Gay Patriot Header Image

No, it won’t get worse for gays if Romney wins this fall

A couple of weeks ago, a friend alerted me to a report about a “pair of liberal super PACs are teaming up on a new Web campaign that accuses Mitt Romney of advancing an ‘extreme anti-LGBT agenda’ that would make life worse for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans.

Those who run the “Courage Campaign Super PAC and American Bridge 21st Century” seem a lot like certain social conservatives who believe that politicians can undo the social change of the past quarter-century.  Those on the left fear the election of Republicans because they contend Republicans are dedicated to undermining that change.  Meanwhile, social conservatives wish to use the GOP as a vehicle to undermine it.

While Mitt Romney has come out in favor of the a constitutional amendment defining marriage, there is no likelihood that such an amendment could muster the necessary two-thirds majority in either house of Congress as the first step toward ratification.

Not just that, as per her comments in January during he ABC/Yahoo!/WMUR New Hampshire GOP primary debate, the presumptive Republican nominee doesn’t seem to have adopted social conservatives attitudes on gay issues.  Instead, he offered that it was “a wonderful thing” for “gay people to form loving, committed, long-term relationships”:

. . . and that there’s every right for people in this country to form long- term committed relationships with one another. That doesn’t mean that they have to call it marriage or they have to receive the — the approval of the state and a marriage license and so forth for that to occur.

There can be domestic partnership benefits or — or a contractual relationship between two people, which would include, as — as Speaker Gingrich indicated, hospital visitation rights and the like. We can decide what kinds of benefits we might associate with people who form those kind of relationships, state by state.

Doesn’t sound like a man who wants to work hard to stop the social and political change that has lead to increased corporate and state recognition of same-sex relationships.   (more…)

Another symbolic gesture to scare up gay votes* for Democrats

Yahoo! is currently headlining a story that the “Democratic Party has added new language endorsing gay marriage in its platform draft, the Washington Blade reports.”

Predictably, liberal gay friends on Facebook are cooing over the report.  All the hullabaloo over this story obscures one points which most gay Democrats don’t desire to discuss:  when Democrats had solid majorities in both houses of Congress in the first two years of the Obama administration, neither President Barack Obama nor the Democratic leaders of either house made any serious effort to move forward on federal recognition of same-sex civil unions.  They didn’t even reach out to Republicans open to such recognition to try to craft a bipartisan approach.

With signs that the House will remain Republican after the current elections — and with increasing signs that the Senate will flip as well — this new platform language is meaningless.  The real question is why national gay organizations would rather demonize the presumptive Republican presidential nominee (or a chicken chain) than reach out to Republicans.

(More on this as time allows.)

* (more…)

Why did the NYT editorialist get his Churchill bust facts wrong?

Because he, by his own admission, as Charles Krauthammer explains, relied on the White House communications director:

. . . New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal, who at first repeated Pfeiffer’s denunciation of the Churchill bust “falsehood,” . . . later honorably corrected himself, admitting that “I got some facts wrong, because I made the mistake of relying on a White House blog post by the communications director Dan Pfeiffer.” Rosenthal then chided Pfeiffer for posting “a weaselly follow-up comment” after the facts became clear that “fails to acknowledge that his post the previous day was false.”

Emphasis added.  Read the whole thing.  (Via Instapundit.)

Fewer people going to happiest place on earth this summer?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:36 pm - July 30, 2012.
Filed under: California politics,Economy

Yesterday, while (as I mentioned in a prior post, I took a friend to Disneyland to celebrate her birthday and noticed much smaller crowds than I had noticed last summer.  I asked a cast member if she had noticed the same thing.  She had.  And I wondered if it had to do with higher ticket prices.  She thought maybe.

Or could it also be the Obama/Jerry Brown California economy?

The crazy things Nancy says (and gets away with)

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:27 pm - July 30, 2012.
Filed under: Media Bias,Pelosi Watch,Random Thoughts

Had an interesting thought while corresponding with a conservative blogress about House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to expostulated that Republican exploit Jews by basing their support for Israel on “tax cuts for the wealthy.”

This isn’t the first time Mrs. Pelosi has said something silly.

Our friends in the legacy media attack former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for saying things far more sensible than the liberal pabulum coming out of Mrs. Pelosi’s mouth.

Do wonder if the Democrat doesn’t watch her discourse because she knows more “mainstream” journalists won’t magnify her mistakes.

DNC’s 2012 Focus: Romney’s foibles, not Obama’s record

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:18 am - July 30, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election

Not too long ago, I asked some conservative Facebook friends if they had observed on that social networking site the same thing I had observed–that when posting on matters political, our liberal friends tend to attack Mitt Romney far more often than they defend Barack Obama.  Those who replied had observed the same thing.

Over the weekend, Glenn Reynolds reported a similar observation:  “PRIORITIES: CBS News: DNC Homepage Shows More Romney Attack Ads Than Obama Accomplishments“, adding, “Well, it’s not like there are a lot of accomplishments to boast of.”

If you follow the link, you’ll note something else:  it leads to the web-page of the local CBS affiliate in Washington, D.C., not the national news network.  And there’s this:

A review of the DNC’s homepage shows a majority of ads mocking Romney from “Romney’s Guide To International Diplomacy” following his comments that London might not be ready for the Olympics with the Twitter hashtag “RomneyShambles,” to attack ads highlighting “Mitt Romney’s $ecret $tash” of money in Swiss bank accounts and his tenure at Bain Capital.

Interesting that the attacks are mostly personal in nature; Democrats are not primarily attacking the presumptive Republican nominee’s policies.

The reporter for CBS DC found that “Instead of having Obama’s accomplishments readily available on the homepage, visitors need to scroll over to the ‘People’ and ‘Issue’ tabs to find his successes in office.

Do wonder why Democrats are making it so hard to find evidence of Obama’s successes.

ADDENDUM:  Commenting on the same CBS report, Ed Morrissey writes:

The DNC has none-too-subtly put Obama in the role of challenger and Romney in the role of incumbent.  That’s no accident, either — the campaign made clear that they wanted to run on the “change” theme again, even though the “change” they seek is another four years of the status quo, with no discernible shift in policy.

It does seem sometimes that Obama and his team just wan to run the 2008 campaign all over again, as if Bush were still the incumbent and Obama hadn’t yet had the chance to try out his version of hope and change.

Emerging “civil libertarian” consensus on Chick-Fil-A

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:48 am - July 30, 2012.
Filed under: Blogging,Entrepreneurs,Freedom,Gay PC Silliness

While I was celebrating a friend’s birthday yesterday at the happiest place on earth (with seemingly fewer happy people this summer than in past years), Glenn Reynolds linked and quoted from a blogger who offered a nice succinct, synopsis of an emerging consensus on the Chick-Fil-A hullabaloo:

Among pretty much everyone with a civil libertarian, or just plain libertarian, background, the verdict on the Chick-Fil-A furor is the same: while private persons and groups are within their rights to boycott a business, it’s outrageous and dangerous for government officials to threaten to use regulation to keep the fast-food chain out of their cities because they disapprove of its president’s anti-gay-marriage views.

Exactly.  Exactly.  Read the whole thing.

Do wonder yet again why Democratic politicians were so eager to attack this private company for the opinions of its president.  And to do so when they had no evidence that the company had ever discriminated against an employee because he was gay or denied service to or otherwise denigrated a customer because of his sexual orientation.

Some perspective of Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome