Gay Patriot Header Image

A better apology

About that Gianforte matter.

While he stays oddly vague about what he did, at least now we know that Greg Gianforte’s apologies are matched by his actions.

Greg Gianforte, the Montana congressman-elect who was accused of “body slamming” a reporter, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault Monday morning.

Judge Rick West sentenced Gianforte to a 180-day deferred sentence, 40 hours of community service, 20 hours of anger management and a $300 fine along with a $85 court fee…

Jacobs was present and made a statement in the courtroom. Gianforte later asked if he could address Jacobs directly and apologized again.

“I just want to say I’m sorry and if and when you’re ready, I look forward to sitting down with you in DC,” he said.

Thank you, Montana justice system and thank you, Mr. Gianforte.

The Gaslighters in the woodwork

Let’s be honest: The problems of American blacks today are caused largely by white intellectuals and politicians, and I mean the left-wing ones.

In the 1930s, such people created Planned Parenthood specifically to abort black babies (google Margaret Sanger). In the 1960s, such people created the Welfare State (Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”) which annihilated the traditional black family and led generations of American inner-city blacks away from productive pursuits, into dead-ends of left-wing “community activism” and much worse.

And today, such people pander to (or sometimes form the white membership of) the group #BlackLivesMatter, which perversely tries to lead blacks into a dead-end of complaining, hateful racism against whites. If ever, after we entered the 20th century, there was some kind of plot by American whites to destroy blacks and keep them down: American left-liberalism would be it. (If.)

Racism is both an illusion and a real problem (as illusions sometimes can be). Racism in America is being fomented even as we speak, by privileged, white American left-liberals. Not racism in the sense that America discriminates terribly against blacks, but the opposite: racism in the sense that America wants to give blacks an unreal sense of entitlement. Racism in the sense that America throws crutches and deadweights to blacks (not helping hands) and foments mistaken beliefs, both about blacks and among blacks.

Whose fault is it? If, for your entire life, the rich white lady who gets away with every crime (*cough* Hillary among others) tells you that America OWES you a living and owes you intense accommodation of your whims and that she will use government (force) to make sure you get it, wouldn’t you begin to believe her? I would.

In effect and for generations, narcissistic American lefties have been trying to gaslight American blacks.

Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse used by narcissists in order to instill in their victims an extreme sense of anxiety and confusion to the point where they no longer trust their own memory, perception or judgment…

The intention is to, in a systematic way, target the victim’s mental equilibrium, self confidence, and self esteem so that they are no longer able to function in an independent way. Gaslighting involves the abuser to frequently and systematically withhold factual information from the victim, and replace it with false information.

And yet some people blame blacks, the recipients of systematic gaslighting by American leftists. And blame blacks on the basis of their race. In short: Yes, Virginia, some people are nasty racists.

As tragic, current events have put “race” into the news and caused GayPatriot to increase its coverage, I have encountered perhaps 1 or 2 of these people in our comments. If “conservative” in America means that you value human dignity, independence and freedom – if – then I can’t consider these people conservatives; I personally, and sadly, am forced to think of them as accomplices to the vicious and evil schemes of the Left.

Here (#17) are (#19) three (#38) recent comments that I have in mind.

…Negroes seem incapable of governing or producing anything of value.

Black people are a violent, criminal, underclass.

If all blacks disappeared, America’s cities would become much safer and more livable.

I could spell out what’s wrong with the above quotes. (For example: What about white meth addicts and dealers, as a violent and criminal underclass? What about certain white Democrat leaders, like the Clintons or Jon Corzine (D), as a violent and criminal overclass? What about brilliant black Americans like Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Condi Rice, Janice Rogers-Brown and Allen West? How about if we take people as individuals and categorize them by their behavior and ideas and character content, not by something dumb like their genes and melanin content?)

I could spell it out, but another part of me says: Why bother? Hate is hate. It’s part of racism. That being so, it’s enough to say that anyone who wants to bring it here to GayPatriot ought to take it elsewhere.

I want less criminal violence in America: less from poor people – who may be white or black or any race; AND, less criminal violence from certain rich people and top leaders in the Political-Financial Complex – who, again, may be white or black or any so-called “race”.

