Gay Patriot Header Image

Another libertarian for Mitt Romney
(Switching from supporting Gary Johnson to backing GOP nominee)

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:12 pm - October 15, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Freedom,Tea Party

I knew Chris Barron would come to his senses.  He now joins Wayne Allan Root, the 2008 Libertarian Party Vice Presidential nominee, in backing MItt Romney for President:

There is a time for idealism and a time for realism, and for me, the time for realism is now. I endorsed former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson back in December of 2011, when he was still seeking the Republican nomination for President. I continued to support him even after he left the Republican Party and became the Libertarian Party’s nominee for President.  Indeed, I am a DC elector for Gary Johnson.  On Tuesday November 6th, however, I will not be casting my vote for Gary Johnson – instead I will be casting it for Mitt Romney.

I still believe strongly that Gary Johnson would make the best President of the three candidates running, however, it is time to recognize he will not be President. The next President will either be Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, and without hesitation I can say that Mitt Romney will be a vastly better President than Barack Obama.

He’s exactly right here.  Gary Johnson may have a better economic plan than does Mitt Romney, but the next president will be one of two men.  Chris echoes Root who said in September:

The only two candidates who can win are Mitt and Obama. Among those two the choice is clear. Mitt is a capitalist businessman, not a career politician. (more…)

Not Allowing for diversity of opinion on gay marriage UPDATED

UPDATE 10/16/12 @ 3:24 PM EST Good news: Gallaudet president wants Angela McCaskill to return following gay marriage petition controversy

Some proponents of gay marriage“, reads the subhead to John Fund’s piece on The New Blacklist, “would rather intimidate their critics than debate them.”  If they believe their case to be so strong, why are they so reluctant to take on those who oppose it?

Jonathan Rauch had no such compunction about taking on one-time gay marriage opponent David Blankenhorn, helping the latter change his mind. There is a real-world example of the power of ideas to persuade, yet other gay marriage activists would rather ostracize gay marriage opponents than make an effort to challenge their opinions.

Fund tells the story of Angela McCaskill, “the first African-American woman to earn a Ph.D. at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., a school for the deaf and hard of hearing”:

She has now worked at Gallaudet for over 20 years, and in January 2011 she was named its chief diversity officer. Last year, she helped open a resource center for sexual minorities on campus. But she has now been placed on leave because of pressure from some students and faculty. Her job is on the line.

McCaskill’s sin? She was one of 200,000 people to sign a petition demanding a referendum on a law recognizing gay marriage, which was signed by Maryland’s Democratic governor, Martin O’Malley, in March. The referendum will be on the ballot next month, and the vote is expected to be close.

. . . .

Gallaudet University’s president, T. Alan Hurwitz, announced that he was putting McCaskill on paid leave because “some feel it is inappropriate for an individual serving as chief diversity officer” to have signed such a petition.

(Read the whole thing.)  Guess, diversity doesn’t mean diversity of opinion. (more…)

Simply put, Mitt Romney’s policies are better for gay Americans*

On the abstraction notion of “gay rights” (turning to the government to craft gay-specific policies), the Democratic Party has long been superior to the GOP, but  it terms of supporting a broad spectrum of policies which benefit gay individuals, the Republican Party is head and shoulders above the president’s party.  Simply put, small government policies favor all Americans, including gay Americans.

We don’t need gay-specific legislation.  We just need the government to stay out of our lives.

Less government intrusion in our lives means we have more freedom to direct our own lives.  It means entrepreneurs, including gay and lesbian business owners, will find it easier to establish, maintain and build their enterprises.  Individuals will have greater choices.

And not just gay- and lesbian-owned enterprises.  We have seen how quickly private corporations have responded to social change, offering benefits to the same-sex partners of employees and adopting policies banning discrimination in their workplaces.

Today, our friend Jimmy LaSalvia, the Executive Director of GOProud, takes up that theme in a piece at the Daily Caller, arguing that gay Americans should vote for Mitt Romney:

Governor Romney supports cutting taxes for middle-income Americans and simplifying our overly complex tax code. Unlike President Obama, Governor Romney understands that the last thing we need in this troubled economic environment is higher taxes.

