In a few hours, the dust will settle in the Delaware GOP primary, but the fracas has opened up a rift among conservatives, likely to be easily healed on a national level, but as Jim Geraghty fears, perhaps not in the First State.

While generally warming to conservative challengers to establishment Republicans, Rich Lowry contends that Lowry is the opposite of one such challenger, Pennsylvania’s next Senator, Pat Toomey:

He would have been–he still is–a walking advertisement for conservatism: reasonable, serious, upstanding, deeply grounded. You could imagine Toomey changing the political landscape because he has the ability to persuade. O’Donnell will be the anti-Toomey, a conservative standard-bearer who could have been selected by a group of hostile people out to create an unflattering impression of us. To compare O’Donnell to Sharron Angle is an insult to Angle, who has her rough edges as a candidate but whose personal integrity is beyond reproach. What many O’Donnell supporters are implicitly arguing is that there can be no standards in evaluating candidates beyond an ideological litmus test–a deeply unconservative sentiment.

Emphasis added.  Via James Taranto who reminds us:

Delaware is a much less conservative state than Alaska or Utah, or even Nevada or Pennsylvania. FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver rates Castle’s likelihood of defeating Democrat Chris Coons (who is running unopposed) at nearly 95%, O’Donnell’s at 17%. From a conservative standpoint, those odds favor Castle, whose unreliable vote would surely be preferable to a Coons’s reliably liberal one.

If you’re going to take out an establishment Republican, do so with a candidate who is at least a credible representative of the conservative cause.  It doesn’t advance our ideas to move forward with just anyone, merely for the sake of thumbing your nose at the establishment.  That’s what the 60s were all about, not the conservative movement.

UPDATE:  Over at the Weekly Standard, Jay Cost provides statistics showing just how Democratic Delaware has become and concludes: (more…)

The quality of a candidate matters.  Just because someone is running as the conservative insurgent against a moderate from the party’s establishment does not mean conservatives should rally ’round her banner.

And yet some conservative activists are backing Christine O’Donnell in today’s Delaware primary despite signs that her victory would all but ensure that a Democrat remains in the Senate seat Joe BIden once held.  It seems they have to “beat the establishment” at all costs.  Even by supporting a candidate with a record like this:

Powerline’s Scott Johnson succinctly sums up one thing that sticks in my craw about the New York Times’ front page hit piece on House Minority Leader John Boehner: “In [Boehner Spokesman Michael] Steel’s email exchange with [NYT reporter Eric] Lipton, Steel offered to explain the rationale for Boehner’s positions on the cited issues. Lipton did not take up the offer.”

In writing a prominent article on one of the leading members of the opposition party in Congress, a reporter from the journal once deemed the paper of record, only contacts the Congressman to confirm his opposition to issues the anonymous lobbyist in question also opposed:

Steel says he received a fact-checking email from Times reporter Eric Lipton Friday evening asking if Boehner did in fact oppose the cap on greenhouse gases, the tax change for hedge fund executives, the debit card fee cap, and increased fees on oil and gas companies. “Yes, that is correct,” Steel responded to Lipton, adding “I can tell you why, if you care.” Steel says he received no further notes from Lipton.

Aren’t journalists trained to seek out both sides in a controversy?

This reporter wasn’t even interested in Boehner’s side of the story.  You think his purpose was not reporting the story, but making sure it had the spin he wanted.

If the Old Gray Lady were the woman she once was, she would have held this story until the reporter solicited Boehner’s input and would likely have chastised Lipton for failing to seek out that information when he did his initial research.

Senate Democrats are finally getting their act together:

The Washington Blade has learned that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) intends to schedule a vote next week on major defense budget legislation that contains “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language, regardless of any objection from members of the U.S. Senate.

A senior Democratic leadership aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Reid met with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday to inform the Republican leader that the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill will come to the Senate floor the week of Sept. 20.

It’s about time.

Every once in a while, during a political campaign, a politician says or does something which changes the trajectory of  the race — or prevents it from turning in his favor.  And no matter what he says or does after that, he can’t gain any traction.  You could say a “macaca” is holding him back.

Jerry Brown may have just done that:

The former governor is fuming at an ad that what Mark Halperin calls “the best TV spot by any campaign all cycle” where Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman merely shows footage from Bill Clinton taking Brown to task during a debate in the 1992 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Now, despite Republiccans’ best efforts, the former Democratic president remains popular in the Golden State.  So, it was a smart move for Meg to publicize this exchange.  As Halperin puts it:

Brown’s dissing of Bill Clinton is probably not going to sit too well with the many California voters with whom the former president is still majorly popular. And it surely makes the prospect that Clinton would campaign for Brown — not a sure thing before — even less likely.