Conservatives and the Failure to Explain Conservatism

Interesting stuff over at NRO.

The top Republican consultants of today are Baby Boomers like Karl Rove and Mike Murphy. Rove wasted $300 million in 2012 trying to get voters to oppose Obama. Murphy is wasting over $100 million trying to get Republican primary voters to support Jeb Bush.

The old political shorthand no longer works. It means nothing to Millennials. Cutting taxes to revive the economy is something that rich people say. Rove’s 2012 anti-Obama ads were terrible.

Voters think that conservatives (especially establishment Republicans like Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush) are ignorant and hostile to their interests. They have never heard a reasonable conservative argument for anything. They have only heard incomprehensible cliches that were designed to manipulate different people from a different generation.


It is something I have been saying for a long time. Low-information voters, especially millennials, have been brainwashed by the Democrat Media Complex into believing that Republican was synonymous with Conservative, and Conservative Republican was shorthand for “hates gays, hates blacks, hates Hispanics, and wants to outlaw sex.”

The Republican Party has been a poor apologist for Conservatism because the Republican Party is not, at its core, conservative, nor does it exist to advance conservative values.

The Conservative Movement needs to take an entire generation of voters to school and teach them what conservatism really means; which, at its core, is that people can be trusted to make their own decisions rather than having them dictated by Government bureaucrats; and this results in a stronger, more prosperous, and more civil society.

Of course, it will have to be dumbed down a bit for the LIV’s.

On the Difficulty of Being a Patriot (when your citizenry sux)

Hi folks! (Jeff/ILC) I haven’t posted here for several months. Where have I been?

As a rule, I dislike negative people; I like problem-solvers and try to be one. But sometimes, even a problem-solver can get negative because problem-solving starts with acknowledging reality, and the reality may be very negative.

This is the situation I’m in, with regard to the United States of America. By my guess, Americans today fall into roughly four categories:

  • 25% good people. (Constructive people who see clearly and value liberty.)
  • 25% confused people. (Semi-good people who have been mis-educated with anti-freedom ideas. Some of these may live off the public trough, although they know they shouldn’t.)
  • 25% parasites. (People who expect to live off the public trough, claiming it’s right and they deserve it.)
  • 25% fascists. (People, usually leftists though not always, who actively want government to control more and more of everyone’s lives. Even speech, for example with speech codes.)

When I was a kid, things were not much better; but they may have been a little bit better. The proportions seemed to be more like 30, 30, 20, 20. So the balance was a little more in favor of the good people.

I believe that, by now in 2015, the balance has tipped against the nation’s remaining good people. As a result:

  • We get “leader” after “leader” who is either pathetic and confused (Donald Trump, any of the Bushes), or pathetic and malevolent (Barack Obama, any of the Clintons or Kennedys).
  • We get government officials that continually lie – for example, saying that unemployment is 5.1% when it is 11% or more – and a media that couldn’t care less, as long as Planned Parenthood or its other favorite causes will be funded.
  • Add your own. (Libya? Syria? Talk about illegal wars! Given that ISIS and the disgusting, U.S.-backed “Syrian rebels” are much the same people, shouldn’t we be asking if ISIS may be an incredibly-stupid U.S. covert op?)

I gotta be honest: It’s depressing. As I survey this post-modern, corrupt, neo-socialist wreck of a nation that had once proudly taught the world about human freedom and productivity, I feel disgust and disappointment. I’ve been absent from the blog because I hit a point where I simply did not want to pay any attention to current events. And because I (still) feel uncomfortable writing at a blog with the word “patriot” in the title when, in Obama’s America, there is increasingly less that is worth defending.

I love and support the America that its Founders had intended: a beacon of liberty. I do not love or support (except by paying a ton of taxes, in cash) the America that we have in the year 2015: a deceit-filled, national-socialist travesty whose eventual crash (and/or takeover by China) can no longer be prevented.

That’s at the political level. On a personal level: I have to admit that it took me a couple decades to “get it” – that is, to understand real economics, psychology and morality and how they should interact to make a free society. It took me awhile, because I was mis-educated originally (was told a lot of the standard lies), and because my general desire to love people and give them credit made it hard to disbelieve the lies. It took me a long time; so why not be patient with the many people today who “don’t get it”?

Here’s why not. Yes, it took me a long time; but I did “get it”, because of my lifelong commitment to figuring out what’s real and what isn’t real, what works and what doesn’t work. I don’t see most people making even half of such an effort. I see a majority of people lying to themselves and others, spouting crap, not caring that they’re spouting crap, and treating their families like crap – as they indulge themselves with daily marijuana, coke, alcohol, iPorn, affairs/hookups, all-day gaming or other destruction. Which they rationalize.

Anyway…your thoughts?

The modern press

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 10:50 pm - February 17, 2015.
Filed under: Conservative Introspection,Media Bias

The Telegraph is a respected, conservative British paper. Except, according to ex-employee Peter Oborne, it has been going downhill – along with the rest of the media:

It is not only the Telegraph that is at fault here. The past few years have seen the rise of shadowy executives who determine what truths can and what truths can’t be conveyed across the mainstream media.

Oborne’s thought-provoking piece contains much more; I enjoyed (though was saddened by) Reading The Whole Thing. Hat tip: ZH.

Ace catches up?

Ace of Spades is a great blogger. I’m a fan. Although perhaps he hasn’t been as cynical about our two-party system, all this time, as I’ve been. He may be changing his mind. See his recent piece, titled Jay Cost: The Republican Party Is Not Your Friend. Ace begins:

I have long argued against a third-party split and the Nightmare Option of simply conceding the country to the liberals for 20 disastrous years.

I am no longer confident in such arguments.

At some point — and that point is coming soon and hard — the Republican Party must be treated as what it is, a second enemy party dominated by corporate liberalism. [sic; meaning leftism]

He gives his reasons, which you can go read. I’m not sure I agree with Ace’s conclusion:

I am not only ready, but eager to ditch the corporate class — and, frankly, the wealthiest 1% generally, which largely supports liberal policies — and begin taking a very, very agnostic view on whether or not their taxes should be raised until it hurts.

And then, once it does hurt, and they are begging relief, we can…insist that corporate interests serve the conservative agenda, rather than, as it has been forever, that the conservative agenda be made a slave to corporate interests.

First, I don’t think the libertarian-conservative movement can control the situation so finely as that, anytime soon. Ace may just be fantasizing.

Second, I’m all in favor of rejecting corporate leftism (let’s have no bailouts!); but we must always be ready to lower taxes, on moral principle. High taxation is theft; it just happens to be legal theft (since the government is doing it). It’s wrong. Doing the right thing should be a person’s first response in life, not a bargaining chip. Thus, lowering government spending and taxes should be our basic position; even automatic.

Your thoughts?

Stockman on Eric Cantor

Former Reagan budget director, David Stockman, has been blogging up a storm these last few years. I have mixed feelings about his work. It’s packed with emotion and (let’s say) definite conclusions. Sometimes I’ll cluck my tongue at the run-on sentences, typos, excess of adverbs, wandering, exaggerations, inaccuracies and other signs of ranting that mar Stockman’s work. On the other hand, Stockman is a free-market, balanced-budget guy and often I admire him for saying what needs to be said.

In that spirit I note his recent piece, Good Riddance To Rep. Eric Cantor: Bagman For Wall Street And The War Party. The gist is that Cantor could give a nice free-market speech, but in practice, Cantor stood for venture socialism and Washington business-as-usual. Cantor was a key factor in the GOP supporting the 2008-9 TARP and GM bailouts, the Export-Import Bank (long cited as an example of corporate welfare), unexamined Defense spending, and so forth.

Stockman gives details and he ties Cantor to Paul Ryan, whose wonderful budget plans really mean little change to Washington in practice (Ryan’s plans are merely not as insane as the Democrats’ budget plans). And, however all that might be, Stockman as usual gets near to the heart of what ails us:

…financial repression, ZIRP, QE, wealth effects and the Greenspan/Bernanke/Yellen “put” under the stock market and risk assets generally are not just a major policy mistake; they are a full-throttle assault on the heart and soul of conservative economics.

