Gay Patriot Header Image

Salacious Details

Posted by V the K at 8:27 am - May 8, 2018.
Filed under: Decent Democrats,Democratic Scandals

Eric Schneiderman was, until yesterday, the very, very left-wing Democrat Attorney-General for the very, very Democrat state of New York. He was a champion of the #MeToo movement, a fervent hater of Donald Trump, fiercely opposed to the right of citizens to bear arms, and the leader of a multi-state “Climate Change” lawsuit that aimed to shut down or nationalize the big petrochemical companies. In other words, a mainstream Democrat.

Harvard-educated activist writer Tanya Selvaratnam told the New Yorker magazine that her yearlong affair with Schneiderman “was a fairytale that became a nightmare” — and quickly escalated into violence in the bedroom, even as he begged for threesomes.

“Sometimes, he’d tell me to call him Master, and he’d slap me until I did,” Selvaratnam said.

“He started calling me his ‘brown slave’ and demanding that I repeat that I was ‘his property.’”

But at least he never told a lingerie joke in a crowded elevator. That would have been a deal-killer for the feminists.

I am going to go out on a limb and predict that the MFM will not make Eric Schneiderman the face of the Democrat Party the way they made Todd Akin the face of the Republican Party. They will ask demand that every Democrat running for office denounce him. In fact, I expect this scandal to be buried by the Democrat Media Complex very, very quickly.

Update: It’s a conspiracy.”

Update: Deranged SJW – Eric Schneiderman and Mike Pence are the same when it comes to abusing women.

Update:  Seems like a nice person. (more…)

Leading By Example

An LGBT Activist burned himself to death to protest Global Warmies. Now, that’s showing commitment!

YouTube Preview Image

Does Camille Paglia’s example prove or disprove a notion that women shouldn’t vote?

A commenter pointed us to this Weekly Standard interview with Camille Paglia. As in most of her work, she says true and fascinating things – on the way to wrong conclusions. As a sample, here she is on the election:

Hillary, with her supercilious, Marie Antoinette-style entitlement, was a disastrously wrong candidate for 2016 and that she secured the nomination only through overt chicanery by the Democratic National Committee, assisted by a corrupt national media who, for over a year, imposed a virtual blackout on potential primary rivals…

After Trump’s victory (for which there were abundant signs in the preceding months), both the Democratic party and the big-city media urgently needed to do a scathingly honest self-analysis, because the election results plainly demonstrated that Trump was speaking to vital concerns (jobs, immigration, and terrorism among them) for which the Democrats had few concrete solutions…

She has much more to say; RTWT. For example, she slams the transgender movement of today as dupes of Big Pharma:

…the pharmaceutical industry, having lost income when routine estrogen therapy for menopausal women was abandoned because of its health risks, has been promoting the relatively new idea of transgenderism in order to create a permanent class of customers…I condemn the escalating prescription of puberty blockers (whose long-term effects are unknown) for children. I regard this practice as a criminal violation of human rights.

And she covers President Trump’s recent “infrastructure” speech, which indeed was awesome.

But then, whom did Paglia support? (Disclosure: I supported no one; a registered Independent, I came close on Gary Johnson but even he wasn’t good enough for me.) As Paglia explains:

I am a registered Democrat who voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary and for Jill Stein in the general election. Since last Fall, I’ve had my eye on Kamala Harris, the new senator from California, and I hope to vote for her in the next presidential primary.

Which is downright silly.

In travelling the “alt” opinion world, one occasionally comes across a strange theory that women shouldn’t vote. Here is an example from the vlogger Black Pigeon Speaks (who is center-Left on many issues, but right-ish on immigration, culture and terrorism). For the record: I disagree with the theory (that is, I think women should vote). But I’m going to describe it.

The essence of the theory (which again, I think is a broken theory) is that biology has wired men to take stands on issues and to initiate projects in the world; while it has wired women instead to be concerned with immediate safety and securing benefits from the group (and/or some patron). Because of that, says the theory, women voters over time will drag a country toward both appeasement (of its enemies) and socialism. Which is not good.

Is Camille Paglia evidence for that theory? Here we have a woman with a talent for grasping and expressing truth, yet she still can’t see through the people-destroying ruse of socialism.

How To Fight The Establishment Propaganda Machine And Win

That’s the title of an article by Caitlin Johnstone which I came across. She seems more lefty/Democrat than me and I don’t endorse her every notion. Still, she seems populist and has some interesting notions. To start:

…the single best way to take down the oligarchy is by aggressively and relentlessly attacking its propaganda engine.

Johnstone sees “the oligarchy” as more about corporations than about Big Government’s politicians and bureaucrats; while I’m the reverse. But at least we agree there is an oligarchy.

The elites who manipulate your government are more vulnerable now than ever before and they know it — the solution just isn’t in politics, it’s in media…old propaganda systems which have been used to lull Americans into accepting the establishment narrative are wielding less and less influence…

So what can we do? We make them fight our fight. If they’re a shark and we’re a tiger, we make them fight us in the jungle…

1. Increase public distrust of the mainstream media.
…Imagine if [people] knew that CNN has been trotting out a seven year-old Syrian girl with an extremely popular fake Twitter account and making her recite scripted lines in order to manufacture consent for another regime change invasion…The Bana Alabed psy-op is the single most transparent piece of war propaganda that I have ever seen in my life, and we should be talking about it constantly, because they really left themselves exposed with that one.

I think Johnstone is talking about changing the frame. “Bana” was indeed Syria war propaganda. I mentioned it awhile back, but didn’t go far enough. The Resistance Chicks (2 populist-moderate, Christian sisters from Ohio) show Bana literally reading a script while the CNNwhore plays along and pretends it’s real.

When you expose Bana, putting her into a new (and 100% truthful) frame as a propaganda pawn, CNN’s power dissipates.

To continue – I won’t quote it all, but this gives you an idea of the rest of Johnstone’s eight points:

2. Shatter the illusion of normalcy.
…These [media, CNN-type] predators use their trusted, ubiquitous presence in the lives of the public to convince them that everything [bad] that’s happening is normal…It’s normal for your country to be bombing sovereign nations every single day and have hundreds of military bases all over the world…It’s normal that all these politicians seem to do pretty much the same things once elected despite campaigning on very different platforms. It’s normal for elected officials to lie. It’s normal for your government to have the ability to spy on you….We need to snap mainstream America out of this lullaby of normalcy. We need to be the caring friend who tells them that it’s not normal for their boyfriend to be violent and controlling…without the spell of normalcy, the whole thing falls apart.

3. Shatter the illusion of unanimity.
4. Stay loudly politically active.
5. Hold a grudge. [i.e., keep bringing up stuff / reminding people]
6. Always be attacking. [the oligarchy’s / media’s “normal” consensus]
7. Find the others. [telling people “Nah, you’re not crazy — I see it too.”]
8. Have fun. “We have the opportunity to be basically wizards, fighting the word-spells these bastards are casting on the sleeping mainstream and screaming ‘You shall not pass!'”

As always, I’d encourage you to Read The Whole Thing, and/or to share your thoughts.

Dan Savage’s New Best Buddy

Democrats like to fancy themselves as the nice, compassionate people. Evidence for this belief is somewhat… lacking.

Kurt Eichenwald isn’t a random d-bag with a twitter account; he’s a very prominent Democrat Media Operative d-bag with a twitter account.

Update: And then, there is this charming gay liberal.

Update: Also, this “queer” illegal immigrant enjoying taxpayer-funded college at UC-Berkeley who advocates violence against white people to celebrate the phony Mexican beer holiday, Cinco de Mayo.

The Difference Between Red and Blue

Posted by V the K at 12:58 pm - August 4, 2016.
Filed under: Decent Democrats
YouTube Preview Image

And Now, a Democrat Who Isn’t a Completely Terrible Person

Posted by V the K at 10:53 am - November 8, 2014.
Filed under: Decent Democrats

In 2011, the corrupt, Democrat run state of Maryland gerrymandered the sixth congressional, splitting it in half and flooding the largely rural and conservative district with Democrat voters from the Suburbs of Leviathan. It is currently represented by John Delaney, a Democrat who narrowly defeated Republican Dan Bongino.

Having said all that, John Delaney appears to be a relatively decent person, according to Dan Bongino.

In a conversation with his Democratic opponent a few months ago, Bongino revealed that his wife had been experiencing health issues, which had forced him to limit campaign appearances. Delaney responded with a handwritten letter “expressing his heartfelt concerns for my wife and my family, given the circumstances we were dealing with,” according to Bongino.

“I never forgot that,” Bongino wrote on Facebook Friday. “It reminded me that although our wonderful country is currently marked by passionate political differences, these differences should never become personal.”

Washington might be a better place if more Democrats were like John Delaney and fewer of them were like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, Debbie Wasserman-Schulz, Valerie Jarrett, Alan Grayson, Shirley Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters, Jim Clyburn, Rosa deLauro, and the rest of the “War on Women” “Republicans are racists who want to destroy the Earth and bring back child labor” brigade.

I would still rather have had Dan Bongino in Congress, though.


Former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer has nothing positive to say about the party’s philosopher-god-king.

During an interview with MSNBC’s Benjy Sarlin, Schweitzer deferred when asked to name one positive accomplishment by the Obama administration.

“My mother, God rest her soul, told me ‘Brian, if you can’t think of something nice to say about something change the subject,’ ” Schweitzer said.

