Gay Patriot Header Image

Democrats to Repeat GOP’s Winning ’06 Strategy This Fall

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:54 am - January 11, 2010.
Filed under: 2006 Elections,2010 Elections,Bush-hatred

In just nine days, we’ll be commemorating the first anniversary of an event long awaited on the left side of the political aisle:  the return of George W. Bush to Texas.  This departure, however, has not prevented Democrats from bringing up their all-purpose bogeyman every time our nation faces a crisis, his successor makes an error or when they just plain need something to complain about.

Obama may say the buck stops with him, but for the better part of his first year in office, he’s been blaming Bush for the toughness of the challenges he fought so hard to face.

Well, our friend Sonicfrog, perhaps in anticipation of his fifth blogiversary, points out that Democrats are making this obsession their electoral strategy, linking John Fund’s piece on how Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen plans to “attack Republicans for wanting to restore the discredited Bush era.”  Funny, our friend notes, quoting the Washington Post how similar that strategy is to the Republican strategy in 2006 :

The message that Bush and others are sending to alienated supporters is that, no matter how upset they have been about various policies or political missteps over the past couple of years, life would be far worse under the Democrats. They name liberal lawmakers who would take charge of key committees and warn conservatives that taxes would go up and protection against terrorists would go down.

We all know how well that strategy worked out.  But, “even more damning,” Sonic writes, “many on the right will now be able to say they were right.” (more…)

What a Difference Two Elections Make

The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.

Nancy Pelosi, November 7, 2008

Democrats defeat GOP attempt to remove Rangel.

Glenn Reynolds, Today.

RELATED: GALLUP: Approval of Congress Falls to 21%.

A short summary of Mr. Rangel’s personal culture of corruption.  Defending Rangel, Rep Maxine Waters says “Many members” of Congress suffer from the same disclosure issues as Rangel.  Guess that culture is not just personal to Mr. Rangel.

Why the Left Can’t Let Go of W

Ok, now to address the point I had meant to address in my previous post.  Many on the left can’t let go of their hatred of the immediate past president of the United States because trashing him has been their ticket to electoral success in the two most recent national elections (2006 and 2008).

To be sure, there’s more to it than that, but that gets at the nub of their obsession; trashing W is fare easier than having to defend their own ideas or addressing the arguments of those opposed to them.

In commenting on a Gallup poll showing the Democratic advantage in party affiliation shrinking rapidly, Jim Geraghty finds a “Strange Resurgence of the Bush-Free GOP“:

What happened? Well, the utopia of hope and change did not take hold immediately, and hopes for a moderate course have been dashed. But also worth noting is how dramatically the political landscape has changed since George W. Bush rode off into the sunset. Perhaps while he was front and center, and the dominant voice of the GOP, many Americans tired of Iraq, tired of his Texas twang, tired of everything they had seen and heard for the past eight years; they would hear nothing else from the GOP, and could overlook a multitude of flaws in the Democratic-party option.

With W out of office, people are paying attention to the policies of the one-time opposition, that is, the current governing party.  

And there’s another reason for the Republican resurgence that Gergahty left out. In  the post I was looking for while crafting my last post, written the day after last fall’s election, I pointed out that with Bush gone, the party of small government was no longer defined by incumbent Republican presidents pushing big government:

It had been tough to be conservative during the first (and only) term of the first President Bush as it has during the second term of the second.  Each man was the titular head of the supposedly conservative party, but neither governed, at least on domestic issues, as a conservative.

Neither held the line on domestic spending.  Both increased the size and scope of the federal government.

Democrats need W in order to demonize the opposition.  Note, how often they bring up his spending record whenever we criticize Obama’s.  They don’t want the GOP to be seen as the party of small government.

For, as recent polls indicate, that Reaganite idea continues to resonate.

UPDATE:  Byron York confirms my thesis:   “But Gallup also points out that the Democratic rise of 2008-2009 had much more to do with George W. Bush than with anything the Democrats themselves were doing.

