Gay Patriot Header Image

The Clinton-Franken Pass

New York Times: Al Franken and Other Democrats Should Be Given a Pass Because They Are Too Important to the Left-Wing Agenda.

It’s possible that feminists, in trying to hold Democrats to standards that they wish were universal, risk unilateral disarmament. Kate Harding made this case in The Washington Post last Friday, arguing against Franken’s resignation. If Democrats “set this precedent in the interest of demonstrating our party’s solidarity with harassed and abused women, we’re only going to drain the swamp of people who, however flawed, still regularly vote to protect women’s rights and freedoms,” she wrote. And when the next Democratic member of Congress goes down, there might not be a Democratic governor to choose his replacement.

It’s a strange political fiction that anyone can really separate partisanship from principle. In general, the character of the party that controls the government has a much greater impact on people’s lives than the character of individual representatives. Those who care about women’s rights shouldn’t be expected to prove it by being willing to hand power to people devoted to taking those rights away.

In other words, the same person who last week was calling for Franken’s resignation now has reaffirmed her loyalty to the Party above all else.

Obama loses P.Diddy?

In 2004, the rapper formerly known as Puff Daddy was active with the “Vote or Die” group to encourage youth voter turnout. In 2008, he upped it to “Obama or Die”.

Guess what he says today?

During a recent Q&A at Revolt’s music conference, Diddy let loose with his true thoughts about voting.

Asked how young people could make themselves heard in the upcoming election, Diddy said, “See the things that’s tricky about politics is there’s so much bullsh*t with it. We started Vote or Die and… and from the community we’re in, we’re not with hearing too much of the bullsh*t. So that’s why we get disenfranchised, [we’re] disconnected because nothing that they’re saying actually relates to us… So Vote or Die, and getting out the vote, those things [were] laid out there so people could understand about the process. We started Vote or Die, and the whole process was all full of sh*t. The whole sh*t is a scam.”

He then added that people could still vote if they wanted: “At the end of the day, I’m not telling you not to vote. But I’m saying be a realist and know that they’re motherf*cking kicking some bullsh*t up there.”

Ya think?

And Obama is still President, so….is that who he’s talking about?

Obama makes friends, influences people

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 4:35 pm - November 14, 2014.
Filed under: 2008 Elections,Obama Watch,Obama Worship & Indoctrination

President Obama has just offended the Chinese people with his thoughtless gum-chewing. Click here to get to the video. (Video was not embedded here, because of its annoying ‘autoplay’.)

How can that be? In 2008, lefties assured me that we were electing a genius of diplomacy, compassion and consideration which – on top of his being brown-skinned – would make other nations trust and like us.

While I’m at it: You probably knew this already, but I was recently reminded that *just after* the 2012 election, Obama’s 2008 campaign was fined by the FEC for serious violations of election law. (more…)

So, are lefties jerks? Or just narrow-minded?

HotAir pointed out yesterday that “Consistent liberals” are most likely to block others on social media for disagreeing with them politically.

Hence, my question. I’m honestly divided. In this complicated world, we’ve all known some lefties who are plain jerks, while some other lefties may be fairly nice people – apart from their never wanting to hear or know of any information that could make them question their prejudices.

I ran into the second kind of person just the other night, at my dad’s. “Cynthia” is a highly-educated neighbor in his retirement community, very nice in terms of watching out for my dad’s disabled girlfriend, and with a pleasant demeanor. So far, “not a jerk.”

But narrow-minded. As one example, she’ll dismiss (as in, will not hear) any information of Sarah Palin being anything other than a total dummy. Which is funny because the prominent Obama supporter and former “green jobs czar”, Van Jones, has now admitted in essence that the Left lied to people about Palin in the 2008 campaign:

“Sarah Palin .. people forget. She had the Democratic party shaking in our boots in 2008. She came out, she gave that speech at the convention. That was, hands down, one of the best convention speeches – not by a woman, by anybody in 2008. People were running for the hills…

Now it can be told! Now it can be told! We were scared!”