You can not expect to have fiscal rectitude in a modern democracy, for example, when the central bank since the year 2000 has monetized nearly $4 trillion of public debt…Indeed, financial repression makes the carry cost of the public debt so painless—-that is, probably about $400 billion per year less than it would be under a regime of free market interest rates—that not one in a hundred politicians can see they virtue of fall[ing] on the fiscal sword in the here and now [o]n behalf of unborn generations of taxpayers who will carry the burden of today’s fiscal folly…

So Eric Cantor made a career of milking the Warfare State and pandering to Wall Street. This brought him nearly to the top of the Washington heap. But in the end, it did not fool his constituents. And most certainly it set back the conservative cause immeasurably.

Conservative = Not Crazy

According to Adam Carolla:

“I always thought of myself as just a liberal guy,” Carolla said. But after working with and observing Dr. Drew Pinsky, Carolla says he started spreading what he thought was a simple, apolitical message.

“I just started saying, ‘focus on your family, take care of your kids,’” Carolla explained. “And then all of a sudden, I become Ted Nugent like overnight.”

“It’s a weird thing that this has become a conservative, right-wing issue,” he continued. “Take care of your G-d damn kids? Feed your kids? Educate your kids? These are radical right-wing ideas?”

Carolla also says he knows how to fix what ails America.

“I believe that we could fix this country and all that ails it in one second if everyone just literally internalized,” he said. “Don’t expect anybody, especially the government, to do anything for you.”

The guano-craziness coming from the Progressive Left also supports his case.

Yes, it’s easier not to think about politics

My title (point) will strike most people as obvious. But some “obvious” things remain theoretical until they hit you. Then they feel almost like a new thought.

I’ve been on a break from “the news” for over 2 months now, and I feel relaxed. Life is easier this way. What Obama and the Democrats have been up to, by way of destroying most of what has been healthy and good about America, is so sad. And out of my control, so it’s easier to think about other things.

This may lead to a small insight into the “low-information voters” who support Obama / Democrats. Politics deals with life-and-death questions. A budget or regulatory change can force any number of people into changing their lives. ‘Not thinking about it’ is probably easier for most people, including those voters.

The average Democrat voter (that I’ve encountered) has a feeling that the Democrats seem to like abortion privileges, gays and blacks; and she likes those things, too; and she doesn’t think any further about politics, because she figures that whatever else the Democrats are up to, she would probably also like. Never mind that in reality, the Democrats are the stalwarts of that Big Government – Big Banking nexus which siphons off her earning power year after year, and whose nature is essentially fascist (anti-freedom).

What’s depressing for libertarian-conservatives is that the Republicans are only a little better. The GOP are better – as in, usually they are a bit less insane. But the GOP Establishment are also captives of (or intimidated by) the same Big Government – Big Banking nexus that uses/runs the Left. The GOP and Democrat establishments unite in seeking to destroy the Tea Party – who are the main people interested in a smaller government, to restore the prosperity and freedom of Americans.

Can America Ever Recover From Obama?

I’m not being facetious here. I am asking this as a serious question. The damage done to the United States by the President and his Party – not just in this term, but over the last 40 years – may be too great for the country to ever recover. I am increasingly doubtful that it is even possible to avoid national collapse.

Our economy has been devastated by 100 years of creeping socialism and is currently functioning at or near Great Depression levels, masked only by massive public borrowing and spending and a sycophantic state media that would embarrass Leni Riefenstahl. Our public debt is unsustainable, or economy is strangled in regulations, yet Obama and the Democrats keep piling on spending, regulation and entitlements.

Left-wing social and economic policy works no better at the national level than at the municipal level; Detroit is the inevitably outcome of prolonged liberal Government.

I can’t help but notice the resemblance between present-day USA and the USSR in the 1980’s:

  • A bloated, over-leveraged national government whose expenditures have long exceeded the ability of the underlying economy to finance them. In other words, the USSR had a bloated military that consumed more of its GDP than the Government could afford. The USA has a bloated welfare state that requires massive borrowing because our economy cannot support it.
  • An aged decrepit leadership (Reid, Pelosi, Hillary) stuck in old socialist paradigms and making fatefully bad decisions out of rigid ideology. (In the USSR, it was the decision to invade Afghanistan. In the USA, it was passing Obamacare).
  • Growing internal self-rule movements. The USSR eventually split into its constituent states. Self-rule movements in Maryland, Colorado, Texas, and Calidornia suggest that similar faultlines are showing up in our own politics.

That’s basically the trap we are in. The only remedy to our situation would be austerity, a severe pruning of the regulatory/welfare state, and restoration of limited Constitutional Government. There is no other path to avoid destruction; but these things, we are told, are politically impossible.


Purity, Principles, and Dealbreakers

You get kind of tired of hearing Establishment Republicans whine that those of us who support the Tea Party over the Establishment are putting purity before pragmatism. Not at all. We just don’t trust the Establishment GOP because, time and time again, they’ve shown that they define pragmatism as stabbing the base in the back and helping the Democrat Left advance its agenda.

Marco Rubio won his senate seat promising to oppose Amnesty, and by his admission, a “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants was Amnesty. Once in office, Rubio quickly betrayed his voters and signed onto the Gang of 8 Immigration Bill, that contained not only a path to citizenship, but gives the President almost unlimited authority to waive any of the bill’s requirements. (As if Obama would never do anything like that.) Pat Toomey also betrayed conservative who supported him by signing onto gun control. It’s Republican Standard Operating Procedure: Get Elected as a Conservative, Betray the Base, then lie about it . Meanwhile, someone like Ted Cruz actually does what he promised to do … fight Obamacare tooth and nail … and gets Cruzified.

You can follow the old, “someone who agrees with me 70% of the time is my 70% friend, not my 30% enemy” chestnut… and broadly that is valid. Sometimes you have to accept half a loaf. But not every compromise is worth making. There have to be some deal-breakers attached to that:

  • Amnesty – The importation of millions of unskilled foreign workers at a time when millions of Americans can’t find work is a crime against the working class.
  • Gun Control – The Second Amendment is Sacrosanct. And we know even the most benign-sounding gun control law is just part of the “just the tip” incrementalism the left uses to lead to eventual gun confiscation. They have admitted it. Repeatedly. And openly.
  • Fiscal Responsibility – Wasting money is a thing up with which we should not put. And especially no sucker deals where Democrats promise cuts later for tax increases now and the cuts never, ever happen.

You could probably add abortion-on-demand to that list as well. But the key point is, there is something very important that the Establishment GOP political insiders and their highly paid consultants (not to mention the left) don’t get and that is this:

Conservative voters don’t care about party affiliation, and we don’t care about personalities; we don’t base our votes on whom we would prefer to have a beer with or who has the nicest crease in their pants. (We further think people who vote on those criteria are idiots.) We vote based on principles, and we expect those whom we vote for to uphold those principles once elected. And when they don’t uphold them, we get pretty pissed off about that.

Update: Remember John McCain’s Gang of 14, that classic case of bipartisan compromise, where 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans ganged up to save the filibuster, prevent the nuclear option, and s-can most of Bush 43’s judicial appointment? Today, the Democrats showed their gratitude.


Living in the present in challenging times

Several of my Facebook friends like to post inspirational and thought-provoking quotes on a regular basis.  Two or three of them have recently posted a quote which has been attributed to Lao Tzu which reads:

If you are depressed you are living in the past.
If you are anxious you are living in the future.
If you are at peace you are living in the present.

As someone who has lately been bouncing back and forth between these states of mind, I can appreciate the essential wisdom of the quote.  Most of my feelings of depression lately have been spurred on by my regrets about things I wish I had done differently in my life, and so in that regard, they are an instance of dwelling in the past.  Most of my anxiety stems from my concerns about where our country is headed under its current leadership (or lack thereof), and my feelings of uncertainty or even paralysis as to what is or should be the best path for me to take from this point forward.  The more I think about it, the more overwhelming the many different options start to become.

