“I don’t,” Ben Howe writes in Big Journalism, “read the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune“:

For that matter, I don’t read the closest newspaper to my home, the Charlotte Observer.  I don’t read these rags for a simple reason: I find that the objectivity that is claimed within their pages is a sham.  There are plenty of polls and countless bits of anecdotal evidence and investigations that have shown a liberal bias that overwhelmingly represents the modern newspaper.

I often quip that anything the New York Times publishes about conservatives individuals or institutions must first be verified by a reliable news source.

Media (repetition of White House talking points) reports notwithstanding, these days it does seem that at least when it comes to fiscal issues, the only grownups in the room come from the right side of the aisle. On Sunday, the junior Senator from the Sooner State

. . . released a new report “Subsidies of the Rich and Famous” illustrating how, under the current tax code, the federal government is giving billions of dollars to individuals with an Annual Gross Income (AGI) of at least $1 million, subsidizing their lavish lifestyles with the taxes of the less fortunate.

“All Americans are facing tough times, with many working two jobs just to make ends meet and more families turning to the government for financial assistance. From tax write-offs for gambling losses, vacation homes, and luxury yachts to subsidies for their ranches and estates, the government is subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Multi-millionaires are even receiving government checks for not working.

Kudos to Dr. Coburn! More Republicans need to speak out against such corporate welfare.  This is one issue where our principles accord with at least one criticism leveled by those associated with the #Occupy Wall Street Movement.  Making clear our opposition to such spending makes clear that the Republican is not the party of the rich, but instead of small government.

Commenting on Coburn’s report, Veronique de Rugy quips, “What is more striking here is the absurdity of a system that taxes people on one hand and gives back on the other.”  Indeed.  Read the whole thing.

The government, she contends, shouldn’t target millionaires for tax hikes nor should it single them out for federal benefits.

Given reports I have read on how the soon-to-be released biopic on perhaps the greatest woman of the Twentieth Century, I doubt I will see Meryl Streep’s The Iron Lady, but that great actress did make a good point about that great lady:

I still don’t agree with a lot of [Margaret Thatcher's] policies. But I feel she believed in them and that they came from an honest conviction, and that she wasn’t a cosmetic politician just changing make-up to suit the times.

Via Powerline.  It would be nice if the president could say as much about his conservative critics, instead of dispatching his minions to scold them for sabotaging the economy* in order to doom the Democrat’s electoral prospects.  Or hinting that the “very core of what this country stands for is on the line” in the coming presidential election as he hints that his Republican adversaries don’t believe in opportunity for individuals of different backgrounds.

—-

*UPDATE:  the argument Democrats and their media minions make about Republican obstruction of the president’s jobs bill is really just an example of partisan demagoguery and/or intellectual laziness.  They can’t (or refuse to) accept that we might oppose the bill for legitimate reasons.  In saying that Mrs. Thatcher’s beliefs came from “honest conviction,” Streep acknowledges the sincerity of that great Briton’s opposition to big government policies.  Would it that Obama Democrats could do the same.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Sometimes our defenders dispatch our critics in such a thorough manner that we don’t even need respond.  So does Naamloos address the first criticism to this post:

Levi, I think Dan’s point is that Obama attacks Republicans in an unpresidential manner and doesn’t address the substance of their opposition to his policies. In other words, rather than attempt to logically demonstrate why enacting his policies would solve problems, he simply dismisses the Republicans’ opposition to his policies as threatening the “very core of what this country stands for” (which is behaviour that should be below that of the president).

Furthermore, I don’t construe Dan’s post necessarily as a complaint, but rather as simply pointing out Obama’s actions. And that is warranted whenever one of Obama’s actions is worth pointing out, especially if it demonstrates a pattern (and particularly if that pattern is hypocritical, such as Obama’s tendency to impugn the motives of Republicans after his promise to be “post-partisan”).

Well said, very well said.

Earlier this afternoon, Dr. Helen Smith (AKA the Instawife) asked if “anyone out there” had

. . . seen this ridiculous commercial for “Forever Lazy” that advertises adult fleece pajamas made to keep you warm while you loaf in the house or even outside? I saw it this afternoon and really wondered about the future of Americans. Yeah, I know we already have the Snuggie but this just goes one step further and it is the ad and the way that people are portrayed that brings home the message that resting on your laurels and living the “lazy” way is the best method to dealing with the economy as it is today: by just throwing on your fleece PJs and tuning out the world.

