Have you heard about US Congressman Charles Rangel’s wheels?  Did you know that YOU are paying the lease?

Congressman Charles Rangel was recently seen getting out of his Cadillac DeVille, which he leases for $774 per month.  Then there was Congressman Jose Serrano, getting out of his Buick LaCrosse, which he leases for $317 per month.  And how about this one: Congressman Gregory Meeks was recently seen waiting for Congressman John Conyers to step out of Meeks’ Lexus LS460, which Meeks leases for $998 per month.
All those leases are picked up by taxpayers through a little-known program available only to members of the House of Representatives.

Rangel: “I could probably find something for … one of those red cars and then I think my constituents would say, ‘With all the money that he gets, this is the respect he shows us?’”

“..this is the respect HE shows US?”   What a spit in the face of his consituents.

Hey, Congress…. don’t worry about it, really.   I mean it is only my money you are wasting.   We know you don’t care.

By sheer coincidence, all of the Members of Congress in the CBS News report seem to come from no particular political party at all.  You’d have to dig past the article itself to find out they are all from the House Majority Party — The Democrats.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

As I was having a late lunch today, I picked up my copy of the Weekly Standard and chance upon two excellent pieces on the fall of the House of Clinton. Tonight’s podcast guest Dean Barnett wrote on a thoughtful piece questioning The Qualifications of Hillary W. Clinton.

Dean gives Ms. Hillary the middle initial W because, like the incumbent she loves to revile, the only thing which distinguishes her from dozens of elected officals more qualified on paper for the presidency is her “surname.” Just as George W. Bush’s “surname made him the frontrunner,” so did hers. Well, in her case, the immediate past frontrunner.

While Dean has penned a thoughtful piece which I recommend highly, Noemie Emery, in her companion article, “The Natural and his Wife,” comes up with one of the best single lines on the Clinton presidency I have yet read:

How this [relationships between Clintons and Al Gore] played out is laid out in hair-raising detail in Sally Bedell Smith’s account of an administration and marriage like none other in history, and one that bred the highest level of dysfunctional angst ever seen in the White House–except for those moments when Richard Nixon dined alone.

I’ll leave it to others to track down John F. Kennedy’s reference to Thomas Jefferson.

As we prepare to watch Hillary suffer another defeat tonight, I highly recommend these two pieces on the Fall of the House of Clinton.

UPDATE: More evidence of the Clinton Meltdown:

Bill complains about the free pass Obama got from the press. Hmm. . . . what about all those free passes the MSM gave him time and time again. (Via Drudge.) (See, e.g., failure of talking heads to ask tough questions of Bill and MSM’s giving short shrift to Clinton campaign fundraising scandals.)

Like Bruce, I do find myself feeling sorry for Hillary, especially as she seems trapped into what appears to be a dysfunctional marriage. But, if it weren’t for the dysfunctional marriage, she would likely not have achieved the national prominence she has, received a 7-figure advance for her book, seen that book climb the bestseller charts and won a seat in the United States Senate from a state where she had never lived until after she had spent seven years in the White House.

Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be experiencing the fall she has experienced in the past few days had her marriage not helped her to rise as high as she had. Building on the point Dean made his piece, Hillary has no more qualifications to be president than such senators as Debbie Stabenow or Maria Cantwell, two women elected the same year as she who have hardly distinguished themselves since taking office. But for the surname which Bill gave to her (given the fact that she didn’t take it until after he lost his bid for reelection as Arkansas governor in 1980 and then only for political reasons, it might be more correct to say “which she took”), she might have spent her career as a law professor or advocate for left-wing causes.

I do feel for her having to suffer so in the public square. But, she did rise as high as she did in a profession where her personality seems more a detriment than an asset.

She chose her path, but had she not assumed she was entitled to the White House, she might not be experiencing the grief she faces today. But, then isn’t it only human to aspire for something we may not be able to achieve?

This doesn’t come as any surprise to me.

In a recent Associated Press-Pew Research Center poll, 17 percent of likely Republican voters in the New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary named illegal immigration as the one issue they want to hear candidates talk about, making it second only to Iraq. In Iowa, where caucuses kick of the presidential nominating season, immigration was the leading issue for 18 percent of Republicans, ahead of Iraq.

The figures are somewhat surprising in New Hampshire, a state of 1.3 million people with a small immigrant population and even smaller illegal one. There were 14,000 more foreign-born residents in the state last year than in 2000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. A report last year by the Pew Hispanic Center estimated the state is home to somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 illegal immigrants.

Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, said he has believed for a year or so that illegal immigration would be important in the GOP primary because it strikes so many chords.  There’s the economic argument: Illegal immigrants are taking jobs from Americans.  There’s the legal one: They’re breaking the law.  There’s the cultural argument:  They’re not assimilating into American culture.”

The surprise is that most INDEPENDENT primary voters are also expressing support for a more security-conscious immigration policy… and opposition to blanket amnesty of law-breakers.

A sizable majority — an average of 65 percent of voters in those three states [Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania] — said that they would vote for the candidate they agreed with on other issues but not on immigration. But an average of 22 percent said that illegal immigration could be a deal-breaker for them when it comes to voting for a candidate.

That would be a significant number in a close election.  Most interesting is that 27 percent of independents — the key swing voters who decide elections — say immigration could turn them away from a candidate, more than either Democrats or Republicans.

Democrat voters, on the other hand, are content to live in their made-up land of Bush Derangement Syndromeville and cast their votes from that warped perspective.

-Bruce (GayPatriot) 

If you’re planning to vote in Virginia’s February Republican presidential primary, be prepared to sign an oath swearing your Republican loyalty.

The State Board of Elections on Monday approved a state Republican Party request to require all who apply for a GOP primary ballot first vow in writing that they’ll vote for the party’s presidential nominee next fall.

There’s no practical way to enforce the oath. (AP/WAVY-TV)

This is a good example of what I meant when I said the Virginia GOP has been taken over by extremists and is out of control. The national party can’t hold a candle to the boneheads in the Commonwealth. It becomes really difficult to make people aware of why Democrat ideology is flawed when Republican idiots are flapping their arms and making fools of themselves. Get ready for the open Senate seat from the Old Dominion to cross the aisle…

– John (Average Gay Joe)

RESPONSE (from Dan): I hope to have something to say about this at a later date, but got carried away with the blog news of the day and other obligations. Suffice it to say, this goes to some of the problems I have witnessed in the Virginia GOP, problems which plagued the party in the 1980s which were by and large corrected in the 1990s, but started returning sometime in this decade. When the party learns the lessons of the ’80s and focuses on unifying conservative ideas as it did in the 1990s, it wins. But, lately, we’ve seen the party fail to present an optimistic agenda. I even read that two of the leading Republicans in the state, the Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General went around the state in the most recent election, reminding Virginians what the party did in the 1990s when it dominated state politics instead of focusing on what it planned to do in the current decade. More on this anon (I hope).

UPDATE: Reaction to this news is coming in and it ain’t pretty. Democrats are obviously making sport of this, as I would in their place, but they aren’t alone.

NRO The Corner:

That’s amazing. Politicians make and break promises all the time—but apparently they want voters to make a promise and keep it. Hey Virginia GOP: Didn’t you pledge to phase out the car tax completely, oh, say, ten years ago?

Hot Air:

Stupid not only for its unenforceability but for the assumption that it will actually deter Democrats so driven by partisan fervor that they’d vote in the Republican primary to sabotage the strongest candidate…

Leslie Carbone:

There’s no way to enforce the oath, but that’s no comfort to people (like me) who keep our vows. If this ruling stands, I won’t be able to vote in the Virginia Republican primary. Read my lips: I don’t make vows I don’t keep.

UPDATE: It appears that the conservative publication The American Spectator isn’t please by this either.

What is pretty clear is that the SBE is going to lose the inevitable lawsuit on this matter, and it should. This oath is an unconstitutional infringement on any GOP voter’s right to vote given that it extracts a promise to vote in the general election for candidates unknown and unknowable as of the primary election day. Even if the oath is construed to require simply “loyalty,” rather than an actual vote, it is an affront to private thought and conscience…

This loyalty oath also contradicts Republican principles. It robs the political process of any incentive or competition to nominate the best available candidate acceptable to the widest of Reaganite coalitions. It stipulates an outcome rather than trusting to the wisdom or judgment of individual party members. It gives the party a free pass on producing quality candidates for the voters’ consideration.

Many thanks to Alex Nicholson and Jarrod Chlapowski for joining us tonight. Alex and Jarrod are Director and Deputy Director of “Servicemembers United” — an organization comprised of young Iraq and Afghanistan veterans opposed to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law signed by President Clinton.