Partly because of the circumstances which have fueled both my recent feelings of depression and of anxiety, I also have to wonder whether or not the “living in the present” endorsed by the quote is really so desirable after all.  When things are going well, yes, that sounds ideal, but isn’t there the risk of a sort of complacency which can result in self-indulgence, lack of ambition and disengagement?
I thought of these points and more yesterday when Glenn Reynolds linked to a post by Sarah Hoyt entitled “If You Don’t Work, You Die.”  In the post, Hoyt reflects on the importance of what she refers to as envy and striving for growth and life, which, to my mind suggests a certain resistance to complacency.  She reflects on an experiment in Denver in the 1970s with a guaranteed minimum income and the finding that a certain segment of the population was content to live on it and to stop striving to better their lives, and she speculates that it is partly an inherited trait which had value in the conservation of social energy.  The part of the post that fascinated me the most was when she described herself in the following terms:
Some of us are broken.  We were given both envy and high principles.  We can’t even contemplate bringing others down to level things, but instead we work madly to increase our status.  (No, it’s not how I think about it, but it’s probably what’s going on in the back of the monkey brain.)  Most of humanity however is functional.  Give them enough to eat, and a place to live, and no matter how unvaried the diet and how small/terrible the place, most people will stay put.
It seems to me that she has hit on something crucial there because although I’m often tempted to focus on being content with things the way are, every so often something happens to jar me from that state of mind, either by making me feel depressed or anxious or by throwing me off balance completely with some new dream or hope.
I’d like to write more about the disruptive power and potential value of such dreams, but for the time being, I’d like to pose a question for our readers.   When we live in difficult and challenging times, how can one try to remain “in the present” without falling into complacency or without becoming disengaged from the sorts of issues and problems that threaten to make existence even more trying and difficult?

National Review Institute Summit

I’m at the NRI Summit in DC this weekend. It’s great catching up with blogger friends. And I’m finally meeting some of the folks I love to read everyday from the National Review.

It’s hard for me to listen and blog, so while Gov. Scott Walker and US Sen Ted Cruz speak a lunch, I’m just going to listen.

I’m giving real time updates on GayPatriot on Twitter.

More later. Maybe photos.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Yes, Virginia, conservative ideas can resonate with minorities

A recent Pew Research survey showing Republicans are making serious gains in “leaned party identification” among white voters, particularly those under 30 and those “earning less than $30,000 annually”.   Yet, as my friend John Hinderaker noted, they have failed to make similar headway among ethnic minorities.  He offers “two possible explanations” :

The first is that poorer whites see their fortunes as tied to the economy, while poorer African-Americans and Hispanics are more likely to see their fortunes as tied to government support. Thus, hard economic times may only cement their loyalty to those who promise more government benefits.

This theory may be partially correct, but it can’t account for the whole phenomenon, since large majorities of African-Americans and Hispanics are not poor, but are middle-income or better. Likewise, the fact that African-Americans (but not, to my knowledge, Hispanics) are more likely than whites to be public employees can be, at most, a partial explanation.

The second possibility is that Republicans haven’t done a good enough job of competing for the votes of these minorities. This is, of course, a discussion of long standing in Republican circles.

It would be interesting to see if there has been any shift among gay voters in the past two years.  Surely, gay entrepreneurs feel the impact of increasing regulation and prefer policies which give them greater freedom to operate their enterprises.

But, does the perception that social conservative dominate the GOP prevent gays businessmen and women (less attuned  than we to the increasing economic focus of the GOP) from choosing the party which better represents their economic concerns? (more…)

On Chris Barron and Cleta Mitchell

Below please find a post I wrote on the matter of GOProud Chairman Chris Barron’s recent remarks about Cleta Mitchell. When I ran it by Bruce as we had been discussing how to respond, he asked that I sign his name to it. So, consider it from both of us:

I have long believed it best to address your friends’ faults in private and your enemies’ in public. While Bruce and I have long been enthusiastic about GOProud and supportive of Chris Barron, its chairman of the Board and Jimmy LaSalvia, its executive director, as they try to create a national forum for gay conservatives, we have not always seen eye to eye with them. To be sure, we respect their work, enjoy their company and generally approve of the direction in which they are taking GOProud, but from time to time, we have been skeptical about some of their projects and have occasionally disagreed with their statements (or taken issue with their wording). We have expressed our concerns in private e-mails and polite conservations or merely in remarks to each other.