Via her husband.  Well, you know, President Obama did say we were getting a little lazy.

Maybe the advertiser was marketing to the nation as portrayed by the president?

Perhaps the best moment yet of the entire GOP campaign…

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I guess the only “real gay bashing” is one that involves gays of a Leftist persuasion? (h/t – Peter Hughes)

Via The Daily Caller:

Apologies for slower than usual blogging, having finally returned to working on the proofreading of my dissertation.   Have a backlog of topic about wish I’d like to blog, including my concerns about the Republican presidential field and general and Mitt Romney in particular (may just excerpt this Roger Kimball post where that astute blogger pretty much sums it up), the notion of “equality”, liberal voting patterns among high tech entrepreneurs, media bias and a number of other issues, including the California economic crisis.

Just a few minutes ago, caught Wendell Cox’s most excellent article (via Instapundit) which helps us pinpoint the moment when California’s downturn began:

Economists usually see business start-ups as the most important long-term source of job growth, and California has long had a reputation for nurturing new companies—most famously, in Silicon Valley. As Chart 1 shows, however, this dynamism utterly vanished in the 2000s. From 1992 to 2000, California saw a net gain of 776,500 jobs from start-ups and closures; that is, the state added that many more jobs from start-ups than it lost to closures. But during the first eight years of the new millennium, California had a net loss of 262,200 jobs from start-ups and closures. The difference between the two periods is an astounding 1 million net jobs.

Emphasis added.   So, it seems the turning point was about the time of the turn of the century.  Were there any big changes in California about that time?  Well, starting in 1999, for the first time since 1982 (when the state’s once and current governor left office), the then-Golden State had a Democratic governor and Democratic legislature.  A year after the current governor’s one=time chief of staff took office, the state started hemorrhaging start-up jobs.

Coincidence, as the sage often says, “I don’t think so.” (more…)

President Obama thinks the bad actions of a few individuals in Penn State’s football program is some kind of national crisis requiring the “entire country to do some soul-searching“:

President Obama called for the nation to do some “soul searching” in the wake of a scandal at Penn State University that led to the firing of longtime coach Joe Paterno after it was revealed one of his assistants allegedly sexually abused eight boys and the team did little to stop it.

“Obviously what happened was heartbreaking, especially for the victims, the young people who got affected by these alleged assaults,” he told Westwood One Radio in a Friday night interview, making his first public comments on the scandal.

“And I think it’s a good time for the entire country to do some soul-searching — not just Penn State. People care about sports, it’s important to us, but our No. 1 priority has to be protecting our kids. And every institution has to examine how they operate, and every individual has to take responsibility for making sure that our kids are protected.”

One assistant coach behaved very, very badly and should be locked up for the rest of his life. And those who knew and did not report this matter to authorities also deserve censure (at minimum) and perhaps punishment (depending on the laws in the Keystone State).

But, why must all Americans engage in soul-searching for a handful of individual bad actors?  Is it this liberal mentality makes social problems of individual crimes?

This is a very revealing comment about the president’s mentality.  He would have been better served to respond as did Pennsylvania’s junior senator.  By all accounts, Joe Paterno was a first rate coach who handled this situation in a, well, less than professional manner.

Because this matter has received such prominence, perhaps it is appropriate for the president to comment, but to fault those at fault and express the disgust most Americans feel at the charges, but we’re not the bad actors here.  And we don’t need engage in soul-searching for misdeeds we haven’t committed.

“It would be wonderful,” an Olympian observer wrote on Friday

. . . to see President Obama grilled as the Republicans were Wednesday night in Michigan.What exactly will you cut in the entitlement programs? How will you solve the foreclosure crisis? And we’d like you to answer in 30 seconds while we look at you with the sweet-natured gaze of a cop at a crime scene.

Those who say the debates are hurting the Republicans may be right. There is a freak-show element. But seeing Republicans repeatedly walk through fire may in the end make them seem far more impressive than the Democrat who doesn’t have to. People notice the disparity. And this isn’t a bad time in history to see would-be leaders get nailed, and fight back up.

Reading this in the first two paragraphs to Peggy Noonan’s most recent column made me wonder when Democrats get the tough questions the “moderators” from the mainstream media address to Republicans.