The Democrats’ Rangel Test

Charles Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is not the only congressional Democrat with ethics issues.  Indeed, the list of corrupt Democrats in 2009 rivals that of corrupt Republicans three years previously when the-then minority party ousted the then-majority on the basis of the Republicans’ (supposed) “culture of corruption.”

Upon her party’s winning the 2006 elections, the then-soon-to-be Speaker of the House promised to lead “the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.”  Shortly after taking the gavel, she seems to have forgotten that vow.

Now, she has a chance to show that she meant what she said–that things really have changed in Washington since Democrats too over.  As each new day seems to bring with it new revelations about Rangel’s misdeeds, Pelosi would do well to force Rangel to step aside as Ways and Means chairman pending the results of an ethics committee investigation.

This is her test–and that of her party–to see if they intend to crack down on the questionable ethics their fellow Democrats.  And if she refuses to demand that her New York colleague step aside, then other leading Democrats should step up to the plate and demand his dismissal.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Sean A links a New York Post article:

Even as he fends off accusations about his own failure to pay taxes and fully disclose his financial dealings, Rep. Charles Rangel had quietly slipped into the health-care bill broad new provisions cracking down on taxpayers in proceedings with the IRS, The Post has learned.

Ethically challenged and a hypocrite?!?!?

UPDATE:  Looks like Speaker Pelosi is failing the test:

THE HILL: Pelosi will let Rangel hold post despite latest allegations. “Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will let Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) keep his chairmanship despite his failing to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets on federal disclosure forms, according to Democratic aides.” Of course she will. This makes him vulnerable, and thus easier to control.

If Only Democrats Used Their Rhetoric to Guide their Governing

In the course of the debate on health care, we should bear in mind these three public comments made by the two Democrats holding two of the (three) highest constitutional offices in the United States of America.

First, the President:

But there is no doubt that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments.

Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.

Third Presidential Debate, October 15, 2008

UPS and FedEx are doing just fine . . . . it’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.

Portsmouth, New Hampshire, August 11, 2009

Now, the Speaker of the House:

The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.

November 8, 2006

The Hard Choices the Obama Team Refuses to Make

Both Glenn and Michelle (in her Buzzworthy column) linked posts addressing comments Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner made recently about the budget.

Suggesting that the government may have to raise taxes on the middle class, Geithner contended that to “bring these deficits down” requires “some very hard choices.”  Why can’t the Administration make such hard choices by cutting government spending even if that means defying the various interest groups which helped secure the President’s election last fall.

As “Jefferson,” commenting to Michael Silence’s blog (linked by Glenn) wrote:   “if I want to lower my annual widescreen plasma TV outlays, I don’t negotiate a volume deal with my local electronics retailer, I just stop buying them.

Congressional Republicans lost their majority, in large part, because they refused to make the hard choices voters elected them to make, to stand up to interest groups and lobbyists and hold the line on government spending.  Democrats did well these past two election cycles in large measure because the people had lost confidence in Republicans’ abilities to make such choices.

Now, we see Democrats refusing to make such choices and contending that their only “choice” is to make a very hard choice, Obama’s campaign promise notwithstanding, and raise taxes on the middle class.

Will we ever elect politicians who choose to cut spending?

Posts* Where We Criticized GOP on Spending in Bush Era

Given that Bruce and I (as well as John and Nick) have been faulting Republicans, including former President George W. Bush, for not holding the line on federal spending for almost as long as we’ve been blogging, I find it most amusing to read snarky comments from liberal readers who ask why didn’t we protest the then-President’s bloated budgets.  Well, we didn’t take to the streets as we did on Wednesday.  And maybe we should have organized such protests.  But, we did take Republicans to task for losing sight of their conservative fiscal principles.

So, I thought I’d offer a few posts with their dates of publication to show that we’ve been doing just that–even when our party was in power.