When we heard that Chris had called Cleta Mitchell a “nasty bigot” in a public forum, Bruce and I each contacted the other to express his concerns. We both believe he crossed a line and have been considering for the past 24 hours how to respond. This evening (Thursday, February 10), we thought it best to post this piece. While we disagree with Cleta Mitchell on a number of issues, we believe Chris was wrong to call her a “nasty bigot” to a reporter for the Metro Weekly. This is not appropriate public discourse. We are pleased that Chris apologized for using such intemperate language and encourage him to use greater discretion in future commentary.

UPDATE:  Just saw this commentary at Allahpundit which reflects our views: (more…)

In defeat, Dems & GOP do same thing: blame Republicans

When Republicans and Democrats lose elections, they do the same thing, albeit in a slightly different manner; they blame Republicans.  Shortly, after their loss of Congress in 2006, Republicans began engaging in a bit of introspection, introspection which was intensified when they suffered further setbacks in 2008, coupled with the loss of the White House.

Introspective, many Republicans asked what had they done wrong (AKA “blaming” Republicans).  This week, we learned (yet again) that Democrats were doing something quite similar, pointing to Republican actions which caused their defeat in the 2010 elections.  And former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi trotted out the standard villain from their catalogue of demonology:  George W. Bush.

The San Francisco Democrat showed just how in denial she is on the day she handed over the gavelto the new Speaker, Republican John Boehner, when she listed her accomplishments, without considering that perhaps it just might have been those “accomplishments” which cost her that gavel.

Fascinating how the party accused of lacking the capability to admit its errors is the party which engages in introspection and the party supposedly composed of such smart folk is the one that refuses to question the merits of its policies — or accept that its policies (rather than the failings and/or machinations of its adversaries) could prevent its election.  Or secure its defeat.

Memo to GOP: Ignore the Gays

During the course of the 2010 campaign, I was working on a blog post/op-ed with the title I use for this post.  But, as I followed the messages of Republican candidates across the country, I realized that, well, they had already gotten the message.  It didn’t seem necessary.  And since it wasn’t a winning issue in the campaign, it shouldn’t be a defining agenda when the 112th Congress convenes in January.

Thanks in part to the unpopular, big-government initiatives of the Obama Democrats and the concomitant (given popular opinion) growth of the Tea Parties, most Republicans campaigned on fiscal issues.  Those who made an issue of gays (or appeared to do as much) didn’t do as well on Election Day as polls forecast.

Now, our good friends at GOProud “and some Tea Party leaders” are pressing Republicans to stay true to their campaign rhetoric and “to keep social issues off” the agenda:

“On behalf of limited-government conservatives everywhere, we write to urge you and your colleagues in Washington to put forward a legislative agenda in the next Congress that reflects the principles of the Tea Party movement,” they write to presumptive House Speaker John Boehner and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell in an advance copy provided to POLITICO. “This election was not a mandate for the Republican Party, nor was it a mandate to act on any social issue.”

When Chris Barron of GOProud contacted Bruce and me about the project, each of us eagerly signed on.  His letter is exactly in the spirit of the ideas this blog has been promoting for six year — and that I have been promoting for at last fifteen.  Social conservative Tea Party folk are also signing up:

“When they were out in the Boston Harbor, they weren’t arguing about who was gay or who was having an abortion,” said Ralph King, a letter signatory who is a Tea Party Patriots national leadership council member, as well as an Ohio co-coordinator.

King said he signed onto the letter because GOProud seemed to be genuine in pushing for fiscal conservatism and limited government.

“Am I going to be the best man at a same sex-marriage wedding? That’s not something I necessarily believe in,” said King. “I look at myself as pretty socially conservative. But that’s not what we push through the Tea Party Patriots.”

Nice to see a gay conservative group actually working within the framework of conservative groups to keep the focus on the issues which have defined our party at least since the rise of Reagan — and have helped Republicans win elections in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994 and now 2010.

Even the Advocate has picked up on this.  Guess the message is that a gay Republicans can get media attention without attacking their own party.

