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?
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.”
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.
So, if a man working in the “news” industry (who happens to be gay) concedes a conservative’s point about the president’s whining he is betraying gay people?
Earlier today, Bruce e-mailed me, alerting me to Ed Morrisey’s post where that one-time CPAC blogger of the year reports:
On Sunday evening, CNN’s Don Lemon told viewers that “people like Sarah Palin have a point” when they say that Barack Obama needs to stop blaming everyone else for the shortcomings in his own performance, including the economy.
Read the whole thing. Note that the telegenic CNN anchor was not conceding a conservative’s point on a gay-specific issue. Still, as Morrissey reports, several bloggers to reference his sexuality in attacking him for his concession:
Guess to these folks when you acknowledge a conservative critique of Obama you are somehow betraying gay people. We gay conservatives have heard such notions before. Seems that’s what happens when you have so politicized your sexuality — that any departure from left-wing ideology must needs make a gay man a “tool.”
Consistent with conservative principles as articulated by the Republican Party at least since its founding — and particularly in the post-Civil War era as well as in the last third of the preceding century (roughly synchronous with the rise of Ronald Reagan), we should favor laws which do not distinguish based on race, religion, sexual orientation or any other similar factor differentiating one human being from another.
We shouldn’t ask government to sanction our sexual orientation, but do ask that it not condemn it. We don’t need validation from the state to live freely. And it is not warranted for the state to punish us for our difference — nor for acting upon our sexual/emotional longings for affection and intimacy.
We ask simply to be treated as human beings with each individual retaining the right to determine his destiny.
And by not asking for privileges based on our difference, we make clearer our commitment to freedom (and indeed to the ideal of equality under the law), to the state leaving each man, each woman alone to determine his, to determine her own destiny. At the same time, we reaffirm the principles which have made this nation great, have made it strong and made it a shining example for those seeking freedom from oppressive regimes and seeking to replace such regimes with more equitable administrations.
In short, by not asking for anything from the government, we lead by example, reminding all Americans that we don’t need favors from the state in order to seek out opportunities, fulfill our own destines and pursue our own happiness, on our own or together with individuals with whom we choose to associate as part of groups we choose to join.
NB: Tweaked the text to make it a bit bolder.
Will legacy media give same attention to scientist recanting global warming alarmism as it gave supposed skeptic supposedly changing his mind (on global warming)?
In December, we reported (along with other conservative bloggers) that a Media-hyped global warming “skeptic” was no such thing.
Wonder if Yahoo! (who led with a story about said supposed skeptic) will similarly hype this story about a global warming alarmist recanting:
Environmental scientist James Lovelock, renowned for his terrifying predictions of climate change’s deadly impact on the planet, has gone back on his previous claims, admitting they were ‘alarmist’.
Lovelock admits he “made a mistake”:
The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. . . . We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened.
The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world
[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.
He told MSNBC that “he now thinks he had been ‘extrapolating too far.’” (MSNBC link via Instapundit.) Well, at least MSNBC has reported the story. Wonder if other left-leaning media outlets will do the same.
Until the rise of Sarah Palin, the legacy media largely respected an unwritten rule of respect for prominent politicians: their children were off limits. Yeah, they’d been whittling away at that standard for years, particularly with the progeny of particular Republicans.
Well, now since they’ve decided that a Republican’s progeny are fair game, why not his ancestors?
CNN, reports the Washington Examiner’s Charlie Spiering dispatched correspondent Gary Tuchman to Mexico to report on a “polygamy haven” frequented by Mitt Romney’s grandfather. Also on that network, a former drinking buddy of mine weighed in on the matter:
I think that it ought to be off limits,” Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition noted last night to CNN’s Anderson Cooper, reminding Cooper of the history of polygamy in President Obama’s family as well.
“If polygamy is important to CNN,” muses Spiering, “why haven’t they sent correspondents to Indonesia to talk with Obama’s second-cousins about the history of polygamy in their family?”
Senate Democratic Budget Committee Chairman:
Date When Law Requires Vote on Budget is “Wrong Time to Vote”
Date When Law Requires Vote on Budget is “Wrong Time to Vote”
There’s a reason they call it the do-nothing Democratic Senate. On April 29, it will have been three years “since Senate Democrats” have “passed a budget., a “dereliction of duty”, writes Deroy Murdock which “flagrantly violates the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act.”
Murdock quotes the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, outgoing North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, who explains his party’s inaction: “This is the wrong time to vote on the floor. . . . I don’t think we will be prepared to vote before the election.”
Wrong time to vote? Not voting until before the election? Kind of gives away the Democratic game now, doesn’t it?
Guess Conrad and his fellow partisans don’t want to let the American people know where they stand on the issues, particularly his colleagues in “purple” and “red” states. And the Democratic contends he is “focused on getting a positive result for the American people.” (Via Nick Gillespie via Glenn Reynolds.)