And the outburst captured on the video is sure to reinforce the meme that Brown is a gaffe-prone hothead, since he has made more such mistakes than first-time candidate Whitman, a fact much noted by the media and of concern to some leading Democrats.

Brown’s recent outburst (in what looks like a sparsely-attended gathering) will only compound the damage of the ad.  Even Rick Sanchez featured the story on CNN.  Given that most of those who still watch that network tend to vote Democratic, this could cause some moderate (and otherwise Clinton-loving) Democrats to sit this one out. (more…)

No issue so dominated the 111th Congress as an issue long on the Democratic wish-list:  health care “reform” that would overhaul our health care system in order to cover all Americans.  And despite the (current) majority party’s eagerness to pass this legislation, the more our elected officials debated the issue the less the American people liked it.

But, do not fret, Democrats (and their supporters on the blogs) assured us, once the bill passes and to borrow an expression from Speaker Pelosi, people “find out what’s in it,” they’ll come ’round.  In the Washington Post last week, Jim Kessler, echoing many of this blog’s critics, contended that “as pieces of the health-care bill are implemented, voters’ views on the legislation may be softening.”

When I first wrote about Kessler’s piece, I pointed out what Politico’s Jim Vandehei had noticed, ”Not a single Democrat has run an ad in support of the health care bill since April“.

In the Wall Street Journal, Kimberley A. Strassel shows that some Democrats are even running against the president’s signature legislative accomplishment:

Health care? A total of 279 House and Senate Democrats voted for ObamaCare. Not one is running an ad touting that vote. How can they, given headlines about Medicare cuts and premium hikes? You will, however, find a growing catalogue of ads such as this one from Maryland Rep. Frank Kratovil: “As a career prosecutor, I made decisions on facts, not politics,” and that’s why “I voted against . . . the health-care bill.” (more…)

In their zeal to find the ties tightly binding the White House’s latest villain, House Minority Leader John Boehner, to lobbyists, the New York Times fails to mention those tight bonds between the White House and lobbyists.

Well, maybe the paper’s editors are just playing to its base.

In his piece finding that fewer Democrats are following the news this election cycle (than did just two years ago), Bruce Davis unearths this telling tidbit:

Unsurprisingly, Obama gets his highest approval ratings among regular viewers of Olbermann (84 percent approve) and Maddow (80 percent approve), but he also does almost as well with readers of The New York Times (79 percent approve).

Seems the readership of the Times is now nearly identical to the viewership of the most leftist shows on MSNBC.  Don’t think their hit piece on Boehner will impact the Republican Leader’s standing among the American people.

And given the Times‘ readership, I doubt they’ll be reporting that a woman who once (and may yet again) held Boehner’s current title “has pocketed nearly twice as much lobbyist cash as” has the Ohio Republican.

Well, he is running in San Francisco. Against Nancy Pelosi.

It is pretty self-explanatory.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Maybe this has something to do with the skyrocketing increase in poverty in the current Administration with the “number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama’s watch“.  Now only are more people living in poverty, but more people are also sucking on the federal teat:

According to the Heritage Foundation’s 2010 Index of Dependence on Government, the number of Americans receiving a government check jumped nearly 14 percent in 2009 – the largest single-year increase since 1970 and 49 percent higher than in 2001. In May, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that the portion of personal income Americans received from private sector paychecks declined to a record low of 41.9 percent, while income from government programs climbed 17.9 percent.

Record increase in poverty?  Largest single-year increase in people receiving government benefits in 40 years?  Record deficits.

Who says the Democrats haven’t accomplished anything in the past 20 months?

Caught this on AOL’s front page this weekend:

Florida Pastor on Quran Burning: ‘Not Ever’
Terry Jones says his plan to torch Islam’s holy books is “definitely” off, claiming his mission was accomplished.

Yep, he drew attention to himself.  And that seemed to be his real goal.

And now, I wonder if those sought to define this isolated crackpot as a representative of (fly-over) American will also acknowledge how many Americans, from all weeks of life and both sides of the political spectrum, condemned his (advertised, but not executed) juvenile stunt.

While highlighting this fringe pastor’s stunt, all too many media outlets ignore the violence some radical Muslims foment in their lands.  When in 2008, just such an extremist murdered Moshe Nahari, a Jew in his native land of Yemen, “Saeed Al-Ammar, rabbi of the entire Jewish community in Yemen, admitted in press statements that the community had been receiving threats recently by extremists demanding them to leave the country.”

Yet, this story didn’t get much attention in the mainstream media nor do stories about radical Muslims murdering Muslims from other sects of their faith (recent bombing of Shi’ite shrine in Pakistan).