Alex and Jarrod are true American heroes and great representatives of the American gay community. I personally applaud both their military service (cut short by DADT) and their current activism on behalf of their fellow gays and lesbians who want to serve our nation in uniform.

If you would like to know more about the “12,000 Flags for 12,000 Patriots” event this weekend, make sure to visit the Servicemembers United website.

One American flag will be placed on the Mall for each discharged service member. According to organizers, these flags will stand as a testament to the national security harm caused by this discriminatory law, and will serve as the backdrop for a series of events honoring LGBT service members, their sacrifice, and their fight to serve with dignity.

*****

NOTE: We will be having more podcasts as Election 2008 moves into high gear. More details later, but I am hoping to have LIVE GayPatriot Election Night broadcasts on BlogTalkRadio.com the evenings of the Iowa caucuses, New Hampshire primary, and the Feb. 5th MegaPrimary.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I doubt it…. but Democrat Jim Neal is giving it a shot.

Jim Neal, a Democrat challenging Republican U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole in 2008, says he is gay. As the only current candidate for his party’s nomination, Neal could make history while also complicating N.C. Democrats’ chances of breaking a streak of Senate losses.

“I am indeed,” Neal wrote Saturday on the liberal blog BlueNC, in response to a reader asking if he’s gay. “No secret and no big deal to me — I wouldn’t be running if I didn’t think otherwise.”

Neal, a 50-year-old investment banker from Chapel Hill, also indicated that he disagrees with laws that do not recognize same-sex marriage.

Such comments could have ended a campaign as recently as a decade ago — particularly in a socially conservative state — but political analysts and activists reacted Monday with less certainty.  Some said Dole’s many advantages mean the race won’t be competitive anyway.

“We might not get a real test of that in the race because Neal is not known very well at all,” said N.C. State University political scientist Andy Taylor.

This is Neal’s first run for office in North Carolina. He has spent much of his adult life outside the state, though he is a Greensboro native who went to UNC Chapel Hill.

Few openly gay candidates in North Carolina have run for so prominent an office. Former Mecklenburg judge Ray Warren ran for U.S. Senate in 2002 before pulling out and running unsuccessfully for U.S. House.

There could be at least one other openly gay candidate for statewide office in 2008: N.C. Court of Appeals Judge John Arrowood of Charlotte — recently appointed by Gov. Mike Easley — is expected to run for a full term.

Other Democratic candidates could still file for Senate until the February deadline, though the party has had trouble recruiting.

Neal wrote Saturday he doesn’t think sexual orientation will keep him from winning.

“When people meet me, they’ll see beyond the labels and into my character.”

That’s the strategy he should have, said Ian Palmquist, executive director of Equality North Carolina, which advocates for gays and lesbians.  “I believe that if a candidate has a strong message that is relevant to North Carolina voters, and the experience to show they’re qualified for the job, their sexual orientation is not going to matter much to most voters,” Palmquist said.

Hey, you gotta admit this Neal guy has a brass set.  Good for him — I hope he is the Democrat nominee.  I’d like to see what kind of campaign this would turn into.  I predict that from both NC political parties we would see peoples’ better angels and ugly devils.

I’m voting for Elizabeth Dole regardless.

[Related Story - Good Morning, Jim Neal - Blue NC]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Well, I thought we were in an era of GOP decline. But, as I arrive in Salina, Kansas, I read that Republican Bobby Jindal was just elected Governor of Louisiana, a pickup for the GOP. He won with over 50% of the vote against 11 opponents, “more than enough to win outright and avoid a Nov. 17 runoff.” I guess citizens of the Bayou State aren’t blaming the GOP for the flawed response to Hurricane Katrina.

His closest competitor, Democrat Walter Boasso didn’t even reach half the Republican’s total.

Look for Jindal, soon to become the nation’s youngest Governor, to be a rising star in the GOP. A principled conservative, he is the son on Indian immigrants.

Coupled with Jim Ogonowski’s “near upset” in Massaschusetts’ Fifth Congressional District earlier this week, Jindal’s victory indicates that we should not yet count the GOP out for 2008. Ogonowski ran well despite visits from such Democratic celebrities as Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Tedy Kennedy and John Kerry in a district the latter carried by 16 points.

Read Michael Barone’s piece on the Massachusetts special where that sage pundit notes that the Republican did well running against the Democratic Congress, “the first time since 1994 that Republicans have been able to campaign against a Democratic Congress” and for “holding down taxes.”

