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.

Here we go again.

While I believe DADT should have been overturned years ago, I don’t believe it is a court’s role to determine military policy.

Via Servicemembers United we learn that “U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips has ruled that the 17-year old “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law is unconstitutional. Judge Phillips also indicated that she will issue a permanent injunction barring the Department of Defense from carrying out further discharges.”

Let’s just have Congress overturn this law to avoid a prolonged legal battle.

The opinion is here.  Given the Jewish New Year and other obligations, I doubt I’ll have time to get to it right away.  (From a quick scan of the opinion, my sense is the judge relies less on the actual text of the constitution and more on twisting past rulings to yield the result she wants.)

Short summary of my opinion.  This is the result I want, but from the wrong branch of government.

UPDATE:  Have now had the chance to scan some other posts/articles on the web.  Allahpundit thinks this will “fuel this fall’s populist mojo“: (more…)

Buy a shirt and help send me to CPAC! Questions, comments requests can be sent to sarjex (at) gmail dot com

So, some extremist Florida pastor has now had his “15 minutes of fame“.  Pastor Terry Jones who had been planning to burn a “Koran on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks said [today] he would not go forward with the event, adding he would meet with the imam planning to build an Islamic center near ground zero.”

You know, I wonder if fringe figure had gone forward with his publicity stunt if it would have attracted more media than the miniscule membership of his congregation.

Would anyone even know who this guy was if, as Mike Thomas asks in the Orlando Sentinel, the “media had ignored” him?

James Taranto contends that the media helped make this crazy pastor’s stunt successful:

. . . a fringe Florida pastor’s announcement that he would observe 9/11 by burning the Islamic holy book was not, in itself, news. It was a mere publicity stunt–which the media, by treating it as news, made into a successful publicity stunt.

It is a publicity stunt that fits a pernicious media narrative, exemplified by a New York Times story we quoted yesterday titled “American Muslims Ask, Will We Ever Belong,” which cited the Koran burning as evidence of widespread anti-Muslim bigotry.

Anti-Muslim bigotry is a problem, but it is only exacerbated by the media’s tendency to exaggerate and sensationalize it–and by the adversarial and snobbish attitude many journalists and some politicians have adopted toward the vast majority of Americans, who are not bigoted and who see the Ground Zero mosque as an affront.

While the media sensationalize this story, Sarah Palin takes notes of a story that media are ignoring “Book burning is bad. But the Muslim cleric who is running for parliament in Afghanistan is calling for the murder of American children in response to scorched Korans, which is worse. Where is the media’s focus?”   (more…)

Sorta….

The most patriotic gay confirms fisting within the Log Cabin Republicans. [GayPatriot]

Read more at Wonkette: Empress of Washingtonia’s Reign of Terror Continues

LOL.  High-larious.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Do something about it.  Yes, vote in the Republican Election on November 2nd of course.

But if you are free this weekend — try to get to Washington, DC and take a stand!

We are organizing another huge 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington. In 2009 we rallied hundreds of thousands of people and marched right up to the capitol building in Washington. This year, we are coming back in full force, and we will be focused on one message — Remember in November!

Click here to RSVP for the 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington!

This event will be organized by the same coalition that organized the original 9/12 March on Washington — including FreedomWorks, Tea Party Patriots, National Taxpayers Union, The Institute for Liberty and a host of other great free market groups from around the country.

Who: FreedomWorks and allied conservative groups

What: 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington, DC – 2010

When: Sep. 12, 2010, 10:00am until 5:00pm

Where: The Washington Monument and the U.S. Capitol building

Why: To protest big government and support lower taxes, less government and more freedom

I had planned to attend.  But the mortgage-paying job always wins out.  I’m saving my pennies to pay for my increased health insurance premiums and prepare for the major tax hikes approved by Obama for January 2011.

And, I’m going to NYC on Sept. 25 for HOMOCON!

But please think about going to DC this weekend to do your part in bringing sanity back to our Federal Government.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I just read this email:

Log Cabin Republicans National Board of Directors to Meet in Washington, DC

(Washington, DC) – The Log Cabin Republicans National Board of Directors will convene in Washington, DC on September 22nd for a quarterly board meeting.

For further information, contact Christian Berle, cberle@logcabin.org.

I’m just wondering if Patrick Guerriero will be there.  Or Tim Gill?  Or George Soros?  I mean will the Leftist money men reveal their hands up the backsides of their “gay Republican” puppets?  Or will the show go on and the LCR-dues paying members just be told to “move along, nothing to see.”

