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?
Archives for April 2012
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.
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?”
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.”