Gay Patriot Header Image

What conservative blog readers really think of gays & GayPatriot

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:45 pm - October 20, 2012.
Filed under: Blogging,Gay Conservatives (Homocons)

When I alerted Jim Hoft that one of our critics had made insinuations about his “feelings” toward us, he thanked us in post.  We are most grateful for the acknowledgement.  The feedback from his reputedly rabid right-wing readers helps show just how far off our critic was by suggesting that our fellow conservatives really don’t think very highly of us.

Truth Teller wrote:

My wife and I were out last night with our very close, gay friends…we go out with them all the time.

Guess what? They are as conservative as they come (fiscally, of course).

Adam said that, “The only people I’ve ever known to use the word ‘faggot’ were leftists. Ironic.”  And Buffalobob thanked me . . .

. . . for being the forthright man you are. We can agree or disagree in our discussions. That is what freedom is. That is what our first amendment guarantees us. Those who try to shout us down, accuse us of racism, accuse us of being intolerant, demand that we follow in lockstep with their ideology are everything and more that we are falsely accused of.

Opable quipped that “Dan’s misguided poster thought Jim was a Pharisee…found out Jim is actually a Good Samaritan.

Seems that those who comment at Jim’s site have much in common with the bloggers whom they follow, perhaps opposed to state recognition of gay marriage, but in favor of treating gay individuals with dignity.

Once again, a reminder: Mitt Romney is a mensch

Most Republicans who watch this video will learn nothing new about Mitt Romney, but it is striking that CBS News would run a piece so favorable to the Republican presidential nominee (this close to the election).
 Via Glenn Reynolds.

Methinks Mitt wouldn’t have turned out as well as he did without the influence of one particular individual: (more…)

Obama: “uncomfortable under pressure”

Earlier today, while tidying my apartment, I came across this print-out for 2008. Soon thereafter, I scribbled in the upper right-hand corner a note, “Relate to Ed Morrissey”.
This links a piece reposted here and directing us here (link not working) for the original, with this passage about how the then-candidate behave when the chips are down:

Obama has looked amazingly uncomfortable under the pressure that Palin has put him under. He relies on his cool – it is a core part of his appeal. So he looks bad when he loses it. During the Hillary contest he rarely came under any pressure from the media. When he did he reacted badly.

What struck me about the print-out was how it reminded me (as per my scribbling) of Ed Morrissey’s thoughts about President Obama’s discussion of “Romnesia”:

Those elementary-school attacks using people’s names are something one usually farms out to surrogates (and is pretty lame regardless).  That comes with the grasping of “binders,” literally grasping in Joe Biden’s case (and literally literally, not Bidenesque “literally”), as a major campaign theme. When the President himself starts using attacks like this, it speaks to his desperation more than his opponent’s positions. (more…)

On the Gallup poll & Obama’s possible peak

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:48 pm - October 20, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election

Surveying some recent polls, Commentary’s Jonathan S. Tobin found that “the Washington Post/ABC News poll published on Monday that showed President Obama with a three-point lead was . . . was based on a sample that had nine percent more Democrats than Republicans; a figure that is far more than is reasonable.”  It wasn’t the only poll to give Democrats a bigger margin than the 7-point turnout advantage they enjoyed in 2008; the “new Hartford Courant/University of Connecticut poll” had “Obama up by three but” with “a sample that has eight percent more Democrats than Republicans.”  And per the circled section in this chart from RealClearPolitics (screen capture on 10.20.12 @ 12:30 PST), neither poll shows the incumbent hitting 50%:

In other words, even with a sample more Democratic than the likely turnout next month, Obama still can’t hit 50%.  Indeed, the RealClearPolitics average hasn’t shown Obama exceeding 50% all year. (more…)

A Chicago pol not quite big enough to be where he is

Instead of take the time to outline his plans for a second term in the second debate, President Barack Obama last Tuesday did something perhaps no previous president had done, attack his opponent in personal terms.

On Thursday in the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan wonders if the president will pay “a certain price” for ending “a certain part of the old-school American political style“.  The Athena of punditry reminds us how he started out:

Gov. Romney’s says he’s got a five-point plan? Gov. Romney doesn’t have a five-point plan. He has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules. That’s been his philosophy in the private sector, that’s been his philosophy as governor, that’s been his philosophy as a presidential candidate.” Mr. Romney, said the president, likes a world in which “you can ship jobs overseas and get tax breaks for it. You can invest in a company, bankrupt it, lay off the workers, strip away their pensions, and you still make money.”

Peggy contends he said things that were “harsh and personal” and that he called the Republican “selfish and greedy”.  “What the president said at the debate”, she notes, “was nothing he hadn’t said on the trail”:

His campaign has been personal, accusatory and manipulative. But there in the room on a tiny stage, for a sitting president to come out with that kind of put-down—I couldn’t imagine a JFK doing it, with his cool, or a Jerry Ford with his Midwestern decency, or a Reagan, or the Bushes. When you are president, you don’t stand next to an opponent and accuse and attack. You keep a certain almost aesthetic distance. You know the height of the office you hold. (more…)

What’s your plan, Mr. President?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:04 am - October 20, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Obama Hopenchange

Mitt Romney and Megan McArdle are not alone.  A number of bloggers, reporters and pundits have been asking just what Barack Obama has planned for his second term.  Some of my conservative friends and correspondents think that the Democrat does indeed have a plan, it’s just that he doesn’t dare make it public because it would show that he’s clearly not the moderate he claims to be.

Even supporters who attended the Democrat’s recent campaign rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, with one saying Obama hadn’t really “done a good job describing his vision for a second term“.  And over at the Hill, Niall Stanage & Amie Parnes report that he’s under pressure to do just that — spell out plans for his second term.

And when pressed, his campaign team offers only banalties:

Campaign spokesman Adam Fetcher disputed the charge that Obama isn’t talking details, noting he has promised to double exports, cut oil imports in half and hire 100,000 new math and science teachers, among other second-term priorities.

And just how is he going to do that?  Where’s he going to find the money to pay for 100,000 new math and science teachers?  What specific policies will he put in place to allow businesses to manufacture products for export?  What will he do to reduce our dependency on foreign oil?

Seems he’d rather attack Mr. Romney than put forward some ideas of his own.

These bumps in the road just aren’t optimal

Putting the president’s recent statement calling the death of four Americans in Libya “not optimal” into context, Bethany Mandel (like Allahpundit) is not as harsh on the Democrats as some on the right of been.  Still, she believes the coverage of the gaffe is telling:

What this exchange showcases, however, is the lack of scrutiny Obama’s gaffes seem to elicit from the media.

The media narrative for this campaign has, in large part, become set by the talking points of the Obama campaign and young, liberal Tumblr creators. The latest Romney “gaffe” has become, as Alana mentioned earlier, an absolutely exhausting display of liberal faux-outrage, a desperate attempt to drag down Romney’s soaring poll numbers. The media has had an incredible ability to beat to death any real or imagined Romney gaffes while ignoring far more egregious ones from President Obama.

The Democrats and their friend in the legacy media are still trying to keep the 47% meme alive, but how often do we hear them mention Obama referring to a terrorist attack as “bumps in the road“?