Recall the contrast between the fawning interview then-CBS Anchor Katie Couric gave to the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 2008 contrasted to the aggressive posture she adopted to his Republican counterpart, asking the latter tough (and leading) questions about her running mate’s advocacy of regulation, ignoring the former’s revelation of his historical ignorance.

Note how Barney Frank gets all flustered when people pose him tough questions, assuming right-wingers put a student up to ask about the career politician’s role in the financial crisis or walking off set when a CNBC reporter challenged him on his talking point, becoming belligerent when Bill O’Reilly reminded him how enthusiastically he promoted Fannie Mae?

In 2008, did reporters ask Barack Obama how he could have sat in the church of a hateful pastor for twenty years without once ever asking him about his multi-faceted bigotry?  Or his radical associations?  Or about the legislation he sponsored — and promoted — to forestall the financial crisis?

Peggy is right.  The scrutiny will make the eventual Republican nominee a stronger contender against a failed incumbent.  But, our media have, alas, not challenged said incumbent on his failures as they would a Republican on his record — and policies.

NB:  Peggy’s piece is well worth your time, both for a warning she offers Republicans as well as for her paragraph on Herman Cain’s “guts.”

We are about 25 minutes away. The on stage prep is now going on. Here is a sneaky pic I just took.

The candidates are about to take the stage for the photo op.

More to follow…

The debate has been going on for about 20 minutes now. Pretty serious tone regarding Iran threat and status of troops in Afghanistan so far.

8:30PM UPDATE: Rick Santorum closed out his Pakistan comments by basically saying American jobs support defense sales to bad players. WTF?!?

9:20PM UPDATE: You REALLY should have been following my comments on Twitter. Just saying. The last 30 minutes are only available on the internet. My broad take on this debate — Newt wins, hands-down.

Good evening folks! Long time, no see (unless you follow me on Twitter!!!!)

I’m dashing off this quick post from the media room at Wofford College, site of the Republican Presidential Debate. They let me in! LOL. The debate airs live on the CBS television network at 8:00PM Eastern Time. I’ll be live-tweeting and blogging as long as the power on my iPad lasts.

Photos should follow later, too!

For UP TO THE MINUTE reports from the SC GOP Debate, please follow me on Twitter – @GayPatriot – (www.twitter.com/gaypatriot)

UPDATE!

Two early debate photos….

The mostly empty “spin room”…

The FOX News satellite truck outside the auditorum…

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

On this day when we honor those who, over the years, served in our armed forces, sacrificing their time and even their health to protect our freedom, Hugh Hewitt encourages us to “support the work of the Semper Fi Fund“, a group which helps injured marines without deluging donors with constant solicitations for contributions.

You can join me in supporting this fine cause by clicking here.

In his e-mail to those on the list of the San Fernando Valley Republican Club, Gary Aminoff reproduces a poem that Tarzana Joe, “poet laureate” of Hugh’s show, read on air:

When you stand to pledge allegiance
When you hit your knees to pray
For our past and for the future
Thank a veteran today

With a feeling deep inside you
With the flag that you display
With respect and admiration
Thank a veteran today (more…)

Remember all those stories we read in those dark days that dominated the first decade of this century about how the president and his evil minions were seeking to silence dissent?

And in recent years, remember all those images of Tea Party protesters trying to block access to or invade liberal confabs?  Remember how Tea Party protesters used to crash events held by prominent left-wing politicos and interrupted their speeches?

And now, we’ve got the #OWS folks tearing a page from the Tea Party playbook (a playbook written not by actual Tea Party players, but their critics).  Not only are they taking over public parks, depriving citizens of these public spaces for relaxation and recreation, they’re also invading conservative conclaves uninvited, as per this video to which Bruce alerted me:

Ed Morrissey who is at the FreedomWorks BlogCon 2011 (in Denver) where the invasion took place reports:

The clash erupted before I had a chance to get too close to the Occupiers themselves. They were briefly in sight, but got swallowed up by the BlogCon attendees. Frankly, the BlogCon response overwhelmed whatever the protesters tried to say — with chants of “Mike check!” and “We paid for your student loans!”, among others, the Occupiers got roundly shouted down. At one point, the entire BlogCon contingent in the lobby started chanting, “We want the dog!”, a reference to the elected leader of Occupy Denver — a pooch named Shelby.

Jason Pye who was also there and has more footage, laments that the invaders “were turned away; but not before engaging some of us. Unfortunately, they didn’t bring their leader with them (looks like the $10 I spent on dog treats went to waste).”  Maybe you could send those treats to Bruce; I’m sure Saxbe and Marley would greatly appreciate them.