And while our media don’t given such atrocities the attention they give to a lone Florida preacher, our intellectuals and entertainers regularly heap abuse on Christianity in almost rote fashion:

Attacking Christianity is practically an industry unto itself. Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have become wealthy men attacking the Bible. Entire organizations like the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and state exist to sterilize the public sphere from any acknowledgment of Christianity. In entertainment media, Christians are generally portrayed as hypocrites, bigots, closet perverts, and idiots.

Certainly honor killings, stoning of adulterers, the brutal oppression of women, brutality against gays, and admonitions to murder those of other faiths would rouse the elites to outrage if they were a routine part of Christianity. (more…)

Coincidence? I don’t think so.

Over at the Washington Examiner, Byron York cites corrections New York Times editors (or writer Eric Lipton himself?) made from the original online version of their story attacking House Minority Leader John Boehner for his ties to lobbyists, corrections which reveal the method behind the Old Gray Lady’s “hatchet job“:

The statement that a lobbyist “won” Boehner’s backing was changed to one in which a lobbyist “sought” Boehner’s backing. That’s a rather critical change. The Times also added Boehner’s defense that these were long-held positions.

We should also note that Lipton doesn’t  name this lobbyist in his article while a named Boehner staffer.

Boehner Spokesman Michael Steel, however, was wiling to explain to the Times why his boss voted the way he did on the issues where the paper alleged lobbyist influence:

Steel says he received a fact-checking email from Times reporter Eric Lipton Friday evening asking if Boehner did in fact oppose the cap on greenhouse gases, the tax change for hedge fund executives, the debit card fee cap, and increased fees on oil and gas companies. “Yes, that is correct,” Steel responded to Lipton, adding “I can tell you why, if you care.” Steel says he received no further notes from Lipton.

This gruel, as they say, is pretty thin, with John Steele Gordon at Commentary Contentions wondering if Boehner’s ties to lobbyists are “‘especially tight’? Who knows? The Times gives no examples whatever of the dealings of other Congressional leaders with lobbyists“: (more…)

UPDATE at 5PM: I believe the DC event has wrapped up. I wanted to add this new video of the crowd to the top. You can be the judge on how many people were there. The video was taken before the event had begun.

LIVE FROM US CAPITOL:
UPDATE from Melissa Clothier whose iPhone is the live stream you see below: 50,000 people behind her

LIVE FROM ST. LOUIS

The trailer.  The website.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Fireworks! Fireworks! Gay & Right-Wing Fireworks!

GOProud, the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies, announced it has accepted World Net Daily’s offer to participate in a debate at their “Taking America Back” conference on September 17th in Miami, FL.

Christopher R. Barron, Chairman of GOProud’s board, will square off against World Net Daily’s Joseph Farah. “Since we announced that conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter would be headlining our Homocon 2010 in New York City, Farah has attacked GOProud, attacked Ann, and challenged our work almost every single day,” said Barron.

“I look forward to standing on the stage with Mr. Farah to defend GOProud, to debunk the misinformation he has spread, and to make the case for GOProud’s conservative mission.”

Farah and Barron have agreed to debate the thesis, “Is GOProud Conservative?” “I welcome the opportunity to debate whether GOProud is really a conservative organization. Our work on behalf of conservative policies and conservative candidates speaks for itself,” continued Barron. “The conservative movement is at a crossroads and this debate will display two very different visions for the road ahead,” concluded Barron.

Sound fun?  You can still attend….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Today, nine years after the terror attacks on America, I once again dedicate this space to my lost friend, James Joe Ferguson, who was killed aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when that plane was used as a weapon and crashed into the Pentagon. This posting goes up at the exact time that plane was flown into the Pentagon nine years ago this morning.

We miss you, Joe.
-Bruce and John

2010 note: Most folks on 9/11  naturally think of the thousands who died in the WTC, or in the Pentagon or on Flight 93.  When I reflect on this day, I immediately think of Joe and his fellow passengers on Flight 77.  In some ways, they are the forgotten victims.  “Truthers” insist no plane hit the Pentagon.  The families of those who died on Flight 77 would beg to differ.  In any case, Flight 77 illustrates how ruthless Islamic terrorists are.   Imagine sitting in your seat as your plane accelerates to 500 mph but you see the ground coming up fast and you know you are going to die.  That folks, is the definition of “terror”.

********************

The last time we had dinner, Joe told my partner John and I about how much he was looking forward to being a part of the bicentennial of the Lewis & Clark Expedition. Typically, I found myself jealous of him. In his role as Director of Geographic Education at the National Geographic Society, Joe had one of the most unique and rewarding jobs I can ever imagine having.

He traveled around the world, bringing American school children face-to-face with the natural wonders of our Earth. He was not only a teacher but also provided a critical turning point for these kids, many of whom had never before left their own neighborhoods. Joe provided the path for these students to experience things that many of us never will in our entire lives.

