Over at Big Hollywood, my pal John Nolte makes sport of Media Matters’s “hysterical 2,300 word response to the announcement of Andrew [Breitbart]’s new association with GOProud”.  He takes issue with the left-of-center web-site for slurring that right-of-center new media pioneer as anti-gay.  You see Breitbart, as have the bloggers on the site, has often made fun of the eminently mockable and very unhappy ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, a Mr. B. Frank.

Oh, that loquacious Democrats just happens to be gay, those who so mock, in the views of the politically correct guardians of the sacred narrative of victimology, must needs harbor anti-gay attitudes and manifest extreme intolerance to all those who differ from the white Anglo-Saxon male norm.  (Guess that means those who mock or insult the immediate past governor of Alaska must then be misogynistic since Mrs. Palin is a woman.)

Nolte will have none of that nonsense:

Could someone please explain to to those with the Indian name Abusers of 501(c)(3), the difference between criticizing grotesquely offensive behavior unbecoming of a congressman (a brothel was run out of Frank’s house by his former boyfriend) and anti-anything?

Regardless, I congratulate Andrew on his new appointment and look forward to meeting and partying with and welcoming to our Big Tent, all the GOProuders attending this year’s CPAC.

Another conservative welcoming gays into their confabs.   Kind of wrecks the narrative.  Doesn’t it?

For the record, while John may be prominent on the right, he and I have been friends almost since I started blogging, having linked each other when he was Stranded on Blue Islands, corresponded regularly and socialized frequently.  And despite this early association with a gay blogger, that fine man, married to an equally fine woman, has risen rapidly among the ranks of right-wing bloggers.

Once again, Victor Davis Hanson gets at the nub of the issue in the national debate following the Tucson shooting:

In logical terms, how are we to use a moment to reexamine political speech when the moment was explicitly declared not to be connected with political speech at all?

How can a president subtly distance himself from the macabre and revolting behavior of his left-wing base while simultaneously editorializing on unhinged invective in general (e.g., without an embarrassing extreme, there is no occasion to call for moderation from others)?

Why did five days of presidential silence follow the shootings (so unlike instant editorializing about the Mutallab and Hasan incidents), when the likes of Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, Andrew Sullivan, Sheriff Dupnik, and the New York Times rushed in to scavenge political capital amid the carnage? All that might have been bridled with a brief word or two from the White House, a brief Sister Souljah moment admonition to the New York Times to cool it for a while. We know that would have worked, because the Times within hours after the successful Obama speech was calling to cool what it had helped arouse, apparently realizing that its demonization and its refutation of demonization hand-in-glove were politically useful.

Read the whole thing. Via Instapundit.

It doesn’t seem that the president has learned anything from the failure of his near-billion dollar stimulus or from this past fall’s elections.  He remains clueless both about job creation and the national mood.  According to the Wall Street Journal, trillion-dollar deficits notwithstanding, the Democrat is pushing new spending in his State of the Union address:

Mr. Obama will argue that the U.S., even while trying to reduce its budget deficit, must make targeted investments to foster job growth and boost U.S. competitiveness in the world economy. The new spending could include initiatives aimed at building the renewable-energy sector—which received billions of dollars in stimulus funding—and rebuilding roads to improve transportation, people familiar with the matter said. Money to restructure the No Child Left Behind law’s testing mandates and institute more competitive grants also could be included.

Poll shows the American people favor spending cuts.

Interesting that the president appears to believe that he needs make “targeted investments” (Democratic-speak for increasing government spending) “to foster job growth.”  Guess he’s forgotten that the “targeted investments” of his stimulus failed to keep the unemployment rate under 8% as his economic advisors forecast.

He seemed to have it right last week when he issued an executive order “making economic growth a required criteria for federal rule-making.”  That regulatory review will do make to foster job creation than any government spending.

So, I suggest Congress reject the increased spending while the executive branch focus on the regulatory review.  And while they’re at it, perhaps Congress can repeal a number of laws empowering unelected bureaucrats to set rules governing the activities of the entrepreneurial sector, you know those private enterprises generating the most new jobs.

UPDATE:  Glenn Reynolds quips, “I’M PRETTY SURE THAT ‘TARGETED INVESTMENTS’ TRANSLATES AS ‘more taxpayer money diverted to my cronies.’ I don’t think that’s what this country needs, or wants. It’s probably what Obama will offer at the State of the Union, though.”