Wonder if Barney Frank and his Democratic colleagues will be doing more to “differentiate themselves” from the juvenile antics of these participants in a movement backed by the Democratic president.

UPDATE:   James Taranto finds a “disconnect between the liberal media’s cheerleading and Obamavilles’ descent into disease, disorder and destruction is as striking as was the disconnect between the media’s slanders against the Tea Party and that movement’s actual peaceful and civic-minded nature.”  No kidding.

It’s not just CNN.  Glenn Reynolds sums it up:

THE SOLYNDRA-OBAMA TIES: “While everyone else in the political universe is chasing down rumors about Herman Cain making women uncomfortable, Fox News got down on the real scandal: President Obama giving a half-billion dollars of public money to a major campaign donor.”

Wonder how many stories Politico ran on Solyndra or Fast and Furious where the best that can be said for the Attorney General is that he’s incompetent.

“Why,” Michael Barone asked on Monday, “can’t government build big public works projects any more?” He noted that Rachel Maddow fault “greedy rich Republicans [who wouldn't] pony up enough money.”

That pundit well-versed in American (and English) history referenced Glenn Reynolds’s post where that prolific blogger faulted a government which “focuses on process instead of product”, contending that such focus prevents the government from “doing big things“:

To pick an example from my neck of the woods, the TVA had its first dam filled within 18 months of the TVA Act’s passage. That could never happen today. Now arguably TVA built too many dams, but at least taxpayers who wondered where their money was going could see dams springing up all over. Now it goes into the pockets of lawyers and consultants and Environmental Impact Statement reviewers. Not surprisingly, that’s less impressive.

Today, as Steven Hayward noted in a post linked by both Reynolds and Barone, no one in our various government agencies seems to be able to “decide what to do. . . without endless ‘process’ and ‘public input.’”

In California (and in other states like Ohio) there’s another problem.  Many who love this state, as I do, stand in awe at the great public works projects which have turned barren landscapes into (once-)bustling metropolises and fertile farmlands and built roads across tortuous mountain passes and along rugged coastlines.  They did all this well before Jerry Brown first became governor in 1975.

A sexagenarian friend of a liberal friend echoed this when he reminded me in a Facebook thread that he is “old enough to remember when CA had unparalleled infrastructure, education and public services.”  He was attempting to defend granting collective bargaining privileges to public employees.  In the thread, he has also been lamenting the decline of the Golden State.  It no longer has the services it once had.  Its engineers no longer accomplish the feats they once did.

In reminding me of California’s glorious past, he made my point.  You see, the then-Golden State enjoyed such high-performing public schools and amazing engineering accomplishments — not to mention top-notch public services — before the once- and current governor, in 1977, signed the Dills Act which “formalized collective bargaining for State employees.”

In other words, state employees accomplished all those things without collective bargaining privileges.   (more…)

Remember how Democrats attempted to discredit Paula Jones when she leveled accusations of sexual harassment against the then-sitting President of the United States?  Of course, they based their descriptions of Clinton’s accuser not on the facts of her life, but on prejudices against lower middle class white women.  ”Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park,” Clinton advisor James Carville said, “you never know what you’ll find.”

Well, now that Herman Cain’s first accuser has been identified, we’re finding that she’s not similar to another image from left-wing lore, the hard-working women victimized by the evil Republican boss.  Now, to be sure, some bosses are indeed boorish and to prey on their attractive female employees.  And they should be held to account for their actions.

But, it doesn’t seem Herman Cain is such a man.  Seems the woman who accused the Republican of sexual harassment filed another complaint at her next job.  Ace, who alerted me to the article speculates that she suffers from “Complainey-Face Syndrome“:

Kraushaar’s former supervisor at the INS, who was named in Kraushaar’s complaint, characterized the 2003 complaint to ABC News as “frivolous,” and said Kraushaar may have been offered a few extra sick days as compensation.

The supervisor alleged that Kraushaar had a “poor work ethic.”

The supervisor, a self-described Democrat, decided to speak out about Kraushaar’s complaint because of “doubts about her credibility.”

This is why it is unfair for women accusing of sexual harassment to hide behind their anonymity. When they’re anonymous, we can’t confirm the veracity of their accusations. “She,” Ace adds

. . . tried to get a ridiculous amount of money out of the INS — plus a pricey paid year off and paid tuition at grad school! — over a vague complaint of “unfair treatment.” Because she wasn’t permitted to work from home — how many people are? or were, especially, in 2002 or whenever?