In addition, he got to travel to the four corners of the globe. How rewarding that must have been. How do I sign up for that job?

I got an email from Joe on Thursday, September 6, 2001. “Hi cutie” it started — typical opening line for Joe to any of his friends. He had just returned from Alaska and wanted to tell show me all the pictures, but the following week he said he was headed to California for another work trip. I printed out and kept that email for many months in my briefcase as a way to keep Joe alive.

As dawn broke on September 11, 2001, Joe called his Mom in Mississippi to give her a wake up call as he always did when he traveled. He said to her, “I’ll call you when I get to California. Have a good day.” He was that kind of person. The kind of person, who, no matter where he was and how busy he was, dropped a postcard to his friends so we could share a part of his experiences throughout the world.

At Dulles International Airport, Joe stood with his group traveling to California and took some last minute photos. He and another colleague were scheduled passengers on American Airlines Flight 77, accompanying three D.C. public school teachers and three students on a National Geographic-sponsored field trip to the Channel Islands off Santa Barbara, Calif. After the photos were taken, they bid farewell to the children’s parents and proceeded to their gate.

At 9:37AM, Joe lost his life at the young age of thirty-nine when terrorists slammed the plane into the side of the Pentagon at 500 mph. A teacher and positive role model to young Americans was taken from the world in an act of sheer violence and viciousness.

As I was dealing with the many emotions of the events of September 11, a thought crossed my mind the next day. Gosh, I thought, Joe had said he was traveling and now he’s stuck somewhere until the airlines are allowed to fly again. So I called his work number in DC and left a message. After I heard his voice for the last time, I said “Give me a call if you are checking messages.” “I hope you make it home soon,” I concluded. When I called that day, I had no idea.

It wasn’t until Friday, September 14 that I found out that one of my dearest friends had become a casualty of the attacks on America. Suddenly, this war was personal — it had hit home. I wasn’t expecting to have to go to two memorial services and walk around in a state of numbness for many weeks.

At Joe’s memorial service, there were lots of tears and lots of laughs as well. One of Joe’s friends told the gathering that Joe had this way of making you feel as if you were his best friend in the world. I knew exactly what he meant. I saw Joe every once in a while. We would have lunch, or more likely trade emails or phone calls. But every time we talked, I felt like Joe’s best friend. Joe still has a lot of best friends all around the world.

Perhaps Joe’s death hit me so hard because it was the first death of someone close to me that I had experienced as an adult. I am still surprised by the impact that his death has had, and in many ways continues to have, on my life.

In fact, I did a lot of personal reflecting in the months following 9/11. I questioned how important my job and even my life were in a time of war where terrorists could invade your workplace or your school and slaughter you with no remorse. I questioned what value and worth my own career had in comparison with a man who had chosen to teach and change the lives of young people. I felt trapped in a good job that was giving me no personal satisfaction.

All I could remember was how happy Joe always was and how that cheer was infectious to all of his friends and colleagues. I would miss that cheerful influence on me. Joe had made the choice to live life to the fullest extent possible. He was the model of the optimistic American who knows no frontiers and no bounds. He was doing more than his fair share of contributing to a better society.

My partner John and I took a trip to the American West in the summer of 2003 and followed some of the Lewis & Clark Trail. I know Joe would have loved the scenery and spirit of America that lives and breathes in the land of Montana and Wyoming. The IMAX film about the “Corps of Discovery” produced by the National Geographic Society — Lewis & Clark: The Great Journey West — was dedicated to the memory of Joe Ferguson. It is available on DVD and I strongly recommend watching it.

One day in early 2002, I heard a song on the radio that I don’t remember hearing before 9/11/2001. I didn’t even know it was LeeAnn Womack’s voice, because the words are the soul and essence of Joe Ferguson. The words are an expression of his personal passion and love of life. And the words are also an inspiration for all of us to get through the many trying days of our post-9/11 world.

I hope you never lose your sense of wonder.
Get your fill to eat, but always keep that hunger.
May you never take one single breath for granted.
God forbid love ever leave you empty-handed.
I hope you still feel small when you stand beside the ocean.
Whenever one door closes I hope one more opens.
Promise me that you’ll give faith a fighting chance.
And when you get the choice to sit it out or dance.
I hope you dance.

I hope you never fear those mountains in the distance.
Never settle for the path of least resistance.
Livin’ might mean takin’ chances, but they’re worth takin.
Lovin’ might be a mistake, but its worth makin.
Don’t let some hell bent heart leave you bitter.
When you come close to sellin’ out, reconsider.
Give the heavens above more than just a passing glance.
And when you get the choice to sit it out or dance.
I hope you dance.

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:

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)

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)

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…)

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…)