It must help the Democrats that their most officially ‘educated’ supporters are among their most dogmatically-gullible supporters. The Democrats can lie to such people and they won’t even care. For another example, we have President Obama’s recent admission that the Democrat candidates who are staying distant from him this year are engaged in a lie:

Well look, here’s the bottom line. We’ve got a tough map. A lot of the states are contested this time are states that I didn’t win. And so some of the candidates there – it is difficult for them to have me in the state…

The bottom line is though, these are all folks who vote with me. They have supported my agenda in Congress…These are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me, and you know, I tell them, I said, ‘you know what? You do what you need to do to win.’

Dogmatically-gullible people: They enable the Democrats to get away with it. Some of them are jerks, some of them are nice – but narrow-minded.

After 4 years of Hope & Change™, Nation Is More Divided Than Ever

Four years after Hope and Change™, we are, as a county, more divided than ever.  A liberal friend posted on my Facebook page that Mitt Romney makes her sick.  How did she come to gain that opinion of a good, decent and compassionate man?

Other friends have called him a “vulture capitalist” or repeated slurs about his faith.  Where do these slurs get started?  Have top Democrats differentiated themselves from such rhetoric?  Has Obama himself asked his supporters to tone it down and to focus on the issues?

No, instead, he tells them that “voting is the best revenge.”  For that Democrat, as Ed Morrissey puts it, Spite and revenge is the new hope and change:

. . . Obama’s “revenge” remarks are at least as revealing about this campaign, and of Obama’s approach to both this election and to public policy, as were Romney’s 47 percent statements. The president, in both his campaign and his administration, has gone fully populist, attempting to divide the country along class lines as a distraction from his record in his term in office. In fact, the best description of Obama’s politics since September 2011 is “the politics of revenge.”

Read the whole thing.  (Via Instapundit.)

ADDENDUM:  If you have friends on both sides of the political aisle, just take a gander at your Facebook feed, you’ll often wonder what happened to civil discourse.  Our side abandons civility too sometimes.  But, at least the GOP presidential nominee is not encouraging such rhetoric.

The real problem with Obama’s 2008 race speech

Enter this one into the “delayed brainstorm” category.

Just over four years ago, when then-candidate Barack Obama decided to do damage control as the mean-spirited sermons of his pastor (of twenty years) became public, by delivering a speech on race, widely acclaimed by his supporters, but derided by many others — and now forgotten by almost everyone.

I had read the speech on-line and thought it was little more than cliches wrapped in bromides; I printed it out so I could offer a more thorough critique.  I never got around to reading that print-out nor writing that critique.

The other day, I suddenly realized what bothered me about the speech:  he had never mentioned Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who challenged the racial prejudices of his day with an appeal to America’s long-standing creed and its core ideals.  Dr. King changed America — and for the better.  Today, I again found the speech online and did a search for Dr. King.

It turns out I was only partially right.  Mr. Obama did mention Dr. King, but only once — and not to talk about what Dr. King had said — or accomplished, but, well, read it for yourself:

There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

He only references Dr. King to tell a story about one of his own campaign workers, how that worker tells “her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign.”

He mentions one of the truly great men in American history only to talk about himself.

My apologies for taking so long to realize it — and blog about it.

Creepiest Obama video competition

Please review these three entries below and then vote:

Which of these videos is this creepiest? free polls 

Entry # 1 — “Yes, we can” children from 2008

Entry # 2–Lena Dunham’s First Time (more…)

Conservative Karma

Apparently“, writes Rob at JoshuaPundit, “Rush Limbaugh meant what he said when he told his listeners, ‘Those advertisers who no longer want your business, fine, we’ll replace them.‘”

The conservative talker, who has apologized for slurring a woman who defended the administration’s contraception mandate, is taking in stride the handful of companies no longer advertising on his program:

Less than an hour after AOL officially became the eighth company to pull its ads from Limbaugh’s radio show, the conservative host cracked a joke [then] continued his broadcast in typical, pontificating fashion. . . .

While the conservative host said that the advertisers’ disaffiliation was a “shame,” at the end of the day he just doesn’t care.

“Those advertisers who no longer want your business, fine,” Limbaugh continued. “We’ll replace them. It’s simple, really.”

You know the Limbaugh-haters should have left well enough alone when the talker apologized.  I think that’s called quitting when you’re ahead, right?  Well, as they continue to demonize the popular broadcaster, his standing among conservatives will only strengthen.

