It has long been a media talking point that then-President George W. Bush and his evil henchman Karl Rove were behind the diabolical scheme to put marriage initiatives on various states’ 2004 ballots in order to increase social conservative turnout, thus generating more votes for Republicans.  Only problem is that they never came up with much evidence to support their claim, save their belief that Bush and Rove were horrible, no good, very bad men who would stop at nothing to secure a second term for the demon son of the 41st president.

Well, according to Jordan Lorence, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, a group which defends traditional marriage, those two weren’t much help. He recalls that back in 2004, he sat

. . . in meetings with pro-marriage leaders, hearing them lament the lack of support they were receiving from Rove and the Bush Administration.  Particularly, leaders from Ohio expressed frustration that the White House was ignoring their efforts to pass a marriage amendment in the state that put Bush over the top in 2004.

Let’s be clear:  Bush did publicly support a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but his officials did little, if anything, to help enact the state marriage amendments.

Even in 2006, when eight more states added marriage amendments to their constitutions, the Bush White House stayed out of the battles.  Perhaps Bush or Rove uttered some words of support for the state amendments, but they certainly did not initiate and lead the movement, nor do I believe they would claim to have done so.

Bush White House stayed out of these battles?!?  You mean, they weren’t determined to make gay people into a “wedge issue” as various gay leaders have breathlessly told us.

There goes another anti-Bush narrative.  Wonder if anyone in the media will take notice.

Wondering which gay media will pick up on this story: Gay Palestinian seeks residency in Israel on humanitarian grounds:

Media attention has recently focused on the effort to obtain residency rights for children of foreign workers. But Majed Koka is not a foreign worker. He is a gay Palestinian man from the West Bank who came to Israel at age 14 because in his hometown of Nablus, he never could have lived openly as a gay man.

“If I returned to Nablus, it would be like throwing paper into a fire,” said Koka, 26, who has been living in Tel Aviv for the last 12 years. “If I returned I’d be in big trouble, one long nightmare.”

While the United Nations Human Rights Council can’t let up in its criticisms of the Jewish State, that very state becomes the refuge of choice for gay Palestinians.

Do wonder why said council doesn’t spend much time criticizing the Palestinian Authority for making it a nightmare for gays to live openly.  Guess they’re just not concerned with the rights of our fellows.

Gallup reports that

For the fourth straight year, the majority of Americans say they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. The 57% who now say this is a record high by one percentage point.

The 43% of Americans who, in Gallup’s annual Governance poll, conducted Sept. 13-16, 2010, express a great deal or fair amount of trust ties the record low, and is far worse than three prior Gallup readings on this measure from the 1970s.

Observing that before “late 2004, a majority of Americans had a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media“, Ed Morrissey identifies the event which turned the tide:

After that point in late 2004, the dynamic flipped, with a majority since having little or no trust in the media’s ability to report fairly.  What happened?  The CBS attempt to smear George W. Bush with the phony Texas Air National Guard memos.  That episode made clear the political tilt and the situational ethics of the “layers of editors and fact-checkers” at CBS, providing a clear basis for the always-present suspicion that the national news media occasionally cooked a story for their own political purposes.

Don’t think it helps that the newspaper of record roots around for scandal in the offices of a Republican Congressman while paying little heed to similar (or worse) shenanigans in Democratic offices.

Who wants to bet that when the media cover this story, they’ll fail to question why the housekeeper waited until a month before the election to file her suit while signing on an attorney known for her devotion to left-wing causes and the Democratic Party?

California GOP gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman is facing a new hurdle Wednesday as her housekeeper of nine years prepares to make what are being called “explosive allegations” about the former eBay CEO.

The housekeeper has hired famed [left-wing] attorney Gloria Allred [a supporter of Whitman's Democratic opponent, Jerry Brown] and will hold a news conference at 2 p.m. ET to “tell how she suffered as a long time Latina household employee in Meg Whitman’s home and why she is filing a claim against Ms. Whitman,” according to a statement released by Allred’s office.

Emphasis, adjective and indication of support for Brown added.