You can bet if the accused were a Democrat, our friends at Politico would have unearthed this information before filing their story.  And if, on that occasion, they even ran the story, the past of the accuser would play a very prominent part, perhaps figuring in its very headline.

Yesterday, in a roundup on Tuesday’s elections, Jennifer Rubin concluded that

Conservative partisans err in concluding, just as President Obama did in his first two years, that bad economic times have softened the ground for extreme steps. Republicans would be wise to stick to bread-and-butter issues, and make sure they can sell to the center-right coalition. That reality may disappoint the loudest voices in the blogosphere, but it’s solid advice for actual candidates and office-holders.

Is she right? Given the mess that the incumbent administration augmented, the next president needs to take bold steps so the nation can regain its fiscal footing.  We need real, bold reform.  And some Democrats, along with their allies in the mainstream media, might call such reforms, “extreme.”

Or, maybe we need a leader who can make the case for bold reforms without sounding extreme?

Patrick Forrest may have come up short in his race for Virginia Senate, but in an Alexandria-based district far more favorable to his political party, Democrat Adam Ebbin won by a comfortable margin.  I knew — and liked — Adam back in my Northern Virginia days.  He is very liberal and extremely partisan, but is a generally nice guy.  He was always civil when we locked horns (as we did on numerous occasions).

And when the then-chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Tom Davis spoke to the Log Cabin Republican Club of Northern Virginia (while I served as the club’s president), that Democratic partisan showed up.  He braved a crowd of Republicans and listened politely when the Republican Congressman spoke, even asking a question, as I recall, and doing so in a civil tone and manner.

With Adam’s election as well as the election in successive congressional cycles of two openly gay Democrats, Colorado’s Jared Polis and Rhode Island’s David Cicilline, to the U.S. House, there’s no need for gays to keep covering for Barney Frank, the arrogant and mean-spirited Democrats from Massachusetts, unwilling to answer for his conflict of interest with a government-sponsored enterprise which he regularly defended and which now sucks cash from the federal treasury.

Polis, while very liberal, like Ebbin, appears to be a very stand-up guy.

In short, Barney is no longer the only gay man in elective office.  Unlike Ebbin, he is not the kind of man to whom others can look up; Barney is just not a good role model.  More than that, he’s an outright embarrassment. (more…)

Although, we can’t confirm the accuracy of the allegations against Herman Cain, we do know one thing:  the Republican’s alleged dalliances didn’t cost taxpayers a dime.  And yet day in and day out, our news media promote the story as if our government weren’t in debt, the Democrat Senate had passed annual budgets in the last 925 days, the economy were booming and the world beyond our shores was calm.

CNN has become the Cain “News” Network with “breaking news” at the top of every hour (at least when I’ve been watching) on the latest woman to claim he made untoward advances toward her.  All this coverage has buried stories with real relevance to our system of government and our national economy.  Reuters reported last night that a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) with which one Democratic Congressman wanted to “roll the dice” is asking for more money from the federal government:

Fannie Mae, the biggest source of money for U.S. home loans, on Tuesday said it needed a further $7.8 billion in federal aid to stay afloat as a shaky housing market widened its third-quarter loss to $5.1 billion.

The government-controlled firm also attributed the deeper cash drain to losses on derivatives used to hedge its exposure to interest-rate swings and on expenses related to home loans made prior to the 2008 financial collapse. In the year-earlier quarter it had a loss of a $1.3 billion.

Fannie Mae has now drawn $112.6 billion in bailout funds from the Treasury Department since being seized by the government in 2008 as mortgage losses mounted, and it has returned $17.2 billion to taxpayers in the form of dividends.

Now, just a few months ago, we learned that said Congressman, a Mr. B. Frank, helped his boyfriend “land a job at [the] mortgage giant . . . in the early 1990s at the same time Congress was writing legislation to improve oversight of the lender“.  This wasn’t the first time Barney used his position to help a boyfriend.

We don’t know if Barney’s relationship caused — or even contributed to — the mortgage meltdown.  What we do know is that the story generated a little buzz for a few days and then died.  Barney bent over backwards to defend Fannie Mae, an institution at the heart of the financial crisis, a government-backed enterprise which continues to beg for cash from the federal treasury. (more…)