Sounds like a recipe for GOP candidates to follow in the coming year. And if they run as far ahead of W’s 2004 numbers as did Jim Ogonowski, we could see a banner year for the GOP in 2008.

Not that I am eager to vote GOP in 2008, except for the pleasure of voting against Hillary, but it appears that the Virginia GOP continues to be even stupider than the national party. Yes, Virginia party elites keep proving that what appears to be impossible in being worse than the national party is not only probable but the way to go in the Commonwealth.

Republican leaders decided Saturday to hold a convention to choose their nominee in next year’s U.S. Senate race, delivering a setback to moderate Rep. Thomas M. Davis III and bolstering the chances of conservative former governor James S. Gilmore III.

The vote by the Republican State Central Committee means about 10,000 party activists will gather in June to decide who will face former governor Mark R. Warner (D) in the general election. Conventions that are limited to party activists generally favor conservative candidates, whereas moderates stand a better chance in open primaries that draw independents. (Washington Post)

I voted for Gilmore when he ran for governor and boy was he a monumental disappointment and a lousy governor. I also voted more than once for Tom Davis when he was my Congressman. For the most part I liked the man as my representative. Now if the Lynchburg-Virginia Beach cabal in our jolly lil’ Commonwealth decides to do a run-around the people and put their man Gilmore up against Mark Warner, I will be forced to vote Democrat for Senate. That is a rather unpleasant and distasteful thought but Warner wasn’t a bad governor and he certainly was better than that tool Gilmore. So go ahead oh out-of-touch morons, make Virginia move from Red to leaning Blue with the DNC controlling the governor’s mansion along with both Senate seats. Be stupid all you wish since that seems to be about all you are capable of.

(h/t The Malcontent)

– John (Average Gay Joe)

Breaking from live-blogging coverage of the “Defending the American Summit”… I just got an email from Log Cabin Republicans that GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney has responded to their TV ad attacking him.

Responding to the TV ad Log Cabin just launched today, Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said, “As Governor Romney has repeatedly made clear, like many other Republicans including Ronald Reagan, he wasn’t always pro-life.  Governor Romney has said he was wrong and hopes he never stops learning from his mistakes or trying to do what’s right.”

“This personal, negative attack was launched and paid for by a group recognized as having Mayor Giuliani as their ‘favorite’ candidate. Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment and so it makes sense that a national gay rights group would attack him. The advertisement misrepresents Governor Romney’s courage to admit that he had been wrong on this issue and the fact that he is proud of his strong record of defending the sanctity of life.”

My question is, as in 2004 with the Bush attack ads, WHERE IS THE FUNDING COMING FROM for Log Cabin Republicans to afford television ads?   Can someone answer that question for me?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Roger Simon had a post yesterday which reminded me of one I had written just about two years ago. Commenting on the Rinky Dink Antiwar Demonstrations this past weekend, Roger finds their turnout “pretty pathetic.“

Two years ago, I had asked, If Iraq is like Vietnam, how come the rallies keep getting smaller? And the rallies are still shrinking, smaller this year than they were in 2005. Back then, they were only a fraction on what they had been at the outset of the war. By contrast, in the Vietnam era, the rallies kept getting bigger as the war progressed.

Roger ponders the meaning of the increasingly sparsely-attended demonstrations:

What’s interesting is why this low turnout when, according to many polls, the public is supposedly massively against the war. If they are so antiwar, they certainly are pretty apathetic about it. This is another example of why Iraq is not Vietnam when filling the streets with demonstrators was a simple matter.

This also may mean that the public opinion polls themselves are not a decent measure of how people really feel. Although pollsters try, polls in general are particularly poor at measuring the depth of people’s convictions or natural human ambivalence. Ambivalent people don’t tend to get on a bus to go to a demonstration.

Something for Republicans to think about before looking to the latest polls to determine which way they intend vote on a certain issue. For that matter, it’s something the Democrats should also consider.

UPDATE (09.19) Hugh alerts us to this Politico piece which echoes my point:

But unlike during the Vietnam era, when the size and strength of street protests gradually grew over time, the Iraq war initially produced massive demonstrations that have since petered out. On Saturday, only about 20,000 gathered for what was billed a major peace march.

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

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

*******************

ORIGINAL POST:

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 MoveOn.org and America’s top gay organizations:  Human 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 MoveOn.org.  That would include direct financial connections, as well as their relationships with the George Soros-umbrella organization – America Votes — that directly connects MoveOn.org 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 MoveOn.org.  These corporate partners also need to withdraw support to HRC and NGLTF unless these two organizations denounce the Petraeus/Betray Us ad from MoveOn.org.  