This is not the first time Democrats have filed lawsuits against Republicans as elections approach.  Recall that October 2008 suit against a supporter of Norm Coleman?  Or the legal shenanigans in 2004 against Dino Rossi in Washington State, charges which a liberal attorney found so pressing in 2004, but so irrelevant after the Republican lost, but which suddenly became interesting again as the Republican mounts a credible challenge to Patty Murray.

This is not a serious lawsuit, but merely a play from the Democrat’s bag of dirty tricks, a trick they can play so well thanks to generous assists from the MSM.

Meg Whitman’s campaign chairman, former California Governor Pete Wilson, told TMZ, “The timing of this is highly suspect.”  Exactly.

H/t:  Sonicfrog.

UPDATE:  Meg fires back, detailing the facts, providing a timeline and reminding Californians:

that Allred is a supporter of, and has given money to, Jerry Brown. Attached was a photo of Allred sitting next to Brown.

Our friends over at the Los Angeles Times also noted that in 2003 Allred represented a former stuntwoman who claimed she was sexually assaulted by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was then running for governor. As the Times noted, that suit was later dismissed.

Miss Allred does have a habit of filing lawsuits against Republican gubernatorial candidates.  She really, really wants to keep them from governing her state.  Methinks this is gonna backfire.  Big time.

UP-UPDATE:  Hillbuzz gets it: (more…)

It would take a mythological reference to show the folly of the Democratic tack on the Tea Parties.  Literary critic Stanley Fish believes Democrats will be helping Republicans “by saying scathing and dismissive things about the Tea Party and its candidates“:

The Greek mythological figure Antaeus won victory after victory because his opponents repeatedly threw him to the ground, not realizing that it was the earth (in the figure of his mother, Gaia) that nourished him and gave him renewed strength. The Tea Party’s strength comes from the down-to-earth rhetoric it responds to and proclaims, and whenever high-brow critics heap the dirt of scorn and derision upon the party, its powers increase.

Heracles finally brought the legendary giant “down”, literally by lifting him up.  He defeated Antaeus . . .

. . . by embracing him in a bear hug, lifting him up high, and preventing him from touching the ground. Don’t sling mud down in the dust where your opponents thrive. Instead, engage them as if you thought that the concerns they express (if not their forms of expression) are worthy of serious consideration, as indeed they are. Lift them up to the level of reasons and evidence and see how they fare in the rarified air of rational debate where they just might suffer the fate of Antaeus.

Today’s Democrats lack a Heracles.  To have a such a man in the current climate would require finding a figure who could show the same respect for the Tea Party that Heracles showed for his outsized rival.

(H/t:  Instapundit and Best of the Web.)

One reason I remain skeptical of the sincerity of many of the leading gay marriage advocates is that whenever someone comes out in favor of traditional marriage, instead of arguing with them, they insult them, calling them bigots, haters or worse.

And then there are the more serious advocates of this social change, namely folks like Jonathan Rauch who understand that someone can oppose gay marriage without hating gay people.  These individuals take issue with advocates of traditional marriage by acknowledging the points they raise and contesting them with carefully thought-out arguments.

Seems our fellow gay conservatives showed a similar respect for such ideas when Ann Coulter (to her credit) brought up the topic at this weekend’s Homocon in New York.  According to columnist Lisa de Pasquale:

Politico reported that there was “nervous laughter” when Coulter addressed the frequent argument that gay marriage is a civil right and akin to denying blacks their rights. Coulter pointed out, both with truth and in jest, “Gays have the highest income of any demographic group in America. Blacks must be looking at gay rights activists in bewilderment thinking, ‘Why couldn’t we be oppressed like that?’”

There was no “nervous laughter” except, perhaps, by a reporter unsure of the location of the 14th Amendment.

Toward the end of her speech, Coulter gave a reasoned argument for traditional marriage. She said, “The purpose of marriage isn’t for society to honor the strong feelings people have for one another, it’s solely and exclusively to provide children the best environment for developing into law-abiding, socialized, productive citizens—so they don’t end up on welfare or mugging us someday.”

There was no booing. No haughty retorts. No one left the room in a dramatic huff. Members of the audience were tolerant not because they’re gay, but because they’re conservatives. (more…)

Last night before bed when I checked Memeorandum to see what the blogosphere was buzzing about, I found the influential (and nominally non-partisan) web-site led with several stories about Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell.  This morning (Pacific time) they’re down to two.