So, by that Democrat’s logic, you get a positive result by doing nothing.
“Floor votes”, Murdock offers, “would require Senate Democrats to borrow and spend, which annoys taxpayers, or cut outlays, which aggravates liberal lobbyists and porcine government-employee unions.” Read the whole thing to learn some impressive projects “focused, energetic humans have completed in less time than Senate Democrats have consumed to accomplish nothing on the budget.”
But, well, it’s jus the wrong time for Senate Democrats to vote on the budget. Wish I could have sent a note to the IRS earlier this month telling them it was the wrong time to do my taxes — that I needed to wait until after I bought a home to do them.
(So, any time we want to shirk our responsibilities and not meet a deadline, we can use the North Dakota Democrat’s excuse and say it’s the “wrong time” to get things done.)
Sobering, yet important video to wake you up from your Monday morning stupor….
(background on video at this link)
As chief Obama strategist David Axelrod tries to brush aside speculation that he would make an issue of the GSA, Solyndra, and Secret Service scandals had they taken place when a Republican was in the White House, Ed Morrissey asks, “Isn’t this the same guy who attacked Romney for the way he traveled with his dog in 1983?”
Recall that Axelrod tweeted “a photo of Obama with his Portuguese water dog Bo in the back seat of the presidential limousine“, writing, “How loving owners transport their dogs”. Had the Obama campaign not made an issue of this, had the president’s supporters not made jokes about this 30-year-old story on Facebook or mocked the Republican on bumper stickers, we wouldn’t be having so much fun with the president’s eating habits.
“The Obama Eats Dogs theme is silly,” writes Powerline’s John Hinderaker,
. . . but as many others have said, it is silliness with a purpose. The Obama campaign seriously intended to make an issue of the fact that decades ago, Mitt Romney put the family dog on the roof of his car, in some sort of kennel or container, because there was no room inside. The dog was fine, but the Democrats crowed that focus group testing showed that the incident would make voters dislike Romney. I think that claim was sheer fantasy, but in any event, the Democrats won’t be able to talk about Seamus now that everyone knows that Obama used to eat dogs.
“Would this Obama dog story still be ricocheting around” asks Brit Hume, “if the left had let go of Romney 28-year-old dog-on-car episode? Paybacks a bitch?” (Via Instapundit.) Well, actually, karma’s a female dog. And she’s come around to bite him. And given his appetite, he so wants to bite back.
And Mr. President, just as long as your supporters mock Mitt Romney for once transporting his dog on the roof of his car, so long shall we mock you for writing about your Indonesian eating habits.
RElATED: Jim Treacher proposes a campaign slogan: Obama 2012: Please Don’t Make Him Go Back to Eating Fido.
FROM THE COMMENTS: V the K quips that, “Only an idiot would vote against Romney based on that dog crate story. The fact that Democrats are flogging it shows how little they respect the intellect of their voters.”
The Defining Exchange of the Democrats’ 2012 Strategy:
Fault the Republican Plan, Fail to Offer a Democratic Alternative
The more I think about how Congressman Adam Schiff responded to my question earlier today, the more aware I become not just of this Democrat’s incompetence (a competent Congressman would offer a government’s pressing fiscal problem), but also his demagoguery. In the course of his talk, he attacked Republicans for holding the nation “hostage” on the debt negotiations (without acknowledging his party’s responsibility for accumulating so much debt*
). And, as I reported previously, he criticized the Republicans’ proposed Medicare reforms without offering any alternative of his own.
His comments reminded me of something Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in response to a question Paul Ryan asked him about the president’s budget:
Here’s a link to a video putting that comment in context. This may prove to be the defining exchange of the Democrats’ 2012 strategy — governing as well as political. Fault the Republican plan without offering a solution of their own.
*Under his party’s leadership, we saw a vast increase in federal spending which, to borrow an expression, “we didn’t pay for“.
FROM THE COMMENTS: V the K asks: “why aren’t the Republicans demanding of Democrats, in every interview and every press conference ‘What’s your plan?'” Good question. Why aren’t they?
Welcome Instapundit Readers! I see Glenn compared Mr. Schiff to the Treasury Secretary. I address Mr. Geithner’s acknowledgement in my this post.
Just returned from a townhall with my soon-to-be new Congressman (provided he isn’t defeated in November) Adam Schiff. When the 113th Congress convenes next January, thanks to redistricting, Henry Waxman will no longer represent me in the U.S. House.*
Despite his more civil demeanor, Mr. Schiff acknowledged that he had no plan to address the coming insolvency of federal entitlements.
