Via a reader’s Facebook page, I caught this clip of Chris Barron on CNN.  What stands out is what he said at two points, points Bruce and I have been making as long as we have been blogging, indeed, were making even before we started blogging:

Starting at about 1:45, Chris begins by saying that we should be “past identity just for the sake of identity politics.”  Then, commenting on the Iowa judges (who ruled in favor of state recognition of same-sex marriage) being voted out, he pointed out that “a strategy that relies solely on the courts is a flawed strategy.”  Hear!  Hear!  Instead, he says gay groups should do the hard work of changing hearts and minds.

Then, about 3 minutes later, starting at about 4:45, he faults the “big-government” agenda of the gay left, pointing out that conservative reforms benefit gay people.

Been waiting to hear this kind of rhetoric on national television from the folks at Log Cabin for about as long I’ve been following Log Cabin.  And now someone is finally getting it across.  Kudos, Chris, job well done!

This quote in an article about George W. Bush’s record in an article written in anticipation of the release of his book tomorrow may well be too rich for commentary, so I’ll just add some emphasis and a quick thought.

Two new movies dramatize the scandals of Bush’s agonizing second term: the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson drama, Fair Game, and the Jack Abramoff farce, Casino Jack. Both have marquee casts, and the first has Oscar buzz. But neither is generating much popular interest or reflection.

Only to folks in Hollywood (and in certain Beltway circle) are Republican scandals — and what they think are Republican scandals  – really super hot topics.  They may generate buzz in Hollywood, but they don’t generate interest in the heartland.

To borrow an expression, people should move on. No wonder, as per the above article, “Bush’s record matters less than Democrats would like”.

On Friday, I e-mailed some right-of-center bloggers with an idea:

I had a brainstorm yesterday on something we libertarian-leaning bloggers could do to make sure the 112th Congress does not repeat the mistakes of past Republican Congresses.  As you may know, the ethically-challenged,earmark-loving Jerry Lewis (the Congressman not the funnyman) is the Ranking Minority Member of the House Appropriations Committee which means he’ll soon become Chairman.

Unless we stop him.

I thought this was a project which Glenn (Reynolds) and Michelle (Malkin) might embrace.  Well, before I even got the project off the ground, seems that Tennessee-based blogger is already on board.

This morning, he linked a must-read Washington Examiner piece on that very topic:

No chairmanship is more important than that of the House Appropriations Committee, which controls federal outlays. More than anything else, voters want Washington to stop irresponsible federal spending and rein in spiraling national debt, but returning sanity to the federal budget cannot be achieved without a new Appropriations panel head. As former Reader’s Digest Editor-in-Chief Kenneth Y. Tomlinson writes elsewhere in Monday’s Examiner, Boehner’s choice is stark and simple. It would be a horrible mistake to give the nod to either Rep. Jerry Lewis of California or Rep. Hal Rogers of Kentucky. Lewis and Rogers are both Old Bull Republicans who love earmarks and pork barrel politics. Appointing either would split the House GOP caucus and spark a revolt among conservatives who have been fighting earmarks for years.

I grant that the incoming Speaker has a tough task ahead of him.  It won’t be easy to tell a long-serving member of his caucus who have long salivated over chairing this committee that he’s not eligible for the prize he believes is rightfully us.  But, the difficulty of turning down these Republican porker will be outweighed the by rewards he reaps from the grassroots, particularly the Tea Party.

By refusing to defer to seniority and instead appointing a true fiscal conservative to helm this committee, Boehner would send a signal that he understands the ideas which fueled Republican victories across the country.  At the same time, he’d be taking a step toward cutting out-of-control Washington spending.

The problems California faces are not just the failure of our politicians in Sacramento to balance the budget — particularly given the exorbitant cost of public employee pensions.  We also have an economy that is moribund, with many employers seeking opportunities elsewhere  – or moving their operations (and with them jobs) overseas and to neighboring states.

In her recent column on the (once-)Golden State’s woes, Debra J. Saunders builds on this point, reminding us that “fixing the budget may be the easier half of  [Governor-elect Jerry] Brown’s job“:

Brown has a reputation for talking to people who disagree with him. That’s good, because I didn’t hear a word from Brown on Wednesday that made me believe he understands what he has to do to staunch the flow of jobs, businesses and people with assets from the Golden State.

If he wants dynamic growth, Brown might want to talk to [his vanquished Republican opponent Meg] Whitman, who told me in March that if she had to start eBay all over again, she’d probably locate in Texas.

CNBC recently ranked the Lone Star State as the best state to do business.  In the same survey, California ranked 32nd, yet 49th for business friendliness.  The Tax Foundation ranked California the 2nd worst state to do business.  We need do something to make it a better state to do business, to prevent employers from moving jobs out of the state.  We’ve lost nearly 600,000 jobs just since Congress passed the “stimulus.”

I do hope I’m wrong about Jerry Brown.  And, to be sure, some aspects of his tenure as Mayor of Oakland show that he is aware of the benefits of pro-business policies.  It would be nice if he could talk enacting reforms designed to keep businesses here in California, reforms which would make the Golden State shine once more.

“Has anyone noticed,” our reader Eddie asked in a recent thread,

. . . that the most gay-unfriendly Tea Partiers lost? Paladino, Buck, and Miller at the top of the list (well, Miller hasn’t technically lost yet) Angle and O’Donell? Those are the ones who made comments or had positions that don’t set well with gay people. And don’t get me wrong, I would still have voted for any of those 5 over the Democrats, but I was just sayin’.

First, dispute Miss O’Donnell’s many inadequacies as a candidate, most of her comments that don’t sit well with gay people date back to the 1990s.  I think she would have lost even without having said such strange things way back when.   I do have some evidence that her attitudes toward gays have shifted since then  – only that changed attitude, as far as I know, did not come out in her unsuccessful campaign.

But, Eddie is onto something.  In the two of the three close Senate races where the Democrat prevailed, the Republican had said things that made it seem he (or she, in the case of Sharron Angle) had not accepted the social changes of the past quarter-century.

This should be a reminder to Republican candidates readying runs to challenge some of the many Democratic Senators whose terms come up for reelection next fall.

Best to focus on economic issues, adopting a live-and-let-live attitude on social issues — as well as fiscal ones.