2008 Elections: The Republicans’ DUI (November 17, 2008)

DeLay’s 1994 Election as House GOP Whip: Harbinger of GOP’s 2006 Defeat (November 14, 2006)

2006 Elections — Ronald Reagan’s Vindication (November 10, 2006)

GOP’s Failure to Hold True to Conservative Principles Cost Party Its Majorities
(November 8, 2006)

Conservatism Still Ascendant even if Democrats Prevail (October 30, 2006)

2006; An Election, not a Realignment (October 23, 2006)

Wall Street Journal Blasts GOP (October 2, 2006)

Reagan on My Mind (August 3, 2006)

George W. Bush: Moderate (May 15, 2006)

Grading the President on Reagan’s Legacy (March 20, 2006)

*Partial listing.

Nutshell Explanation for GOP’s Recent Failures

Last week, I linked Jay Cost’s Weekly Standard piece where he urged “Republicans to use their principles creatively—to generate new and compelling solutions to public problems.”

Today, Glenn Reynolds identifies the reason my party has failed in recent years, “THE PROBLEM ISN’T REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES — it’s unprincipled Republicans. ‘Because Republicans didn’t stick, we got stuck.’

UPDATE:  In an excellent post showing how recent polling numbers show that while Democrats are doing worse, Republicans aren’t doing much better, Michael Barone offers what the GOP must do to take advantage of this potential reversal of political fortune:

That instability worked to Democrats’ advantage in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Now it seems to be working against them—I was going to write to Republicans’ advantage, but I think what we are seeing is more disillusionment toward Democrats than any positive feeling toward Republicans. In the short run, Republicans can benefit from this. In the longer run, they need to offer voters a better vision for the future, or they risk losing once again if there is a revival of enthusiasm among Democrats and warm feeling toward them among independents.

Read the whole thing.

Will Democrats’ Extravagence Lead to their Collapse?

As I was reading the epilogue to Joseph J. Ellis’s Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams, I chanced on something that great man said in 1812 (in a letter to Benjamin Rush) which could well apply to the Democrats’ spendthrift “stimulus” and its impact on American politics.

“When a party grows Strong and feels its power, it becomes intoxicated, grows presumptuous and extravagant and breaks to pieces.”

The more people know about the “stimulus,” the more they will see the Democrats for what they are, using this “crisis” as an excuse to enact their agenda, expanding the size and scope federal government even when there is no popular support for their statist endeavors.

Of course that expression could be used to describe Republicans in 2005.  And look what happened the following year.

The Opportunity Bush & DeLay Gave Obama

For the past few days, I have been contemplating a few posts offering a kind of retrospective on the Administration of George W. Bush.  The more I think about this project, the more I realize how complicated it is.  The incumbent is hardly the caricature his opponents paint, yet he has blundered badly on a number of issues, particularly on domestic issues in his second term.

On the issue which will (likely) most define his term, particularly in the years immediately after he leaves office, he exhibited characteristics which reveal his greatest weaknesses and greatest strengths.  He stubbornly adhered to a failing strategy from 2004 through the end of 2006, then against widespread opposition from the political class (and even the military brass), shifted course, showing incredibly resolve in adopting a new –and ultimately successful–strategy.

And while I commend the president from learning from his father’s mistake and refusing to raise taxes, that’s all he learned from his father’s domestic record.  He didn’t fully understand that Ronald Reagan’s Vice President betrayed his predecessor’s legacy not merely by increasing taxes, but also by not holding the line of domestic spending.

It seems George Bushes don’t value fiscal discipline; domestic spending increased at a rapid clip during each man’s tenure in the White House.

And with a Republican Congress under Tom DeLay committed more to preserving political power than to promoting conservative policies, the party departed from the fiscal principles which led the GOP to electoral success in the 1980s on the presidential level and in the 1990s on the legislative level.  Our political fortunes would surely have improved had the principled Bob Walker defeated the opportunistic Tom DeLay in the 1994 election for House Majority Whip.


Where the GOP is Could Be Better off than the Democrats

Today while reading the Wall Street Journal’s Political Diary (available by subscription), I realized that in one way my party is better situated than the Democrats, well, at least come January 20. As I wrote the day after the election, with George W. Bush on the way out, we conservatives “can start advancing our ideas once again.”

Basically, we have ideas which resonate with a majority of the American people. We just need to adopt policies which promote them and not lose sight of them as have all too many of our elected leaders over the past eight, perhaps ten years.