Citing the warning of Medicare’s trustees about the program’s coming insolvency and this report about Social Security failing even faster than anticipated, I asked the Democrat what specific reforms had he proposed or supported to address the problem. After he stumbled around for a while acknowledging the complexity of the problem and offering some broad goals for reform, I interrupted him, repeating my question, this time emphasizing the adjective, “specific”.
He then said, “I don’t have a specific plan for Social Security.” (When, after the townhall, I showed him that sentence on my notepad, he started to blather on about his goals, but acknowledged that I had quoted him correctly, that he had no specific plan.)
Later, when I asked point blank, “So you don’t have a plan?”, he replied that he did not. And yet, when I inquired about the bipartisan plan the Democratic senior Senator for Oregon Ron Wyden backed, he faulted that proposal while taking potshots at the types of reforms Republicans had proposed and were considering. Perhaps, I should have reminded him what Jon Huntsman said in expressing admiration for “Congressman Paul Ryan’s honest attempt to save Medicare“:
Those who disagree with his approach incur a moral responsibility to propose reforms that would ensure Medicare’s ability to meet its responsibilities to retirees without imposing an unaffordable tax burden on future generations of Americans.
Mr. Schiff attacked Mr. Ryan’s plan, yet has not met the “moral responsibility” of proposing those such reforms.
My new congressional district will be ill-served who, although acknowledging our the crisis of federal entitlements, has failed to offer a solution. By failing to put forward (or sign on to) legislation offering real reform, Adam Schiff, simply put, is not doing his job. And should be replaced come November.
If all goes well, then, he will, technically at least, never become my Congressman.
Perhaps the greatest satisfaction — and the greatest disappointment — of blogging comes from the comments section. There, I find that my posts often stimulate great discussion, provide interesting information or allow for general amusement. (But, too often they descend into name-calling, with ad hominem attacks replacing civil discourse, attacking those offering opposing points of view rather than challenging their arguments.)
In two recent posts, we have seen the former, with a good exchange throughout to thread following my Marriott post as well as in a few comments (following the third such posting) to my government fairness post. Via the former thread, I learned that one blogger thought Mitt Romney’s appointment of former John Bolton aide Richard Grenell to be some kind of “outreach” to gay Republicans. It was no such thing. Nor should we want it to have been.
As most of you have heard by now, Romney tapped Grenell to be his campaign’s “national security and foreign policy spokesman”. Grenell, as Roger Simon reminds us, is “openly gay.” He appears to be well-qualified for the job, having been . . .
. . . a longtime spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. He was known by the press as a loyal, and combative, appointee to a series of ambassadors including John Bolton, to whom he remains close. He also fought a long, and unsuccessful battle for formal recognition of his partner in diplomatic documents.
His qualifications, however, haven’t prevented one extreme social conservative from losing his cool: “Bryan Fischer, the director of issue analysis for the Tupelo, Miss.-based American Family Association called the appointment “a ‘message to the pro-family community’ of ‘drop dead.'” Seems some extreme social conservatives oftentimes mimic leftists. Once again, this was no such thing. It was merely the appointment of a qualified man to an important campaign position. Grenell’s sexuality likely had nothing to do with the appointment.
Nor should we gay Republicans want it to have a factor in Romney’s choice.
We should not want the presumptive Republican nominee — nor any politician — to appoint a man merely because he’s gay, but instead should want him to appoint men and women to posts of responsibility in his campaign — and administration — primarily because they are qualified — and regardless of their sexuality (or any other difference irrelevant to their capacity to serve). In short, an individual’s sexuality should not be the reason for nor an impediment to his appointment.
FROM THE COMMENTS: Louise B offers a good case for pointing out that Mr. Grenell is gay: “To me, a social conservative, the only reason to point out a foreign policy man is homosexual is that it tells the Muslim countries to stop killing their citizens because they contribute to the society as a whole.”
ANOTHER FROM THE COMMENTS: Bookworm loves my “post caption, because it completely sums up the fact that people should be viewed as individuals — capable or incapable, smart or dumb, good or bad, etc. — first. You’ve cleverly captured the core meaning in King’s ‘I have a dream speech.'” Aw shucks, Thanks.
Good morning, America. The BlogCon has been awesome so far here in my adopted hometown of Charlotte, NC. A number of the gang were treated to the best soul food restaurant in the city at Mert’s last night. Gabriel Malor, IrishSpy, SisterToldjah and JCinQC (my Twitter gang) all went to Roosters — one of our absolute favorites in Charlotte. Great food, good prices.
John and I are staying at home and driving back and forth, so we missed the late night festivities. Rumors have it that there was an intense karaoke party. And something about Ben Howe doing a rap song. If I get more details later…. I’ll reveal all!
This morning we got to the hotel a bit late, so we missed National Review’s Jim Geraghty talk. Dangit! Hopefully I’ll find out what he covered later.
