Gay Patriot Header Image

Carney Counting on Complacent, Compliant and Cooperative Media

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:45 pm - April 5, 2012.
Filed under: Media Bias,Misrepresenting Conservatives,Obamania

Earlier today, Jim Hoft linked yet another video showing White House Press Secretary Jay Carney dodging — and not directly answering — a reporter’s question.  Carney does this because he know he can get away with it.  His former colleagues and friends in the legacy media just won’t hold his feet to the fire.

Watch again the video I posted yesterday:

Simply put, he doesn’t answer Brett Baier’s question about the failure of the Democratic Senate to pass a budget, but instead resorting to cheap, dishonest and partisan attacks on Republicans.  Had a Republican in his position attempted this, he would earn the opprobrium of the White House press corps.  But, Carney knows he can get away with this because when it comes to covering Obama, this corps has been remarkably complacent, cooperating with rather than questioning such communicators.

And still the president lectures them: (more…)

Joining Breitbart in the bunker

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:14 pm - April 5, 2012.
Filed under: Breitbart Lives!,Tea Party

Republicans appeal to the whole person,
unlike Democrats who dwell on the differences which divide us

Occasionally,” writes Tina Korbe, a woman who feels Howard Dean’s party patronizes those of her sex

. . . Democrats give me the distinct impression that their positions on, say, gay marriage or immigration are based more on the desire to win votes than cohesive principles. It’s suspicious, for example, that the president’s official position is against gay marriage but “evolving.” It’s almost as though he’s just waiting for an overwhelming majority of Americans to be in favor of gay marriage before he switches his position. Reducing gays, Muslims, Latinos, immigrants and women to their concerns over gay-specific, Muslim-specific, Latino-specific, immigrant-specific and women-specific positions reduces them to something less than a whole, entire, complex person. But no person is reducible to the tiniest sliver of himself — his sexuality, his religion, his ethnicity, his immigrant status, his gender. We all care — broadly — about human flourishing. That’s what Republicans want — a prosperous, flourishing, fully human society.

She says this in response to former chair of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean who, in his latest rant, accused the GOP of engaging in “Gay-bashing, Muslim-bashing, Latino-bashing, immigrant-bashing, women-bashing every day”. Sounds like he got his information from the left-wing blogs which supported his 2004 bid for the White Rather rather than from actual interaction with actual Republicans.

Korbe acknowledges she “cannot speak for gays, Muslims, Latinos or immigrants”, but she contends that as a woman, she has

. . . found the Democratic Party’s approach to my vote far less loving and far more insulting than the Republican Party’s approach to that vote. While Democrats reduce me to nothing more than my sexuality and assume that I cannot even pay for my own birth control, Republicans appeal to me as a whole person, to my ability to take personal responsibility for myself, to work hard, to reap the benefits of my labors and to voluntarily share those benefits with whose who truly aren’t able to be responsible for themselves.

Well, Tina, you speak for me.  And, I would dare say, for a good number of our blog readers.   (more…)

Smart Bloggers React to Obama’s Divisive Social Darwinism Rhetoric

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:41 pm - April 5, 2012.
Filed under: Blogging,Democratic demagoguery,Divider-in-Chief

Calling the president’s rhetoric smearing the Republican budget as “Social Darwinism,’ “vile and ugly”, Sonicfrog wonders “how the press would react if the previous President” had “said anything like this about his political opponents”:

Think about the term and how it’s been used over the last century and more. It has been justification for all sorts of atrocities and prejudices, from racism to eugenics to Nazism to state sterilization of the mentally challenged and infirm. I generally scoff at the notion that people use “code words”, which is usually an accusation tossed at Conservatives by Liberals to try and portray Conservatives as racists.

Glenn Reynolds offers a slightly different read on the remarks:

SO IF THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET IS, AS OBAMA SAYS, “SOCIAL DARWINISM,” then does that mean that Obama’s approach is some sort of Social Creationism?

Because I’m not seeing any evidence of an Intelligent Design there. . . . (more…)

Maybe Obama IS A Robot After All…..

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

The post-partisan president’s “bitterly partisan speech”

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:27 am - April 5, 2012.
Filed under: Democratic demagoguery,Divider-in-Chief,Media Bias

As I read the president’s speech Tuesday speech to the Associated Press luncheon (an audience which offered him a warmer welcome than it did his likely Republican rival in the presidential contest this fall), I thought I’d heard it all before.  It wasn’t just that his critique of the Ryan budget sounded like another Obama speech — which, to a large extent, it was.

It was that it also sounded like the standard liberal critique of Reagonomics back in 1982 before the Gipper’s policies had been tested. It’s how the anti-Reagan left sounded when Obama was in college. The guy still talks like he’s an undergraduate where the rhetoric mattered more than the facts.  As I wrote yesterday, the President of the United States offered a “cartoon version of Republican economics . . . more like a college activist’s impassioned critique of Reaganomics than an elected leader’s considered response to his rivals.

Leaders of democratic nations do not deliver speeches so deriding the serious proposals put forward by their political opponents.  This is not to say that he shouldn’t criticize Mr. Ryan’s plan if he objects to it, but that when he does so, he owes the people he serves more than just the same tired bromides that he and other Democrats have been offering for 30 years — even after the Reagan boom — which continued into the Clinton era (when federal spending fell as a percentage of GDP — from 21.4% in FY1993 to 18.2% in 2001).

It is yet another defining moment in the career of this divisive politician where he attacks his political adversaries rather than trying to find common ground with them.  Hugh Hewitt called the speech “risible” and links what he calls Guy Benson’s epic analysis of the address.  The post-parisan president delivered, what Benson called, “a bitterly partisan speech”; he proceeds to analyze point by point.

The more Americans who hear this speech (and others like it), the more quickly the image of his 2008 campaign will fade and the less likely they will be to trust him with another term as the nation’s chief executive, particularly given the pressing fiscal problems our nation faces.