In the aforementioned Diary, John Fund quotes Republican National Committeeman Solomon Yue of Oregon who said, “Articulating a political philosophy is equally important as applying it consistently. . . . Failing to do so, we have today’s identity crisis, which resulted in our losses in 2006 and 2008.”


If we articulate that philosophy, apply it, campaign on it, we can win elections. In the campaign just concluded, the Democratic nominee appreciated that better than did the Republican. Barack Obama campaigned on tax relief for the middle class and rooting out excess government spending. Not just that, voters were upset with the GOP for letting federal spending grow at almost unprecedented rate.

Note how, in election cycle after election cycle, Democrats obscure their party’s big-government philosophy. They didn’t campaign on scaling back welfare reform, implementing “card-check” labor union elections, expanding affirmative action or bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine.”  They campaigned against the spendthrift Republicans, with some Democrats even faulting their Republican rivals for supporting the Wall Street bailout.

Should Democrats govern as Senate Majority Leader Reid and House Speaker Pelosi would like, pushing for an ever larger federal government, they will certainly turn Americans against them.  Well, that is, if Republicans have learned the lesson of the past two elections and stand up against Democratic policies and make the case for more responsible fiscal policies.

Looks like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is off to a good start.  He recently called the President-elect’s $850 billion economic “stimulus” plan, “unprecedented government spending[:]  I believe the taxpayers deserve to know a lot more about where it will be spent before we consider passing it.”

Now, he needs to rally Republicans to oppose this billion-dollar boondoggle as they explain why it’s bad for our country’s fiscal health . . . in terms the average voter can readily understand.

2008 Elections: The Republicans’ DUI

One of the biggest mistakes my party made this year was not to learn from the results of the 2006 elections.  In the immediate aftermath of that defeat, party leaders should have done on domestic issues what the president did on Iraq, acknowledge past mistakes and implement a new strategy.

Maybe we needed the electoral shellacking we took earlier this month the same way an alcoholic “needs” a DUI arrest.  Only when he suffers a serious consequence of his drinking to realize how destructive his habit has become.  The penalty makes him realize he needs to change.

Given the failure of the GOP to hold true to conservative principles, we deserved what we suffered on November 4.

But, the problem for our nation is that the Democrats haven’t been doing much better.  They succeeded largely because they were the non-incumbent party on the executive level.  At the same time that Democratic legislative candidates enjoyed significant electoral successes, their party’s legislators had approval ratings which made the last Republican Congress and the incumbent president seem popular by contrast.

As Democrats did not suffer defeat for their Congress’s low approval, we can expect more of the same.  They did not experience any adverse consequences for their unpopularity.  Given their leadership’s eagerness to increase federal spending (proposing to bailout the domestic automobile industry and to enact a multi-billion dollar “stimulus” package), it seems they’re hell-bent on going on a bender.

Alas, that the American people won’t be able to cite them with a DUI for two more years.

If Chuck Schumer were a Republican. . . .

. . . the MSM would be demanding an investigation and Democrats would be demanding his resignation.

According to the Wall Street Journal,

New York Sen. Charles Schumer’s public criticism of IndyMac Bancorp last summer, which critics say helped spark a run on deposits that took under the troubled thrift, came while IndyMac’s assets were being eyed by investors who are major donors to the Democratic Senate campaign committee the senator chairs.

(H/t Instapundit.)

Los Angeles-based Oaktree Capital Management LP which has “donated more than $700,000 to Senate Democrats and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee during the four years that Sen. Schumer has chaired the campaign committee” was eager to buy up IndyMac assets should the bank fail. To be sure, Oaktree Chairman Howard Marks said he never talked to the senator about IndyMac.

Yet, should a Republican have a similar appearance of impropriety, you can bet Democrats and the media would be all over it with Schumer leading the charge.

This isn’t the first time New York’s other Senator has escaped media scrutiny for potentially unethical actions. Three years ago, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee which he then helmed (as he does now), “was in illegal possession of the credit report for Maryland’s Republican Lieutenant Governor [& then-U.S. Senate candidate] Michael Steele. Two of Schumer’s staffers, Katie Barge and Lauren Weiner, used Steele’s Social Security number to fraudulently get his credit history.