Rush is not the only conservative to see a coordinated attack backfire.  Seems that HBO, despite massive promotions, had trouble scrounging up an audience for “Game Change”.  Only a handful of its subscribers, writes John Nolte, “bothered to tune into one of the most hyped movies in the history of television. Glitzy, glamorous premieres, all kinds of free publicity through the cable news outlets, controversy galore, and yet ‘Pawn Stars’ kicked its ass.”  He quotes the Washington Post:

One massive marketing and GOP-undies-bunching campaign later, the unveiling ofHBO’s Sarah Palin flick, “Game Change,” attracted 2.123 million viewers Saturday night at 9. HBO says “Game Change” brought in the biggest original-movie opening crowd in about eight years.

To put the audience in perspective, that’s slightly fewer people than sat down the next afternoon at 2 to watch a rerun episode of History’s “Pawn Stars” (2.129 million viewers). (more…)

Hey, Mr. President, What about your promise of a “net spending cut”?

The president recently told a crowd of supporters that he had kept a majority of the promises he had made in the 2008 campaign:

“We’re through about 60 percent of [the list], which isn’t bad for three years,” Mr. Obama told a crowd at a fundraiser in Denver on Tuesday night. “So we know change is possible. But here’s the thing. There are a lot of people who are still hurting, and there’s still a lot more work to do. And so that other 40 percent that is not done, I’m going to need you because I need five more years. I need five more years to get it done.”

Politifact says that in fact he has kept only 151.  And how, pray tell, with a likely Republican Congress in 2013 (which we, alas, do not, Democratic talking points notwithstanding, enjoy today), will he ever get any of his big-government initiatives through?

Now, what about one promise that candidate Barack Obama himself claimed he’d been talking about “throughout” the 2008 campaign, you know, proposing a “net spending cut”?

He hasn’t put that in any of the budgets he’s proposed; indeed, every proposal he’s authored to “jump start” the economy has a included a net spending increase, oftentimes a pretty substantial such increase.

Why did (some) gay activists prefer Obama to Hillary in 2008 contest for Dem. nomination when he had done less for gays than she?

I had this thought while watching the Gay Pride parade this past Sunday in West Hollywood and catching sight of the first Obama 2012 sticker:  why were so many of our fellow gays so gung-ho about Obama in 2008, even to the point of regularly deriding Hillary despite his absence then of a record on gay issues.  The Democrat had, in his campaign, shared a platform with an anti-gay singer.  And to my knowledge, hadn’t done much of anything for gay people when in the Illinois — or United States — Senate.

The Illinois legislature didn’t pass a “non-discrimination” law until January 2005, the very month Barack Obama began his service in another legislature.  In his eight years in the Illinois Senate did the Democrat work to advance this legislation, legislation near and dear to the hearts of gay activists?  Did he press his colleagues on same-sex civil unions?

Not just that, as I noted on Tuesday, “Mrs. Clinton participated in gay Pride parades in New York.  Obama never participated in such celebrations in Chicago.”  (Thanks to the folks at Hillbuzz for keeping track of this failure to participate.)

Yeah, I realize this in 2011 and I’m asking a question about 2008, but I’m still wondering why so many gay activists preferred Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton that year when they had little (if any) evidence that he was a champion of their causes.

NB:  Added the parenthetical (some) to the title to make my point clearer.  Thanks, readers, for helping me realize that title leant itself to misinterpretation.

Was Juan Williams really “very afraid” of a Dem victory in ’08?**

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:57 am - November 1, 2010.
Filed under: 2008 Elections,2010 Elections

A recently unearthed transcript:

BRIT HUME: Juan, columnist George Will says if the election goes as expected, his advice is be afraid, be very afraid. Should we take his advice?

JUAN WILLIAMS, WEEKLY STANDARD: I am already afraid, very afraid. I mean, it’s not like governance has been going great. I think we’ll, I don’t know whether I should be afraid, but there will be gridlock.

HUME: Michael, Will also says that future historians will probably look back at the 2008 election as a catastrophe for America. You are a historian. You agree with that?

MICHAEL BARONE, U.S. NEWS : No, but they might look on it as kind of a joke. There is sort of a circus aspect to it that people, it’s become comic and a kind of a dark way. You know, Will is a professional doomsayer. So, you have to take that with a grain of salt. But obviously the political system’s a mess.