Now, I’m not disputing the relevance of these revelations, but am wondering, why all the focus on a candidate down by double-digits while ignoring the real record of incumbent Senators slightly edging their challengers?  Shouldn’t it be of more interest to bloggers that a three-term Senator steered campaign cash to her son’s consulting firm?  Or regularly traveled abroad on someone else’s dime?

Or what about the Democratic candidate in the president’s home state, closer in polls to his Republican challenger than Miss O’Donnell is to her Democratic rival?  Alexi Giannoulias took a $2.7 million tax deduction from work done at Broadway Bank in 2006 after telling voters he had left the failed bank in 2005.

Isn’t that of more interest than whether the Delaware underdog “enhanced” her resume by listing as education institutions she didn’t really attend?

Methinks that even in the blogosphere, people want to define the GOP by the Delaware Republican.  Perhaps, we right-of-center bloggers would do ourselves well not to play along with our counterparts on the left.  Instead of dwelling on the Delaware race, we need to draw more attention to the shady dealings of Democrats in other states.

You can support Giannoulias’s Republican opponent here.

If you want to know why unemployment is skyrocketing in the (once-)Golden State, drive along the (once-)bustling, commercial thoroughfares of Los Angeles.  You’ll see vacant storefront after vacant storefront, their once-creatively outfitted display windows now displaying only a “For Rent” or “Available” sign.  I call them Obama-Waxman-Boxers (OWBs), but perhaps I should really call them PFOWBS (including my state Senator Fran Pavley and my state Assemblyman Mike Feuer in the mix).

Confiscatory tax policies and intrusive regulatory policies that these Democrats support have made it more difficult for aspiring entrepreneurs to set up shop and for existing ones to stay in business.

It’s one reason job creators are backing Carly Fiorina for the United States Senate.  They know her opponent Barbara Boxer has spent her 28-year career in Washington pushing policies which penalize the productive, preventing them from generating growth and creating jobs.  Last month, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce signaled its support for my gal, with local branches following suit this month:

. . . San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce CEO Pat Dando was also critical of Boxer, calling her record as a career politician “abysmal,” in contrast to Fiorina’s experience as the only woman to lead a Fortune 20 company.

“Under (Boxer’s) watch, they’ve taken over the automotive industry, the health care industry, and if she were successful in getting through her job-killing cap-and-trade legislation, they would have taken over the energy sector of the economy,” Dando said.

Taking questions from chamber members, Fiorina showed a remarkable ability to answer all questions by focusing on the themes of job creation and Boxer’s alleged failures.

Emphasis added.  A remarkable ability to answer questions about job creation.  And that’s not from a Fiorina press release, but from a local journalist covering the event.  Now, the Chamber’s running an ad across the Golden State hitting the incumbent hard on her Washington record:

(more…)

So, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi thinks that come next January, she’ll be keeping her job:

Pelosi, the top Democrat in the House, whose job as speaker makes her third in line to the presidency, said she would retain that position.

“I fully expect to be speaker of the House five weeks from now,” Pelosi said at a NBC/Universal women’s forum in Manhattan, as reported by the New York Times.

Um, Nance, we know you’ll be Speaker five weeks from now.  Even if your party loses the elections, you’ll stay on (in the manner of a caretaker) until January.  And while Nancy wants to keep her job, if polls are any indication, her employers don’t much care for her:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s negative ratings have hit an all-time high in the new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. A full 50 percent of those surveyed have a somewhat or very negative impression of Pelosi, while just 22 percent have a somewhat or very positive impression of her. . . .

(more…)

No, not the good one, the current one, Biden: Agenda would come to ‘screeching halt’ under GOP:

Vice President Biden renewed his warning on Tuesday that the administration’s agenda would come to a “screeching halt” if Republicans win control of Congress.

Biden said he was right to warn that the administration’s work would be scuttled if the GOP manages to pick up enough seats in this fall’s elections to win back the House, or possibly, the Senate.

So, the Administration’s big-government agenda would be scuttled if Republicans make big gains?  Sounds like something most Americans would like to see happen.