The Human Rights Campaign’s corporate partners include:  American 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 MoveOn.org, 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 MoveOn.org from the 2004 cycle.  Tobias has given to MoveOn.org 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 MoveOn.org and the major American gay organizations:  HRC, NGLTF, and the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund.  These groups, plus MoveOn.org 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)

Wow… Bin Laden’s latest diatribe is right out of the Daily Kos, Howard Dean & DNC playbook.    It is uncanny!

[Osama bin Laden] says to the American people, “you made one of your greatest mistakes, in that you neither brought to account nor punished those who waged this war, not even the most violent of its murderers, [former Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld…”

“You permitted Bush to complete his first term, and stranger still, chose him for a second term, which gave him a clear mandate from you — with your full knowledge and consent — to continue to murder our people in Iraq and Afghanistan.   [GP Ed. Note:  Calling John Kerry, Jack Murtha & Dick Durbin!  Osama is stealing your material!!]

“You claim to be innocent!  The innocence of yours is like my innocence of the blood of your sons on the 11th — were I to claim such a thing.”  [Has he also read OJ Simpson’s book draft??!!]

Bin Laden says President Bush’s words echo “neoconservatives like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Richard Perle.”

“Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven’t made a move worth mentioning.  On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there.” [Paging Cindy Sheehan!  Osama is stealing YOUR material, too!]

He goes on to call Noam Chomsky “among one of the most capable of those from your own side,” and mentions global warming and “the Kyoto accord.”  [Al Gore, calling Al Gore!]

“To conclude,” bin Laden says, “I invite you to embrace Islam.”  He goes on to say:  “There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakaat [alms] totaling 2.5 percent.”  [Oh, and there are no gays in Islam either.]

Is these a foreshadowing of things to come?  I can see the bumper stickers now! Osama/Obama ‘08.   Hillary/Bin Laden  — Bill Misses You.  Edwards/Osama - Delivering Both Americas To Islamism.

GP Update - Saturday, 12:50PM Eastern…. Senator Craig Announces Resignation….

“The people of Idaho deserve a senator who can devote 100 percent of his time and effort to the critical issues of our state and of our nation,” said Craig, speaking under a clear blue sky at 10:30 a.m. (12:30 p.m. ET) outside the historic Boise Depot in Idaho’s capital city.

“Therefore it is with sadness and deep regret that I announce that it is my intent to resign from the Senate, effective September 30th.”

============

Original Post by GPW: 

As I was working on a post about my conversation with a woman from Americans for Truth, I read on the web that Senator Craig announced that he will resign. I understand that this was a tough decision for him to make.

Whie I have been critical of the Senator’s judgment, I do think it unfortunate that, in the future, a man who, by all reports, for over a quarter-century, had diligently worked on behalf of the citizens of the Gem State, will likely be remembered primarily for this one thing.

I believe he is doing the right thing. And hope and pray that this decision will help him find some peace of mind — and the support of his family and friends will make it easier for him to get through this very difficult time.

In my first post on Larry Craig which I had to write in a rush as I was chairing a meeting that evening, I wrote that I expected I’d have “more to say about this at a later time.” Well, as I was collecting my thoughts, Pajamas Media asked me to write a piece on the situation which is now up on their web-site.

To whet your appetitie, I’ll give you the first paragraphs and then encourage you to read the rest at Pajamas:

When I first read about the arrest of Senator Larry Craig in a restroom at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Aiport earlier this summer, I was stunned. I wondered how a man in his position could have shown as little judgment as he had.

Ten months ago, he was the subject of rumors in the blogosphere, talk radio, cable TV and even a few mainstream newspapers that he had engaged in sexual acts with other men in restrooms at Union Station in Washington, D.C. At the time, I was skeptical of the claims, but also thought that if they were true, the Senator, realizing that his restroom activities were not as anonymous as he had assumed, would have ceased seeking them out.

Last October, he escaped the public humiliation he is experiencing today. Indeed, his local paper, the Idaho Statesman had followed up on the allegations against him, but until this Monday, “had declined to run a story about Craig’s sex life, because [it] didn’t have enough corroborating evidence and because of the senator’s steadfast denial” (Via Hugh Hewitt). The paper even interviewed the Senator. He was thus well aware that people knew about his actions.

Just click here to read the full piece.