Schumer’s Committee knew about Barge and Weiner’s deception months before the story became public, yet failed to alert Steele about this invasion of privacy.

And these misdeeds raise no red flags to the media.  Guess it’s that (D) after his name which renders him immune from suspicion about potential ethical lapses.

Three Democratic Scandals, Minimal Media Coverage

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

Remember back in 2006. all the talk of scandals involving House and one Senate (later cleared) Repubilcans?  So saturated were the media with coverage of their misdeeds that even now two years later, I can rattle off their names of the supposed miscreants, Mark Foley, Randy “Duke” Cunningham, Bob Ney, Tom DeLay and Conrad Burns.

Yet, how many Americans, outside those who read conservative blogs, check ABC News or live in Tim Mahoney’s Florida district have heard of that Congressman’s problems as well as those of his House colleagues Robert Wexler and Charles Rangel?

Not to mention that Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus whose leader, Speak Nancy Pelosi vowed “to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history,” had “been working with Mahoney to keep the matter from hurting the candidate’s re-election campaign.”

Oh, yeah and given the recent mortgage meltdown, let’s not forget the “Subprime Six,” the five Democrats (and one Republican), including Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and Kent Conrad, Chairman of the same institution’s Budget Committee, who got sweetheart mortgage deals from Countrywide before that lending institution’s collapse.

I guess Democratic scandals just aren’t newsworthy.

UPDATE:  The media which excel at misrepresentations of Republican campaign events ignore misdeeds of Democratic elected officials.

UP-UPDATE:  Glenn has more on Dodd’s mortgage problems, that Democrat’s failure to release the details of his sweetheart mortgage deal–and the free pass he’s getting from the media.

On Tim Mahoney, Mark Foley and Media Bias

Two years ago at this time, you could not open up a newspaper or turn on a TV newscast without learning about the follies of then-recently disgraced (& then-recently) former Congressman Mark Foley. That Florida Republican had been sending sexually explicit Instant Messages to male House pages.

Now, we learn that Tim Mahoney, the Democrat who won Foley’s seat in Congress, paid “a $121,000 payment to a former mistress who worked on his staff and was threatening to sue him.” The affair begin “in 2006 when Mahoney was campaigning for Congress against Foley, promising ‘a world that is safer, more moral.’

So, why is it that we don’t get wall-to-wall news coverage of the Mahoney scandal?  The Democratic House leadership knew about it before the story broke this week.  And here, there is hush money, something absent from the Foley scandal.

Is it the gay angle that made the Foley story so sensational?  Or did MSM merely use the story to advance their narrative about the hypocrisy of gay Republicans?  Or was it that pesky little (R) after Foley’s name, but not Mahoney’s?

Methink the explanation is that last one, given how little attention the MSM has paid to various Democratic scandals this year, including that of another Florida Democrat, Robert Wexler and of New York Democrat Charles Rangel. Not to mention the fundraising shenaningans of the Obama campaign.

Why is it that the MSM only get into high dudgeon when the scandal involves Republicans?

I guess it’s up to us bloggers, like Gateway Pundit who’s been all over this story, to go where the MSM refuses to tread.

UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin builds on this theme (below the “jump”): (more…)

Republicans Win by Running For Something
Democrats by Running Against

If John McCain loses this election, it will because, in large measure, he failed to promote a consistent conservative economic message.

You see in national elections, we Republicans are at a disadvantage to the Democrats.  They can get by with running against.  We have to run for something.

In 1974, Democrats increased their majorities in both Houses of Congress when voters overwhelmingly rejected Republican incumbents and candidates to punish then-recently disgraced former President Nixon’s party for Watergate.  In 1976, Jimmy Carter won by running for “a government as good as the people” which was really his slogan to capitalize on residual distrust of the GOP.

Four years later, to oust that incompetent executive, Ronald Reagan presented a plan for economic recovery.  It worked, both on the campaign trail and for the economy.

