Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama campaign spokesman makes Romney’s point

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:36 pm - April 25, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Bush-hatred,Economy

Last night, Piers Morgan led off his eponymous CNN show by asking his colleague Wolf Blitzer to offer his thoughts on Mitt Romney’s speech.  Blitzer agreed that “It was absolutely an excellent speech from — from his perspective because it looked — it looked like sort of an unofficial acceptance speech of the Republican presidential nomination.”

Morgan then turned to Obama campaign spokesman Ben Labolt for the president’s perspective.  And by the manner in which he deflected questions raised by the presumptive Republican nominee’s speech, the Democratic flack effectively made Mitt Romney’s point.

When CNN anchor asked Labolt for his “reaction to Mitt Romney’s speech“, he cited “particularly” the Republican’s “claim that because the president has failed America, he [Obama] will run a campaign, and you are effectively running the press for that campaign, full of diversions, distractions, and distortions.”

Labolt focused on the choice offered by the coming election.  In a followup question, Morgan pressed the point, “What happens if a large number of Americans come November conclude that actually most of the answers [about whether we’re better off today than we were four years ago] to that are no?”

Instead of responding, Obama’s spokesman attacked Romney:

Well, the fact is a better title for Governor Romney’s speech tonight than “A Better America” should have been “Back to the Future.” Because he’s proposing the same economic policies that got us into the economic crisis in the first place. More tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, letting Wall Street write its own rules again.

You know we’ve tried those same policies before. We passed those tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. They were supposed to unleash growth. They were supposed to unleash job creation and they didn’t.

In office three years now, but still running against George W.

Yeah, Labolt did offer a few tidbits of good news in the current lackluster recovery, but his focus was on distorting Romney’s record, diverting attention away from “growth [which] surely feels like stagnation rather than a strong recovery” with personal income which is “flat to falling.”  Such attacks are nothing more than distractions from Obama’s real record.

ADDENDUM: (more…)

Did W ever attack his media critics by name*?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:01 pm - April 25, 2012.
Filed under: Obama Dividing Us,Obama Hopenchange

Earlier today, Jim Hoft linked this telling excerpt from the president’s recent Rolling Stone interview:

Frankly, I know that there are good, decent Republicans on Capitol Hill who, in a different environment, would welcome the capacity to work with me. But right now, in an atmosphere in which folks like Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist are defining what it means to be a true conservative, they are lying low. My hope is that after this next election, they’ll feel a little more liberated to go out and say, “Let’s redirect the Republican Party back to those traditions in which a Dwight Eisenhower can build an interstate highway system.”

Can you recall Mr. Obama’s immediate predecessor ever attacking his liberal critics by name, particularly, say, the folks at when they actively worked to frustrate and eventually succeeded at blocking the then-president’s efforts to reform Social Security?

(To name but one effort when liberal group’s worked to block that Republican’s agenda, even before the election of  a Democratic Congress in 2006.)

* (more…)

“Animus toward gays . . . is beyond the pale”

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 3:40 pm - April 25, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Gay Politics

Just caught Jennifer Rubin’s Sunday post, “Anti-gay voices should be rebutted“, which included this tidbit:

There plainly is a debate generationally, as I have reported, within the GOP on gay marriage. But while this goes on, there should, one would hope, be a consensus that animus toward gays and toward hiring gays to work in government (or anywhere else) is beyond the pale.

Seems to reflect an emerging consensus within the GOP. Read the whole thing.

Dan in Bay Area This Weekend/Paul Ryan at Reagan Library 05/22

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:03 pm - April 25, 2012.
Filed under: Great Americans,LA Stories

Responding to the most important person in California’s request that I come over to play trucks with him, I’ll be heading up to the Bay Area this weekend to stay with my sister (said individual’s Mom).  Would like to organize a brunch for GayPatriot readers on Saturday or Sunday.  Please drop me a note if you would like to join us; would like to do this in East Bay if possible.

Also, please join our reader Leah and myself to hear a grown up from Washington, D.C. deliver a talk entitled, “A Rendezvous with Reagan’s Legacy: Lesson for 2012,” at the sacred shrine of freedom Reagan Library in Simi Valley on Tuesday, May 22. Click here to register. It’s only $65 and includes dinner in the Library’s AIr Force One Pavilion.

More information below the jump: (more…)

Watcher’s Council Nominations – Earth Day Edition

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:12 pm - April 25, 2012.
Filed under: Blogging,Conservative Ideas

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions (more…)

“It’s still about the economy…and we’re not stupid.”