* (more…)

John McCain & J.D. Hayworth:
or, why the Arizona Senator will continue to tack right

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:06 am - October 19, 2010.
Filed under: 2008 Elections,2010 Elections,Media Bias

The only reason I bring up the name of the politician who tried to resurrect his long dead political career this year by running against John McCain in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat from Arizona is as a reminder that sometimes the alternative to an imperfect politician is worse than the flawed incumbent.  And on the issue driving American voters this fall, out-of-control federal spending, J.D. Hayworth was a johnny-come-lately if this johnny come at all.

And while Hayworth was wallowing in earmarks, McCain, as the senator told Terry Moran of ABC News’ “Nightline” in a recent interview, is “the one that fought against earmarks since it wasn’t popular to do so“.  And the Arizonan was always solid on national security.

To be sure, he did disappoint conservatives on a number of issues, often grandstanding in front of the cameras when he was at odds with his party.  And I wonder sometimes if he did this in order to curry favor with the media, assuming that he could so win, what no Republican has enjoyed perhaps since Eisenhower (if not before), favorable treatment when he ran for president.

He assumed media folk were honorable men and women, operating as do most decent individuals.

He just didn’t account for the depth of their partisanship  — and their natural antipathy to a Republican nominee (as opposed to a Republican attacking another Republican).

When McCain saw how they treated him in the presidential campaign, when he saw how they treated his running mate behind whom he still stands*, he realized his attempts to secure favorable media treatment were futile (at best).  This guy’s not go to bend left as he did in the best.  He knows that it just won’t redound to his benefit.

* (more…)

Moron President Rewrites American History

Un-effin-believeable.  THIS is the “most educated” President evah?

Some may say it was an accident that he left out “Creator”.  But… and this is important, people… by ignoring that our unalienable rights come from Our Creator, he completely misses the mark on what makes America great!  Before 1776, rights were seen to have been granted by Man (Kings, Queens, etc.)  Our Founding Fathers’ brilliance was that they put a new stake in the ground of mankind. 

Obama, our President, is a complete dope.  I guess they forgot to teach the Declaration of Independence to him in his prep schools in Indonesia and at Harvard.

Let’s help him out a bit

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Good heavens.  Can’t everyone but the utmost Bush-haters now see what a complete buffoon America has in the Oval Office? 

So is he just stupid, or is he removing God from the DofI because his political philosophy is that rights come from the State, not the Creator?  If we had a responsible media — we’d have known the answer to that question…. in 2007.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Is this the way for a Republican to win the gay vote?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 11:37 am - September 13, 2010.
Filed under: 2008 Elections,Pelosi Watch

Well, he is running in San Francisco. Against Nancy Pelosi.

So, Obama did get one right; he kept the seas from rising

On June 3, 2008, when then-candidate Barack Obama declared victory in the campaign for the Democratic nomination, he declared that “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal“.

Well, looks like the rise of the ocean has stopped: “Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.”

The American Divorce Agreement.

This email, written by a “Millenial” is making the rounds.  I think you will enjoy it as much as I did.  Thanks to GP Reader Dan in NY for sending this to me!

American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950’s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course.
Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement: 

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure  our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns  and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).
We’ll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies,Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeboys and illegal aliens. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks. We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and  Hollywood  .. 

You can make nice with  Iran  and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security. 

We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill. 

We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find. 

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute Imagine, I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya, or We Are the World. 

We’ll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag. 

Anyone know a good divorce attorney??

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Martha Coakley’s “Godless Atheist” Moment?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 10:30 am - January 18, 2010.
Filed under: 2008 Elections,2010 Elections,Carolina News

In the fall of 2008, as polls showed her chances for reelection diminishing with each passing day, then-Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-Inside the Beltway) decided to jump the shark, er, pull the “Godless Atheist” card. She started running ads across the Tarheel State (which she supposedly represented, but rarely visited) pointing out (quite accurately) that a leader of the Godless Americans held a “secret” fundraiser for her opponent Kay Hagan. That Democrat attended said fundraiser.

Now, while Mrs. Dole’s ads had more basis in fact than some of the stuff put out by the Coakley campaign in recent days, they betrayed a whiff of desperation. With those ads, she destroyed whatever chance the native North Carolinian had of reviving her candidacy.