Oh, I’m not going… I’ll be in New York City that weekend.  More interesting gathering and people.  No disguised Socialism-as-gay-Republican-group.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Open question for the evening:

How is a Florida church burning the Koran on 9/11 any different than an Islamist-inspired mosque being built in the Ground Zero debris zone?

My answer:  None. Both have the right to do it.  But it isn’t the right thing to do.

Your thoughts?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

QUESTION FROM DAN: Bruce, have you been advising Sarah Palin?  Catch this on her Facebook page:

Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.

Or maybe, she just reads GayPatriot.

In endorsing Barack Obama’s bid for the White House in 2008, Christopher Buckley cited the Democrat’s temperament (among other things):

As for Senator Obama: He has exhibited throughout a “first-class temperament,” pace Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s famous comment about FDR. . . .  But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves.

You think a guy with a presidential temperament would have the strength of character to ignore the criticism that all presidents, even FDR, endure.  But, this one so heralded by so many, “strayed from his prepared remarks at a Labor Day rally Monday to accused his opponents of talking about him ‘like a dog’“:

“Some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for a very long time and they’re not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That’s not in my prepared remarks, but it’s true,” he told the union crowd.

Once again, he rails against powerful interests, this time while talking to one such interest (you know, that union crowd).

It would behoove him, as Glenn Reynolds* put it, to “act Presidential. Not so much because it’s dignified. But because it’s smart.”   We want our leaders to look above the fray, showing they can, to paraphrase an expression from one of the incumbent’s partisan predecessors, can stand the heat in the kitchen.

*He had a great roundup of blogosphere reaction to the president’s most recent whine.

File this in the category of things we already know, but were waiting to have acknowledged.

Just after the 2004 after the ostensibly Republican organization he headed quite publicly acknowledged its refusal to endorse the Republican nominee for president, Patrick Guerriero refused to tell a Washington Blade reporter which candidate he picked in the general election matchup.  You think that a Republican, even one unhappy with George W. Bush, would have a lot of trouble backing the then-Democratic nominee, a Mr. John Kerry.  

He might have said he pinched his nose and voted Republican, given the alternative.

But, not the man who would soon go to work for Tim Gill!

Now, he admits what we already know.  In traveling to his native Bay State to “endorse Democrat Katherine Clark for State Senate“, our Patrick fesses up and says he’s left the GOP, changing his registration to Independent.

Does that make him an IINO?  Independent in Name Only.  Seems his real allegiance lies with the party of Tim Gill.  

Will be interesting to see how the current leadership of Log Cabin responds.

So, now, we’ve got the president proposing yet another “stimulus,” calling “for Congress to approve major upgrades to the nation’s roads, rail lines and runways — part of a six-year plan that would cost tens of billions of dollars and create a government-run bank to finance innovative transportation projects.”  Um, weren’t such “infrastructure investments” part of the original stimulus*?

Meanwhile, Obama keeps attacking Republicans.  And over on our blog, one of his most diligent defenders laughs

. . . at the absurd idea that the state of the economy is even partly President Obama’s fault. Republicans did this and their prescriptions to ‘fix’ it will only make it worse. Did Republicans control the Presidency and the Congress for the bulk of the last decade or am I remembering that wrong?

Not even partly Obama’s fault, huh?  He’s been president for nearly 20 months and got nearly his entire economic agenda passed by an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress.  And before he took office as chief executive of this great nation, he had served for nearly four full years in the United States Senate, the latter half of his term as part of the majority.

So, my question to the president’s defenders is this:  while he was in Congress, what legislation did Obama write, promote or otherwise support which would have forestalled the economic crisis he is currently trying to fix with increased government spending.

Please respond not by attacking Republicans, but by identifying specific pieces of legislation — as well as quotes from then-Senator Obama promoting said legislation or links to articles about or synopses of his efforts to secure the passage of said legislation.

*UPDATE:  Yep, indeedy.  Jim Geraghty reminds us how much the president touted those “infrastructure investments in his 2009 “stimulus.”

In July, I cited Ben Smith’s observation on Politico that “MSNBC scours the tea party movement for racist elements, which one could probably find in any mass organization in America.“

Why is it, I wonder, that so many are determined to define conservative movements by their most extreme elements, yet most conservatives (and libertarians) who define left-of-center movements by their extremes do so, as Glenn Reynolds recently did in his Washington Examiner piece, in a tongue-in-cheek manner?

