Gay Patriot Header Image

Bloggers criticize Dan Savage for his “hateful statements”
(GLAAD, HRC, NGLTF silent)

It has been almost three weeks since Dan Savage slurred gay conservatives backing Mitt Romney with a term Human Rights Campaign’s Vice President of Communications Fred Sainz dubbed “hateful remarks,” and yet no national gay organization has called on him to apologize.

And although these gay groups may be indifferent to left-wingers making such hateful remarks, a number of gay bloggers have taken Mr. Savage to task for his mean-spirited name-calling. Over at Misfit Politics, Trigger provides further details of the sex columnist’s juvenile rhetoric, finding him to be “among the biggest hypocrites to walk the Earth.

Taking on those who defended Mr. Savage for “reappropriating” the slur, Justin Sedor, blogging at the (far) left-of-center Huffington Post, contends that the context of the columnist’s tweet makes clear his intent to insult:

The awkward implications of his choice of syntax notwithstanding, the context in which he uses the word — right next to “grab their ankles” and “pathetic” — suggests not only that Savage meant to demean and degrade, just the same as all the bigots he claims to stand against, but that he meant to demean and degrade by comparing GOProud to a particular set of gay men (bottoms) and all those who enjoy receiving penetrative sex. So much for sex positivity.

At the Billerico Project, Vicktor Kerney says it was “a stupid thing” for Savage to say:

And I’m a little bothered about how quiet the blogosphere is about this. If GOProud’s co-founder Chris Barron had said the exact same thing, there would have been smoke in the city. In fact, the majority of the gay blogs would have made a mini-series out of the matter. (more…)

The empathetic Mitt Romney

By all accounts, Mitt Romney, like many boys in their teens, indeed like many mythological and movie heroes at that stage of their lives, was, in his high school years, a cocky prankster, eager to curry favor with his male peers, little concerned for the feelings of the victims of his various capers.

Also like many men in myth and movies, Romney changed at a certain point in his life.  When, we are not quite sure.  I have argued that his love for the former Ann Davies forced him to grow up. Perhaps because this beautiful young woman had, after she and Mitt had been dating for a time, broken up with him and started seeing another man at Brigham Young University, the future presidential candidate thought he needed to become a better person to win her back.

And become a better person he did.  As we have read in numerous accounts, not only did the twentysomething Mitt get his act together and stop pulling adolescent pranks, he also started looking out for his fellow man.  In February, Philip Klein offered an anecdote from Michael Kranish and Scott Helman‘s The Real Romney about how during his 1994 Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy, the Republican offered to “cover part” of the “milk costs” of a Boston shelter for homeless veterans, “and he didn’t want any publicity for it.

He didn’t just help out with gifts of cash, he also donated his time, frequently going out of his way for individuals in need.

One cold December day in the early 1980s,” reported Mara Gay, Dan Hirschhorn and M.L. Nestel in May

Mitt Romney loaded up his Gran Torino with firewood and brought it to the home of a single mother whose heat had been shut off just days before Christmas.

Years after a business partner died unexpectedly, Romney helped the man’s surviving daughter go to medical school with loans for tuition — loans he forgave when she graduated.

And in 1997, when a fellow church member’s teenage son fell seriously ill, Romney sprinted to the hospital in the dead of night, where he kept vigil with his terrified parents.

Despite this record of compassion, the latest ABCNews/Washington Post poll shows his opponent in this fall’s presidential election leading “on a range of personal attributes – empathy, standing up for his beliefs and, especially, basic likeability.

I dare say those numbers would change if our friends in the legacy media chose to tell the real story of Mitt Romney’s adult life rather than focus on more distant anecdotes from his adolescence.  And questioned why Mr. Obama chose to misrepresent his own past in his memoir.

Is Obama advisor saying his guy “purchased” the 2008 election?

Plouffe: Romney backers are trying to “purchase” the election

Back in 2008, Barack Obama decided to forego federal financing so he could raise more money (than the feds offered) — and outspend Mr. McCain he did.  Guess by White House adviser David Plouffe’s reckoning, Barack Obama “purchased” the White House four years ago.

UPDATE: Commenting on a panicked fundraising e-mail he received from the Obama campaign, John Hindeaker reminds us that in 2008 Obama raised “far more money” than any presidential candidate in history . . .

. . . and became the first major-party nominee to forgo federal funding [since Congress adopted that program]. In the climactic weeks of the campaign, he outspent John McCain five to one. He boasted that this year, he would do even better, promising to raise $1 billion for his re-election campaign. However, now that he has met his match, Obama has the temerity to suggest that “massive spending” is a threat to democracy.

A tax rate extension he’s not paying for?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:58 pm - July 10, 2012.
Filed under: Democrats & Double Standards,Liberal Hypocrisy

Just shy of a a year ago, when we learned that the national debt had increased by “$4 trillion on President Obama’s watch“, that Democrat blamed policies he “inherited from his predecessor’s administration”, singling out:

  • “two wars we didn’t pay for”
  • “a prescription drug program for seniors…we didn’t pay for.”
  • “tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that were not paid for.”

Now, Mr. Obama wants to extend the tax rates based on those cuts to individuals earning less than $250,000 a year.  Wonder what his plans are to pay for those tax cuts, given how federal spending has skyrocketed since Mr. Bush cut he rates he, to borrow an expression, “inherited” from his predecessor.

If a candidate for president should be an “open book”, shouldn’t a president running for reelection explain why he misrepresented his past in his own book?

At about the one-minute mark in the video embedded here, in response to a question about whether it’s “unpatriotic for someone to have a Swiss bank account,” President Barack Obama said that, “what’s important if you are running for president is that the American people know who you are, what you’ve done and that you’re an open book.”

Via Hot Air.

Amazing the softballs this reporter tossed at the president; it almost sounds like he’s working for the Democratic National Committee.  Wonder why he didn’t follow up by asking the candidate who believes his opponent should be an open book about the “38 instances in which [his] biographer [David Maraniss] convincingly disputes significant elements of Obama’s own story of his life and his family history.”

Seems a guy who believes a presidential candidate should be an “open book” would be forthcoming about misrepresentations in his own memoir.

UPDATE:  Listing some parts of Mr. Obama’s book which he has not opened to the American people, Greg quips that  “the guy who demands that his opponent be ‘an open book’ is clearly not one himself — and where he has been ‘an open book’ has apparently been been a work of fiction.

Obama’s big* spending leads to little change in swing-state polls

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:50 am - July 10, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election

On Sunday, USA Today released a poll finding that 

In the 12 battleground states, the race is all but tied. Obama leads Romney 47%-45% among 1,200 registered voters in the poll June 22-29 — a tick closer than Obama’s 48%-44% lead among 2,404 voters in the rest of the USA over the same period.

 Over at RealClearPolitics, Jay Cost found that those numbers showed “no statistically significant change in the preferences of registered voters since early May.”  No statistically significant change?  How can they be?  Everyone is just telling us how effective Obama’s ads have been in those “swing states.”
And, as Chris Civilizza reported yesterday,
President Obama has spent more than $91 million on television ads in eight swing states as of July 6, a massive sum that dwarfs the $23 million former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has disbursed on campaign commercials in those same places. Only heavy spending by Republican super PACs is keeping Romney within financial shouting distance of the incumbent on television at this point.
. . . .

The spending disparity between the campaigns is particularly pronounced in three of the swingiest states: Florida, Ohio and Virginia. (more…)