago, when a generation of young people seemed to swoon over Barack Obama.
Though many students are liberals on social issues, the economic reality of a weak job market has taken a toll on their loyalties: far fewer 18- to 29-year-olds now identify themselves as Democrats compared with 2008.
Emphasis added to suggest that the GOP emphasis on fiscal issues can help them woo voters disinclined to support a party defined (even if primarily in the media) by social conservatism.
And recall, that Obama only narrowly edged John McCain among voters over 30. Even if a majority of the youth vote (but smaller than Obama’s 2008 tally)
remains Democratic , if the shift away from the president’s party is paralleled among older demographics, the Democrats’ majority vanishes.
Seems the surge in support among young people for Obama was based more on his personality and the imagery of his campaign than on the candidate’s (carefully concealed*) ideology.
If Carly Fiorina can raise enough money and make the California Senate race about the incumbent, she will join Dianne Feinstein in representing the (once and future) Golden State in the United States Senate.
If Barbara Boxer makes the race about Carly’s flaws and imperfections (real and perceived), she will return to the Senate for the next six years and thankfully accomplish nothing, while unthankfully casting votes for the Democrats’ big-government agenda and and against real reforms which streamline the federal bureaucracy, reduce government regulations and hold the line on spending.
No wonder in their debate on Wednesday night, Mrs. Boxer attacked, attacked and then attacked some more. Twenty-eight years in Congress, of them, eighteen in the Senate and Mrs. Boxer prefers attacking her opponent to defending her record. It’s the only thing she’s good at — and the only politics she can play.
In his evaluation of the debate in WSJ.com’s Political Diary (available by subscription), John Fund found
. . . Ms. Boxer proved capable of punching hard. She attacked Ms. Fiorina’s ties to “a wealthy, wealthy few” and “big oil and big coal.” When Ms. Fiorina said she was opposed to abortion but felt the issue should be decided at the state level, Ms. Boxer pounced by predicting that if Ms. Fiorina had her way “doctors would go to jail and women would die.”
Given her partisan pedigree, perhaps it’s better that this career politician is better at punching than she is at legislating.
It looks like the debate is a preview of the campaign we have long predicted the (almost) three-decade Washington veteran would wage. Barbara Boxer won’t run on her record; the career politician can only win by going negative.
Our reader Alex in Denver reminded us that William F. Buckley, Jr. once said that Republicans should nominate the most conservative candidate who can win. And that is one reason why I, who cheered when I learned Lisa Murkowski conceded to Joe Miller in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate, am joining Ace and Paul Mirengoff at Powerline in backing moderate Republican Mike Castle in the GOP primary to serve out the balance of Joe Biden’s term in the United States Senate.
“Alaska“, Allahpundit reminds us, “is a red state, of course, and even so, Miller’s eventual victory still isn’t quite fully assured.” Delaware hasn’t gone Republican in a presidential contest since 1988. Alaska hasn’t gone Democratic since 1964.
And much as we may grouse and groan about Castle’s imperfections, he voted against the “stimulus”, against Obamacare (and favors its repeal) and supports extension of the Bush tax cuts.
As Ace puts it:
Mike Castle will vote against us on 30% of stuff. You will not like him. I will not like him.
But I will like him better than the Democrat Coons, voting against us on 88% of stuff. (more…)