He’s merely pointing out the absurdity of the attempts to grandstand on violent actions by right-wing nutbags (or nutbags whom the MSM has determined to be right-wingers since their targets are members of approved victim classes).  As Don Surber, via Glenn Reynolds, put it in commenting on that prolific blogger’s column:

Of course there are zealots on both sides.

Only one side is tarred with its nutjobs — the 50 million Americans who oppose abortion in any form are somehow all responsible for Dr. Tiller’s death — while we should not judge Islam by an organization that trains thousands of terrorists for hits all over the world, including the destruction of the World Trade Center.

Ronald Reagan’s love for the United States of America was both visceral and intellectual.  He felt in his bones and he could articulate it with his words.  He could tear up when at the sight of the American flag flapping in the breeze or at the sound of someone singing the Star Spangled Banner.

In words nearly everyone could understood, he could express what made this nation great, the ideals of its founders, the goodness of its people.  Such expression does not come naturally to the man who currently occupies the office the Gipper once did.  This is not to say Barack Obama doesn’t care for this nation — or even to suggest he doesn’t love it (as the title to this post questions), but simply to say that if he does love this country, he doesn’t make that passion as manifest as did the Gipper.

This question came to mind last night as I wrote last night about Jim Kessler’s contention that Democrats would do well in the 2010 election if they could just emulate the Gipper, particularly that Republican’s ability to offer a “ positive, powerful, muscular view of what this country can achieve“.  

To which point, Paul Mirengoff responds:

But Obama doesn’t do “powerful and muscular” well, at least not in the same sentence as “America.” And for a good reason – he is ambivalent about such an America. Reagan’s belief in that American was not only genuine, but consuming. Thus, he could run that “play” in good times and bad. Obama might be able to run it semi-convincingly in good times, but not now.

In a similar vein, JadedbyPolitics served up this comment to my post:

Their problem would be that their “leader” does NOT believe in the AWESOMENESS of America. To be THE leader in the World economy and to sell that not only here in America but around the World, one must first suspend disbelief that WE The People are a good and great people!

Maybe Obama does love this country.  If so, he needs to do a better job selling that passion to the American people.

In a thoughtful piece at the Washington Post, former Chuck Schumer aide Jim Kessler sees the troubles facing congressional Democrats, but finds “five potentially decisive differences between 1994 and 2010.”

Now, to be sure, he makes some great points and each of the differences he cites is accurate and telling, but his argument as a whole is little more than wishful thinking.  His basic point is that Democrats can limit their losses (preventing a repeat of 1994) if only, well, Democrats act more like Ronald Reagan*

If Democrats are to hold on in November, they must follow Reagan’s tack, sketching a vision for the future that has the United States leading the globe with the world’s strongest economy — one fueled by private-sector growth and a successful middle class. And they must resist the temptation to succumb to a populism that portrays members of the middle class as weak, powerless victims.

Problem is is that none of the current leaders of the Democratic Party is one bit like the Gipper.  While Kessler is right to distinguish Nancy Pelosi from Tom Foley, the Democratic Speaker of the House in 1994, neither she nor Harry Reid nor the president himself possess Ronald Reagan’s charisma, optimism and commitment to principle.  Nor does their vision align with that of the American people.

First, let me say, I highly recommend the article.  It’s thoughtful, honest and devoid of the crass denigrations of conservatives we see all too often from pundits on the left.  But, as I said, it’s full of wishful thinking. (more…)

A few days ago, Jim Geraghty posted a piece on his last exchange with Obi-Wan, his “political mentor who appeared in the closing months of the 2004 election, an individual who had been involved in the highest levels of GOP politics for longer than [he has] been alive.”  This is one of those pieces which got stuck in my proverbial craw.

So, I recommend you just read the whole thing.

Let me just highlight some things that struck me, notably Obi-Wan’s advice to pay attention to ABC to get the White House line, given George Stephanopoulos’ close association with Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel:  

 So keep an eye on ABC, especially Stephanopoulos and also First Read and Politico — they’re usually the first-wave transmitters of the White House line. Believe me, they’ve already got a pollster or two who’s ready to bend some numbers and journalists ready to write about the “sudden Democratic surge.”

Not just that, Democrats are going to try to define a narrative.  He advises Republicans to be prepared:

First, predict it. Just tell the people that the White House and Democrats will try and control the media dynamic and narrative. This is what they do. They don’t really know how to govern for the public good; if they could do that, they would be in better shape. What they do know to do is use media events to hold onto power, to go on television and blab.