Now, if the Massachusetts media were as harsh on Coakley’s negative ads as the Carolina media were on Dole’s, then the Massachusetts Democratic Party’s mailer alleging “that Scott Brown wants rape victims turned away from hospitals” could have a similar effect on Coakley’s candidacy.  A Brown spokeswoman called the ad “patently false“.  When a candidate is down (or declining in the polls) in the last lap of an electoral contest, such negative ads rarely have the intended effect.  Instead of scaring people away from the savaged candidate, they make them disgusted with the candidate firing the broadsides.

Of course, it would be the Bay State Democrats sponsoring the attack.  They want to deflect as much blame as they can away from the Coakley campaign itself

Whether or not this ad alone will prevent a Democrat from winning in this Democratic state is still far from clear.  It is just one of many areas were the Coakley campaign (and it allies) have blundered in recent days.  (I mean, heck, the late Senator Kennedy’s son kept calling the woman vying for the seat once held by his father, Daniel Webster and Charles Sumner Marcia.*)

* (more…)

Given national mood last fall, amazing that Obama’s margin wasn’t greater

Every time I review the 2008 presidential campaign, I remain amazed at how well John McCain did, given the political headwinds against which he and his party were sailing last fall.  To be sure, with the selection of Sarah Palin and the successful convention, he had built up a good head of steam heading out of St. Paul.  Problem was, his team hadn’t developed a strategy for confronting unexpected obstacles, nor for dealing with a hostile media.  Not just that, he never found a way to articulate a coherent economic message which become particularly important in the wake of the financial meltdown of mid-September (one of those aforementioned unexpected obstacles).

That meltdown and McCain’s showing came to mind again last night as I was reviewing various polls for posts I was working on at the time.  According to the NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, the percentage of Americans believing the country was “off on the wrong track” hit a high of 78 just two weeks before the election, with only one in eight voters thinking we were headed in the right direction.

Just look at this average of polls to see how the gap between those thinking the country was on the wrong track and those who thought we were headed in the right direction expanded in the run-up to last fall’s balloting:

It just wasn’t a good place for the candidate of the incumbent party to find himself in an electoral contest where the candidate of the opposing party is outspending him while the media fawns all over said opposition candidate and trashes the Vice Presidential nominee of the incumbent party.

Just to serve as a reminder about the nature of Obama’s “mandate.”  It wasn’t so much the agenda of his party voters were rejecting, but that of the then-incumbent party that voters were rejecting.  Given where we were last fall–and the kind of campaign McCain ran–it’s simply amazing that he broke 40% of the vote, much less the nearly 46% he actually won.

Obama’s Crumbling Coalition

With yet another poll showing Obama’s approval rating plummeting (with the Democrat enjoying even worse numbers on health care), it’s clear that whatever coalition his campaign built in last fall’s campaign is crumbling.  As blogger JSF put it:

The coalition that President Obama built was on the backs of anti-war activists, Moderate Republicans (or in the words of RS McCain, “The Republicans Who matter”), Conservative Democrats, Liberal Democrats, Independents, Gay voters and Women activist voters.

Within one year, that is broken.

He offers an interesting theory the demise of that coalition which merits your consideration. And now let me offer my own, paraphrasing James Carville (and borrowing the title of one an earlier post), it’s the government spending, Stupid.  Obama constructed his fall coalition by pasting together two discordant groups, his left-wing base which wanted bigger government together with Independent voters and disgruntled Republicans, upset at Bush’s spending spree.

That was not a match made in heaven.

When Obama promised a “net spending cut” and to match a funding increase for one program with a cut in another, Americans tired of Republican rule believed him.  We here in the good ol’ USA tend to lend credence to the new guy.   And last fall, Barack Obama was the new guy, with a winning smile, a reassuring manner and a public unfamiliar with his (liberal) record.  No wonder he had to rush to run for the White House before people saw through his “new kind of politics” shtick he developed in the wake of his 2004 speech to the Democratic National Convention.

Recall that he fought the election of 2008 not on the battlefield of ideas, but in the marketplace of images.  His calm demeanor stood in stark contrast to his Republican rival’s erratic behavior.  His promise of change offered hope to a public upset at stories about Republican corruption and cronyism. (more…)

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.