Fourteen years later, Republicans finally recaptured Congress by running on “The Contract with America,” “a detailed agenda for national renewal.“  Twelve years later, however when an majority of House Republican had lost sight of the principles undergirding that contract, Democrats ran against their corruption, regaining the majority with vague promises of making the 110th the “most ethical Congress in history.”

Two years later, Barack Obama is running for president promising change from “the last eight years,” his favorite expression in the second presidential debate this year which, as I noted before, he used more often than Sarah Palin used the word, “maverick.”  While change may seem a positive message, in many ways, it’s just a negative campaign tactic, signaling that he’s running against those last eight years.

He still hasn’t really spelled out what he means by change.

It just may work.  For the better part of the past thirty-odd years, Democrats have won by running against something while Republicans win when we run for something.

And the media accuse us of cynicism and negative campaigning.

Of Lipstick, Macacas & the Media

Even giving Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt and assume he had not meant to compare Sarah Palin to a pig when he made his lipstick comment yesterday, given the current media environment, it was a pretty bone-headed thing to say.

He should have known, particularly following former Senator George Allen’s (R-VA) use of the word “macaca” to refer to a left-wing activist covering his campaign, that a media firestorm would ensue should he make such a gaffe.  Or for that matter, if he had said anything which could be construed as insulting his opponents — or critics.  Not just that, he had to be aware of the numerous stories suggesting that sexism helped him defeat Hillary Clinton in the contest for the Democratic nomination.

Yes, we’re aware that “putting lipstick on a pig” is a common expression.  But, we also know Sarah Palin used the word, “lipstick,” as the punch line in the most memorable joke of the Republican National Convention.  Democrats should thus tread carefully when using that expression.  They should have anticipated the firestorm which has followed.  The story currently leads as the “Most Viewed” on the CBSNews web-page.

During a week in which Barack Obama unveils his education policy and with reports of continued success of the Administration policy in Iraq, there are other stories more newsworthy.  Far more newsworthy.  And Barack Obama’s verbal gaffes are considerably less important than his misrepresentations of his relationships to an unapologetic terrorist.

But, is the man once deemed as the voice of a new generation, promoted as being well-keyed into all the new communication technologies, so clueless about the way the media works today that he couldn’t foresee people would assume he was calling the Alaska Governor a pig when he used that common metaphor?

Such absence of foresight is disturbing in a presidential candidate.  And a potential leader of the free world.

AFTERTHOUGHT:  Do you think the Washington Post will run 100 stories on Obama’s latest gaffe?

POST-AFTERTHOUGHT: Nah, they’ll try to bury this story, heck they try to bury the story of a huge McCain rally in Northern Virginia by devoting more paragraphs to the pro-Obama protesters than to the rally itself.

Democrats Lied, Voters Were Fried

As Arte Johnson would say….. “Verrrrry interesting.”  (h/t – Instapundit)

Kanjorski says Dems were insincere about ending war – The Hill

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) is seen in a video that has surfaced on the Web saying that Democrats “sort of stretched the facts” in the 2006 elections about their ability to end the Iraq war.

In a video posted to YouTube on Thursday, Kanjorski reflects on the Democrats’ approach to the war in 2006 and said they pushed the rhetoric “as far as we can to the end of the fleet — didn’t say it, but we implied it — that if we won the congressional elections, we could stop the war.”

“Now, anybody who’s a good student of government would know it wasn’t true,” he said. “But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress — we sort of stretched the facts.”
The video was dated Aug. 28, 2007, by the person who posted it. The remarks are not placed in a larger context.

Republicans reacted Friday by calling for Kanjorski to apologize.

“For Paul Kanjorski to admit that Democrats campaigned in ’06 on a fraudulent agenda to end the war not only exposes his own calculated efforts to fool the voters of his district, but it also raises the question of whether this was a coordinated effort by the Democratic Party as a whole,” said a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, Ken Spain.

“Paul Kanjorski should be ashamed of himself for using our troops in harm’s way as political pawns for his own partisan agenda.”

Now come on, really.   Is anyone REALLY surprised that the Democrats would use the lives of our soldiers as a bargaining chip with the American public in order to gain political power?  Some would call that orchestrated effort…. well, treason.