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:36 am - April 25, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election

Like John Hinderaker, I too was impressed with Mitt Romney’s speech last night.  And like him, I too noticed the former governor’s wife.  John took note of his poise and speculates about how she might contribute “in a subtle way, to the overall image of the ticket.”  I noticed how devoted he seems to her.  He looks at her, as if he just can’t believe that, out of all the men in the world, she picked him.

It wasn’t just the way he looked at his wife that struck me, but also the content of his speech.  Now, given that I watched while doing cardio, I did not catch the tone of his voice, only saw how he energized he looked as I read the text of his remarks through the miracle of closed-captioning.  He hit all the right notes and made clear he was taking the fight to Obama, hitting the Democrat for his policy failures and for the sour state of the national economy.

The Republican was upbeat, optimistic, Reaganesque in rhetoric if not in tone.

And he used Obama’s words against him:

Those who promise to spread the wealth around only ever succeed in spreading poverty.  Other nations have chosen that path. It leads to chronic high unemployment, crushing debt, and stagnant wages.

He also turned a familiar Clinton campaign expression on its head.  Warning us that the Democrats remain determined to “run a campaign of diversions, distractions, and distortions”, Romney reminds us that “It’s still about the economy …and we’re not stupid.” The UK’s Toby Harnden reminds us of a bit of American history:

Just as the Clinton campaign (whose manager James Carville famously coined the phrase ‘it’s the economy, stupid’) resisted President George H.W. Bush’s attempts to make the 1992 election about the then Arkansas governor’s character, Team Romney will try keep the focus on Obama and his record. (more…)

Axelrod’s Attack on Seamus: The gift that keeps on giving

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:02 am - April 25, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,American History,Dogs

Via Drew @ Ace, via The Other McCain‘s headlines.

UPDATE: The “dog meme, quips Michael Walsh “has legs. Derision is wolf bane to the Left.” Via Instapundit.

RELATED: Axelrod: Why are we wasting time talking about which dogs Obama ate as a kid? Hey, maybe, David, if you just said we made a mistake in attacking Mitt Romney for something he did in the early 1980s, we might agree to drop the subject. K?

Liberal pundits trying to stereotype Romney’s foreign policy spokesman?

Seems the fact that Mitt Romney’s new national security and foreign policy spokesman is gay has caused some on the left to define the man by some of the stereotypes often used to deride people like us. At least that’s what Ace thinks:

He’s also gay. For no particular reason, other than that he’s gay, the Atlantic calls him “catty” regarding disparaging tweets about rivals.

Gay people do that?

Um, isn’t that what Twitter is for, gay or straight?

So, they try to pull that Gay Steroetype thing in from Jump Street.

Next step: They’re pretty sure he’s a monster, and searching for his past comments confirms yes indeed, he’s a monster.

H/t:  reader V the K.  Wonder how GLAAD would react if a conservative pundit called an openly gay staffer to a prominent Democrat “catty.”

Just askin’.

Will Loss in First State Cause* “Last Conservative Standing” To Exit

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:17 am - April 25, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Newt Gingrich

On his web-site, former House Speaker dubs himself the “Last Conservative Standing” (in the 2012 presidential contest):

And the former Speaker made a big push in Delaware, hopping to snag a victory in the smallest state (population-wise) voting yesterday. On Monday, Byron york reported that Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond thought that if his guy won the First State, he could “put a crack in the narrative that Romney is unstoppable.” CBS News also reported that “Gingrich said he had to win” the state.

Not only did Romney win, but he romped, beating Newt state-wide by a margin of greater than 2-to-1 and carrying every county, winning New Castle (the state’s largest) with 60% of the vote and Sussex with 55%. He fell just 10 votes short of a majority in Kent.

In fact, Romney won every county in all five states voting yesterday. If those seriously opposed to Romney had reached critical mass, either Romney or Gingrich (still on the ballot) might have been able to win a few counties, particularly in the largely rural regions of central Pennsylvania and upstate New York–particularly given that interest in the primaries has waned with the contest settled and turnout lower.

The self-proclaimed “last conservative standing”, however, could garner only 27% of the vote in a state he targeted. Some say Newt has damaged himself by staying in the race as long as he has. I tend to agree with that assessment, but will reserve judgment until he offers his official concession speech. The manner of his exit could well define his standing among conservatives not just in the near future, but also in the long term.

With a strong speech articulating conservative principles and endorsing the Republican nominee, he could both save his reputation and burnish his legacy.

* (more…)