Gay Patriot Header Image

REPOST: The Mathematical Formula for Barack Obama

UPDATE:  I just found this post that is nearly a year old.  It still seems to fit (even MORE so now, perhaps). 

Take the very worst personal and leadership traits of these Presidents:

lbj nixon carter

Combine the Socialist, statist and world-view philosophy of this one:


And add the big-spending ways of this one:


And you get this big mess:


-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Remembering 9/11/2001

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 12:21 pm - September 10, 2010.
Filed under: Post 9-11 America

I’m not in a good mental place as the 9th anniversary of the greatest attack on our nation dawns.  Readers who have been with me from the beginning know that on 9/11 anniversaries, I have normally honored my good friend Joe Ferguson who was on American Airlines Flight #77 that slammed into the Pentagon that day.

But this year I’m in a bad mindset.  Angry.  Frustrated.  Mystified.  Horrified.  My two “tweets” yesterday sum up how I’m feeling as tomorrow approaches.

I think I may remember 9/11/2001 tomorrow in an “off the grid” fashion.

However, I do recommend listening to this Blog Talk Radio show tonight marking the anniversary.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

President’s Defensive Press Conference

Had  TV on as I was having breakfast and soon heard the president come on for his press conference, so I kept it on as I was did my morning blog read/news check.  Have scribbled a few notes.  My general evaluation is that he’s not doing himself any favors.  He seems incredibly defensive and eager to attack the political opposition.

Now, maybe he’s smiling when I’ve been looking at my computer, but whenever I look up, he looks angry and grim and has not been smiling.  Don’t think he’ll win much favor among the American people who are watching today.  That said, maybe he scheduled a morning press conference when most people are at work (those who still have jobs).

(There, he smiles in response to question whether or not this is a “second stimulus.”)

Seems bound and determined to set himself against his predecessor and the GOP.  And he keeps repeating the same clichés he’s been repeating since the campaign — almost as if he’s still on the campaign trail.

UPDATE:  Is it just me or when Chuck Todd asked him about changing Washington, he didn’t identify any specific things he did,* but did use the occasion to attack Republicans.  (Will [try to] review the transcript when it’s made available.)

UP-UPDATE:  Kudos to Obama now for praising W for the way he responded to 9/11, saying that that good Republican was “crystal clear” in saying that this was not a war against Muslims.*  [Goes against “conventional wisdom” of many on the left about Bush–wonder why it was at pains to defend that much maligned man.]  For all the defensiveness of this press conference, he has handled this question about the supposed upsurge in animosity against Muslims in a pretty presidential way (would be more presidential if he steered clear of the first person singular pronoun).

UP-UP-UPDATE:  His responses seems rambling and disjointed with a lot of empty rhetoric and a paucity of specifics.

Huh, what critics of Obamacare are praising the smooth implementation of the overhaul?

CONCLUDING THOUGHT:   Given how much is going on in my life right, I doubt I’ll have time to review the entire transcript as I’d like.  I’ll just say that whatever he was trying to accomplish, he didn’t do it with this conference.  He didn’t inspire much confidence, rambled when he should have offered succinct responses.  It seemed one of is advisors told him he had to do this, but he didn’t want to.  That reluctance showed.  Was, as per the title of this post, more defensive than confident.  Don’t think this will change many minds, nor rally people to his party or reverse his poll numbers.

NB:  As I offered my concluding thought, I re-read the entire post and cleaned up some of the language.

*In reading David Freddoso’s post on the conference, he included the relevant section of the transcript.  To be sure the president did indicate the specifics of some of the legislation, but did not identify specific ways he’s changed the culture of Washington.

SIDE NOTE:  I wonder if he’s even conscious of how his repeated attacks on Republicans undermine the essence of the change he promised in his campaign.  As the aforementioned fetching blogger quips, “Why is Washington still dominated by finger-pointing? It’s all THEIR fault!

* (more…)

Court decision overturning DADT causes us to ask:*
Why has Senate dragged its feet on repeal?

In the immediate aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8, a great variety of gay groups in Los Angeles and across the Golden State held a variety of fora on the way forward.  Save for one event the week after the election (sponsored by the Williams Institute), the remaining confabs were distinguished by the absence of Republican speakers.

The various gay groups thought they could move forward without including gay Republicans.  So, it is particularly delicious to see that Republicans helped win cases against a federal law and a state constitutional amendment that these groups sought to overturn.

That said, what it is most troubling about both these rulings is that while each judge makes some very sound arguments about why state recognition of gay marriage is a good thing and why the ban on gay people serving openly is a bad one, in doing so, they usurp the role of the legislature.  Just because they want to find something in the constitution doesn’t mean it’s there.

In this case, the ruling wouldn’t be necessary if Democrats hadn’t been dragging their feet on repeal.  Without the pressure from the gay left blogs, the Administration and this Congress might not have acted.  Despite their pressure and House passage of legislation repealing DADT, the bill currently languishes in the Senate.  That body should move forward immediately with repeal, to spare having an unelected judge dictating how and when the military implements repeal. (more…)

Obama’s Compulsive Need to Demonize

There is something almost amusing is watching this ostensibly post-partisan president lash out against Republicans in a manner which makes Richard Nixon look bi-partisan (which, come to think of it, in matters legislative, he pretty much was).

In his Cleveland economic speech, he slammed the GOP, singling out incoming Speaker House Minority Leader John Boehner.

As Byron York oberves:

In his economic speech in Cleveland, President Obama mentioned House Minority Leader John Boehner by name seven times — a striking change from the president’s speech in Milwaukee Monday in which he referred to Boehner only as “the man who thinks he’s going to be Speaker.” With the Democrats’ hold on the House of Representatives in deep jeopardy, the president has apparently decided to make the campaign in part a personal showdown between himself and Boehner. It’s a risky strategy, one that elevates a House minority leader to an eye-to-eye level with the President of the United States. And by personalizing the conflict with Boehner, it also casts the coming elections as a referendum on Obama’s performance at a time when Democrats would prefer a series of more local contests.

Not just risky, but bizarre.  Most Americans haven’t even heard of the Ohio Republican.  Boehner is not now the lightning rod that Newt Gingrich once was — or that Nancy Pelosi currently is.  Seems Obama is attempting to make him such a figure, but, given his plummeting approval ratings, the only people he may be able to convince already have a negative opinion of the Congressman.

Still, one wonders why the Democratic president feels it necessary to personalize the opposition.  Did W ever so deride House Democratic leaders, attacking them by name?  And in his campaign, Barack Obama presented himself as a healing alternative to that Republican’s supposedly divisive politics

Well, he was right about one thing.  He’s a a different kind of politician than was his Republican predecessor.