As Amy & Seth would say….. REALLY, Congressman Kanjorski, REALLY?  (I’m full of NBC allusions today…..)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

GAY PATRIOT EXCLUSIVE:America’s Gay Groups Silent About Petraeus’ Betrayal Ad…Major Gay Organizations & Donors’ Money TrailLeads Directly to MoveOn.Org

**UPDATE** – Log Cabin’s President Patrick Sammon has issued a statement….

“We condemn’s baseless attacks on General Petraeus.  These
irresponsible allegations harm our nation’s ability to continue making
progress in Iraq.”



It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this one out…. but even I was surprised at the extensive web of money connections between and America’s top gay organizationsHuman Rights Campaign, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and Log Cabin Republicans.

If the American gay community has any decency and honor and truly “supports the troops” they need to prove it now. 

I would ask everyone who is involved with these organizations to contact them immediately.  Urge the HRC, NGLTF and LCR  to immediately denounce the “Betray Us” ad attacking General Petraeus.  

In addition, our gay mainstream organizations need to sever all financial ties they have with  That would include direct financial connections, as well as their relationships with the George Soros-umbrella organization — America Votes — that directly connects with the American gay mainstream organizations using the money of their dues-paying members.

Finally, the corporate partners that support HRC and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force need to know that these groups have direct financial and working relationships with  These corporate partners also need to withdraw support to HRC and NGLTF unless these two organizations denounce the Petraeus/Betray Us ad from  

The Human Rights Campaign’s corporate partners includeAmerican Airlines, Citigroup, IBM, Ernst & Young, Chase Bank, Dell, Motorola, Nike, Merrill Lynch and Showtime Cable Network.

The NGLTF’s corporate partners include: American Airlines, WellsFargo Bank, Here! Cable Network, and Bacardi.

Also, WellsFargo Bank has received direct financial expenditures from, so they should have a special role in denouncing the Petraeus/Betray Us ad.

First, Andrew Tobias who is one of the Human Rights Campaign’s biggest political and money supporters, and who is also the Treasurer of the Democratic National Committee, is listed as one of the top individual contributors to from the 2004 cycle.  Tobias has given to since the 2004 elections as well.

Now, we move to Tim Gill of the Gill Foundation.  As you know, I’ve repeatedly reported in the past on Gill’s extensive political involvement and contributions to America’s gay organizations…. especially his connections to Log Cabin Republicans.  Former LCR head, Patrick Guerriero is now an employee of the Gill Foundation and though LCR has refused to provide the details, I have laid out a strong case that Gill helped fund the $1M TV ad campaign that LCR ran in 2004 targeting President Bush in key battleground states.

Finally, both Gill and Tobias have contributed to the Soros-umbrella organization America Votes“.  This organization is the web that connects the money trail between and the major American gay organizations:  HRC, NGLTF, and the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund.  These groups, plus are direct financial and political partners under the Soros/”America Votes” umbrella.

Gill’s large individual contributions to “America Votes” and his extensive ties to Log Cabin Republicans should be a major concern to LCR and encourage them to denounce the Petraeus/Betray Us ad and ask Tim Gill to do the same.

So that’s what I got so far, gang.  I know there is a lot more.  Many contributors to “America Votes” are also involved and/or contributors to all of the major American gay organizations. 

If any of you would like to take this research further…. I’ll be happy to update it as I get more information from you.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

US Rep. Henry Waxman on Earmarks

I am attending a lobbying conference this week in Washington, DC. One of the first speakers this morning was US Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee.

In addition to the hot burner healthcare issues Waxman addressed, he had some strong words to say about Congressional earmarks.

“Congress is less and less inclined to do earmarks because of the attention.” (Porkbusters!)

“From a policy point of view, it makes more sense to have grants of money and open up the process to competition. Earmarks bypass competition.”

Oh if only a Republican member of leadership would have talked like that last year…

By the way, I found Waxman very engaging and presented very complex health issues in a simple and understandable way.

-Bruce (GayPatriot … via mobilephone)