Romney has a plan to make American companies more competitive by lowering corporate tax rates, opening new markets to U.S. goods through new free trade agreements and reducing bureaucratic red tape by eliminating unnecessary and unworkable federal regulations.

Gay Americans, like all Americans, are suffering under Obama’s big government policies.  Drive along Santa Monica Boulevard in West Hollywood and note the number of storefronts with “For Rent” or “Available” signs decorating their otherwise empty display windows.

How many gay-owned businesses have gone under because the cost to comply with federal regulations was too great for hard-working entrepreneurs?  Mitt Romney knows what it’s like to build and sustain and enterprise.  His policies will help remove the barriers to entry that now make it difficult for creative individuals with a good idea and a little bit of capital to turn that idea into a business — allowing them to realize their dream while creating jobs for others.

* (more…)

No wonder young voters like Obama so much

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:27 pm - October 15, 2012.
Filed under: Post 9-11 America

From the left-of-center New Republic:

Celebrating Bruce’s Birthday tonight in Los Angeles

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 10:15 am - October 15, 2012.
Filed under: Blogging,LA Stories,Ronald Reagan

Tonight, I’ll be joining a group of our readers in Century City, just a stone’s throw from where Ronald Reagan declared victory in the 1980 presidential election, to celebrate my co-blogger’s birthday.

If you’d like to join us tonight, please e-mail me to RSVP — and for details.

Happy Birthday, Bruce; we’ll be toasting you tonight.

Will Obama attempt to use 2nd debate to make campaign referendum on Romney?

Contendinghe was just “too polite“, President Obama attempted to excuse his performance in his first debate with Mitt Romney:

But, you know, the good news is, is that’s just the first one. Gov. Romney put forward a whole bunch of stuff that either involved him running away from positions that he had taken, or doubling down on things like Medicare vouchers that are going to hurt him long term. …

And, you know, I think it’s fair to say that we will see a little more activity at the next one.

Interesting that Obama claims his politeness stems from his failure to attack Mitt Romney — and not from his failure to respond to Mitt Romney’s criticism of his record.  Or his failure to more aggressively defend his own record.  Or his failure to more aggressively outline his plans for his second term.

It’s all about his failure to attack the challenger.  Later, he echoed the notion of his failure to attack when he said he had been “too restrained when Mr. Romney was telling his tall tales.”  Obama believe that “when you read the transcript, everything I said was true and a lot of what he said was not.”  In short, his failure wasn’t related to what he failed to say about himself, but what he failed to say about Mitt.

Given this self-critique, we can thus expect him to put Romney on defense in their second face-off by attacking the Republican. (more…)

Does Benghazi attack aftermath reveal an incompetent administration or one that politicizes with national security?

For the past forty-eight hours or so, I have been printing and reading articles, saving links and collecting notes for a blog post on the Obama administration’s reaction to the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the murder of our ambassador there.  I had a basic notion of my general theme, then last night, reading Michael Barone’s excellent piece on Obama’s campaign from the past, found that he had nicely, succinctly summarized my argument:

Biden’s [denying “that the White House knew that Ambassador Christopher Stevens was attacked by terrorists rather than in a spontaneous demonstration prompted by an anti-Islam video”] statement was either an untruth or a confession of incompetence. If the State Department had the information, why didn’t the White House?

Emphasis added.  And that is the nub of the matter.  The State Department, the intelligence community knew that this was an act of terror  Moreover, State was aware that we needed to beef up security at our consulate in Tripoli.

So, let’s say (for the sake or argument) that no one in the White House was aware of information that was in the hands of other members of the administration.  These members of the administration, at the State Department — and in various intelligence agencies — surely saw other administration officials offering incorrect information to the public.  Didn’t they have a system in place to alert White House officials to their errors?

In this case, to borrow Barone’s expression, Biden’s statement was an incredible “confession of incompetence.”  With his denial, he acknowledge then that officials in the Obama administration failed to communicate important national security information to the Obama White House.

If this is their story, why then haven’t they announced a shake-up in the way the intelligence community communicates with the White House?  Why aren’t they asking the individuals who failed to communicate the information to step down? (more…)