The best part of BlogCon (and previous “Con” events I’ve attended), is the sense that we are all a family. I get more bear hugs from my conservative friends at this event than I ever did at a real family event.
Anyway, I’m so glad that the BlogCon gang came to Charlotte….. I hope our city is treating everyone well.
Yesterday, I blogged that “many (if not most) private companies have sought to redress” past “unfairness by adopting non-discrimination clauses in their employment policies or developing ‘diversity’ policies to recruit gay and lesbian employees.” Just today, I read about what one company (which, I believe, was founded and still run by a Mormon family) is doing to reach out to gays:
The Marriott hotel chain is known for its comfortable rooms and amenities. But in addition to a plethora of appeasing services, the popular company also offers value packages to individuals who are gay. Curiously, numerous hotels within the Marriott chain offer what they call “OUT” packages.
At the Renaissance Washington Marriott in Washington, D.C., for instance, the deal includes chocolate covered strawberries, sparking wine upon arrival and a copy of NaviGaytour Magazine, among other benefits. . . .
The main thrust of the deals seem to be predicated upon an urge to attract a gay customer base, while distinguishing the company as particularly diverse and accepting. The Marriott web site even has a section called “Gay Weddings & Events,” which is devoted to helping individuals plan their noteworthy occasions.
Kudos to Marriott. A private company doesn’t need a government initiative to reach out to gay clientele. Seems some businessmen recognize the benefits developing new policies to respond a changing marketplace.
Is the Obama campaign only competent on offense?
(Has it ever been prepared for a vigorous Republican defense?)
Pundits and politicos on both sides of the aisle have long lauded the Democratic campaigns in the three most recent presidential elections (1992, 1996 and 2008) where that party’s candidate won the general election. Yet, one wonders how those campaigns would have held up had their Republican opponents mounted a more effective challenge.
In the most recent contest, we had a brief window into how the Obama team performed on defense when John McCain surged out of of St. Paul and the Democrat stumbled badly. Obama didn’t do well on defense. Had it not been for McCain’s ham-handed handling of the financial crisis — and had the Republican had a better political operation — who knows how Obama would have fared come November.
This year, we’re beginning to witness just how unprepared the Obama team is for an effective opposition. As Tevi Troy observes today in commenting on the doggie wars, “there is a larger point here as well, one that speaks to competence“:
Attacking Romney for cruelty to dogs without recognizing Obama’s own self-admitted and enormous vulnerabilty on the issue is a shocking instance of a research and self-assessment failure on the part of the Obama campaign. The Seamus attacks were not a one-time hit, but appear to have been part of a concerted effort by the Obama team to make Seamus an issue. To do so without considering that the pro-Romney forces had an easy comeback fails Campaign Hit 101.
“The dog wars show”, Troy concludes, “that the vaunted Obama campaign competence appears to be a thing of the past as well.” Is it a thing of the past or is it that it hasn’t faced such challenges before? Or perhaps, it never occurred to them that if Republicans got hit, they just might, to borrow an expression, “punch back twice as hard“.
And possibly they were also counting on the legacy media to back them up (and oblivious to the effectiveness of conservatives using new media.) (more…)
Lunch ran long so we missed the official Andrew Breitbart tribute, but did catch a sneak peak at the to-be-released movie “Occupy Unmasked”.
Here’s the trailer:
After the movie preview, the Breitbart crew (John Nolte, Larry O’Connor, Brandon Darby & Dana Loesch) was given a standing ovation by the crowd.
Now John is joining Pamela Geller and James O’Keefe to talk about fighting back against the mainstream media. Great panel!
Taking home the gold this week in the Council category was Bookworm’s most excellent post, he real threat that the Ann Romneys of the world represent to the statist Left. Michael Totten‘s The Lost City held that honor among the non-Council submissions.
There were a number of particularly strong posts in this week’s nominations, particularly those considering Mrs. Romney and her recent rise to prominence. I don’t always share the opinions of my fellow council members, but do tend to find most of their posts most interesting.
The remaining contestants ranked as follow: (more…)
We got here a bit late, but saw a great presentation from Erik Telford at The Franklin Center about “information activism” (think: citizen journalists).
Now listening to a great talk from Alex Lundry at TargetPoint Consulting. He’s talking about the graphic nature that politics has taken on. Example….
Good stuff so far! For more updated BlogConCLT reports –> @GayPatriot on Twitter.
Good morning from the center of the right-leaning blogosphere this weekend! Yep, BlogCon has occupied Charlotte, NC today and tomorrow for two days of information, fun & networking.
So a hearty welcome to the Queen City (no jokes, puh-lease!)
PatriotPartner (John) and I will be attending the sessions today and tomorrow and we were so thrilled to see everyone last night at the BlogBash party at RiRa Irish Pub.
Watch for updates from Twitter. And occasional posts from me here. Maybe photos, too!