Second, Republicans ought to be using the words “October Surprise” endlessly. Hold a contest to see who comes up with the most creative suggestion for what the Dems might do.

Emphasis added.

So, my question is this, with the rise of the Tea Parties and the new media and the growing popular disgust with big government, will Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media be able to control the narrative this fall and thus save their party’s control of Congress?

Political pundits have written a good deal about how President Obama misread his mandate.  At GayPatriot, we have focused on how he assumed the American people had elected him to use his judgment in discerning and then addressing what problems faced us, but in the process neglected some of the promises he made in the campaign (especially that “net spending cut“) and the main factor contributing to his September rise in the polls and eventual electoral success.

Recall, that the polls shifted in Obama’s favor during the financial crisis.  With John McCain’s erratic behavior at the time, Obama seemed more temperamentally suited to confronting our economic difficulties than did his Republican rival.  Americans expected him to focus on the economy.

But, not wanting(to borrow an expression) letting a crisis go to waste, Obama thought he could use the crisis to focus on the priorities nearer and dearer to his heart than promoting economic growth by spurring on the normally dynamic private sector.  He just had to pass a massive health care overhaul.  

Perhaps, had he kept his focus on the economy, people might have granted him more slack if the unemployment did not decline as rapidly as his team had forecast.  At least, his fellow citizens would know he was concerned about their employment situation and financial well-being.

Charlie Cook believes his failure to focus on the economy accounts, in large measure, for the Democrats’ woes this fall:

Unemployment seems stuck at 9.5 percent, reinforcing the view that last year would have been better spent focusing on the economy than on health care reform.

He’s not the only one to say this.  As Jay Cost noted last week, the focus on the unpopular health care overhaul really does seem to the primary factor endangering the Democratic majority in Congress.  Guess some people just don’t learn from history.

In a post on Palin Derangement Syndrome, iconoclastic blogger R.S. McCain and all around cool and snarky guy gets at the essence of what all too many on the left demonize conservatives:

Stigmatizing and marginalizing conservatives is much easier than debating them. Cogent arguments about policy become unnecessary to advancing the Left’s political agenda if they can dismiss its opponents as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

It’s a good post on the leftist tactics which I highly recommend, even while not agreeing with its every word.

He also offers this choice passage on certain critics of conservatives:

What is at the root of this game is the accuser’s moral authority to act as Grand Inquisitor. The accuser arrogates to himself the unquestionable righteousness to judge the accused, who is then expected to attempt to prove his innocence.

Read the whole thing.

In his analysis of some recent polling data out of the (once and future) Golden State, Ed Morrissey quotes a write-up that sounds like it was copied from my youngest nephew’s favorite book, that 1963 classic, Hop on Pop,

In the contest for Governor of California, it’s Republican Meg Whitman 47%, Democrat Jerry Brown 40% today. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll 3 weeks ago, Whitman is up 3, Brown is down 3. 

Emphasis added.  

The blogger formerly known as Captain Ed wonders what it will mean if both Brown and Barbara Boxer lose, whether it will signify a change in California politics or merely be a reflection on the quality of the candidates: (more…)

Tony Blair Pelted With Eggs at Book Signing:

Tony Blair was pelted with eggs and shoes by anti-war protesters this morning in Dublin, where the former British prime minister held a book-signing event to promote a new memoir in which he defends his decision to help invade Iraq.

And they accuse Tea Party protesters of inciting violence.

UPDATE:  The BBC has more, “Four people were arrested as activists clashed with Irish police at a security barrier outside the bookshop.”

Writing about an expensive new school complex constructed by the broke Los Angeles school district, the Wall Street Journal‘s Alyssia Finley offers a nutshell description of Obama’s liberalism.

The K-12 complex isn’t merely an overwrought paean to the nation’s most celebrated liberal political family. It’s a jarring reminder that money doesn’t guarantee success—though it certainly beautifies failure.

Beautifies failure.  Certainly sounds like all the fancy rhetoric, “hope,” “change” and “stimulus” to cover up for a major expansion of the federal government and an economic policy which has prevented the economy from expanding at the rate it normally does immediately following a recession.

UPDATE:  And is this contrast with charter schools related to real Republican reforms?

Mr. [Thomas] Rubin ["a consultant for the district's bond oversight committee"] says it’s unfair to compare charters with traditional public schools because charters aren’t saddled with onerous government regulations regarding labor and environmental standards. What he doesn’t say is that charter schools don’t have taxpayers as a backstop.