Decision Points: The George W. Bush That The Media Didn’t Let You See

I’ve just begun to read President George W. Bush’s memoirs — Decision Points. I downloaded it on Kindle last night and haven’t been able to put it down.

I’ll discuss more later as I read more (I’m into the summer of 2000 campaign period now.)

But one takeaway already is that George W. Bush is smart, thoughtful, complex, honest, candid and not the cartoon the media liked to make him out to be.

Like or dislike him — this is required reading!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan): I’ve also been reading the book, agree it’s difficult to put down and posted some initial reactions here and here.

Ann Coulter & HOMOCON Featured In Sunday NY Times

Why am I posting this?  Well, for no other reason the sheer delight of knowing that Gay Leftist heads will be exploding all over the place this morning.  Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha.

“I WROTE a new speech for the gays and I don’t have it memorized yet!” said Ann Coulter, as she ducked into a hallway in the Union Square apartment of the venture capitalist Peter Thiel on a recent Saturday night, flicking a half-empty packet of Habitrol gum between her fingers. She was there to speak at Homocon 2010, a party for the one-year anniversary of GOProud, the Washington-based advocacy group for gay conservatives.

For a right-wing, evangelical Christian who has made fun of homosexuals and opposes same-sex marriage, Ms. Coulter seemed awfully … game. Wearing a black lace-up cocktail dress and high black heels, she posed for a photograph with the founder of Boy Butter, a maker of sex lubricants. She joked about her fellow conservatives. “Yes, that was Elton John at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding, not Velma from ‘Scooby-Doo,’ ” she said, as listeners chuckled. She warmly greeted a pornographic film director, and admired the “freedom is fabulous” T-shirt worn by one volunteer. “Can you be gay and conservative?” she shouted at the mostly male crowd, many of whose shirt collars were soaked with sweat after the air-conditioning had faltered. “You have to be!” Conservatives, she surmised, are tough on the war against Islamic terrorists. “And you know what the Muslims do to gays,” she said, flashing a knowing look.

Ah, but for the rest…. you will have READ THE WHOLE THING.

By the way, the founder of Boy Butter must have slipped my attention at the Homocon event.  LOL.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

O’Donnell: in the right place, at the right time, with the right message

I will not rehash the case I made against Christine O’Donnell here, suffice it to say that while I don’t think she’s the best candidate Delaware Republicans could have nominated for Senate seat once held by Joe Biden, I do think she is the better of the two candidates currently vying to serve out the Vice President’s term.

She didn’t run a stellar campaign (but her opponent ran an inept one).  She isn’t a charismatic figure like Scott Brown, nor an insightful conservative thinker like Pat Toomey, but she was in the right place, at the right time, with the right message.

She wasn’t just running on the “Tea Party” themes of small government and individual freedom, she was also running against the Republican establishment that doesn’t get the popular mood.  (One could argue that those themes and that opposition are one and the same.) “O’Donnell’s victory was,” James Taranto contends, “a rebuke to an out-of-touch Republican establishment in both Delaware and the District of Columbia“.

Voters, Mattie Fein, Republican nominee in California’s 36th Congressional District (you can support her campaign here), writes

. . . in 2010 are not being swayed by the anointment of the Good Ol’ Boys in the GOP’s picks to run for office. They are rejecting the career politicians and the system; the O’Donnell win is representative of this. And, while I do not agree with many of O’Donnell’s social issues or statements, her win is indicative of the rejection of politics as usual in the GOP.

Exactly.  A rejection of politics as usual. (Mattie, by the way, is a heckuva nice gal (I met her).  She opposed Prop 8 and supports repeal of DADT.)

Mattie’s not alone.  And this anger, as Mark Tapscot notes, is rooted in principle:

First, the anger among Republican voters is not limited to the far right reaches of its “base.” Castle was one of the most popular political figures in the state, yet his support in Congress for TARP bailouts, the radical House version of Cap-and-Trade, and the DISCLOSE Act marked him back home among his fellow Republicans as more a representative of the Washington Establishment to Delaware than Delaware’s representative to Washington. (more…)