  • On the issue of Obama’s record on civil liberties, Schweitzer said the NSA revelations were “un-effing-believable.”
  • On the Obama administration’s ability to lead: “They just haven’t been very good at running things.”
  • On Obamacare: “It will collapse on its own weight.”

In fact, Sarlin said Schweitzer would only go so far as to praise Obama for being the first African American president.

Yeah, he gets a lot of praise for the melanin content of his epidermis. On every other level, he’s a SCOAMF.

Mr. Schweitzer may be about to receive some unpleasant attention from the Praetorian Guard Media and probably the IRS, too.


Democrat acknowledges W’s followthrough on Katrina

Of all the left-leaning pundits on CNN, Donna Brazile comes across as the most level-headed and the least smug, in part because the charismatic and sage Democratic strategist identifies herself as such and doesn’t pretend something she’s not (i.e., a nonpartisan observer).  A few others may claim to be dispassionate, but they wear their liberal ideology on their sleeve.

And Brazile, despite her partisan leanings, does give Republicans credit where it is due as she did earlier today on CNN”s web-page, departing from the media-crafted narrative of the immediate past president’s incompetence in responding to the Katrina catastrophe:

Despite the many differences I had with former President George W. Bush on a range of public policy issues, or as he called them, “decision points,” I found common ground with him in one area, simply because we decided to put aside partisanship and do something good.

Hurricane Katrina’s devastation and the bungled rescue efforts are seared in the national memory. Bush’s “heckuva job” remark turned into a byword for government incompetence and public distrust. The shallowness of it coming at such a terrible and low point left deep wounds that are still healing. That was what it was.

Tapped in 2005 by the then-governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, “to serve on the state’s commission overseeing the long-term recovery from the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina,” Brazile saw more than just that one inopportune comment:

Bush understood the need for civility. I joined him despite my frustration because the need was too great for finger-pointing and blame-making. (more…)

My Unrecognizable Democratic Party

The title is from Ted Van Dyk’s recent column. He’s a lifelong Democrat. As a former Democrat myself, who left in the early Naughties[1], I was intrigued. Read the whole thing, of course. A few highlights:

Mr. Obama was elected in 2008 on the basis of his persona and his pledge to end political and ideological polarization…On taking office, however, the president adopted a my-way-or-the-highway style of governance. He pursued his stimulus and health-care proposals on a congressional-Democrats-only basis. He rejected proposals of his own bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission, which would have provided long-term deficit reduction…He opted instead to demonize Republicans…

No serious attempt—for instance, by offering tort reform or allowing the sale of health-insurance products across state lines—was made to enlist GOP congressional support for the health bill…

Faced with a…GOP House takeover [in 1995], President Bill Clinton shifted to bipartisan governance. Mr. Obama [in 2011] did not...

…I couldn’t have imagined any one of the Democratic presidents or presidential candidates I served from 1960-92 using such down-on-all-fours tactics [as Obama did in 2012]. The unifier of 2008 became the calculated divider of 2012. Yes, it worked, but only narrowly, as the president’s vote total fell off sharply from 2008…

In 1965, Lyndon Johnson had Democratic congressional majorities sufficient to pass any legislation he wanted. But he sought and received GOP congressional support for Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights, education and other Great Society legislation. He knew that in order to last, these initiatives needed consensus support…

…former Democratic presidents would…know today that no Democratic or liberal agenda can go forward…if presidential and Democratic Party rhetoric consistently portrays loyal-opposition leaders as having devious or extremist motives….

Nice to see a Democrat who can admit it; a Democrat who remembers the party we used to know.

[1]As the party went insane over Gore-Bush, Iraq and more.

UPDATE: Even David Brooks, the New York Times’ notion of “conservative” who was so impressed by the crease in Obama’s pants in 2008, is starting to get it.

The progressive [Democrat] budget in the House seems to have been written by people hermetically sealed in the house of government. They work in government. They represent public-sector workers. They seem to have had little contact with private-sector job creators… while Republicans may embarrass on a daily basis, many progressives have lost touch with what actually produces growth and prosperity.

Feinstein believes White House responsible for intelligence leaks

Just as in 2010, this year, a left-of-center Democratic woman is running for reelection to the U.S. Senate from California.  And while two years ago, I devoted much space on this blog (and donated several hundred dollars from my pocket) to defeating the liberal up for reelection, this year I have all but ignored the Senate contest.

Now, to be sure, I will not be voting to reelection Senator Dianne Feinstein, indeed, have not voted for her in 2000 or 2006, years she was up for reelection when I resided in the (once-)Golden State.  Unlike her junior colleague, Mrs. Feinstein has both shown respect for her ideological adversaries and actually accomplished some things during her Senate tenure.  (Said accomplishments likely related to that respect).

Not only has Senator Feinstein, on occasion, showed respect for her ideological and partisan adversaries, but she has also dared, from time to time, to take issue with her party.  As chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she does tend to put concern for national security ahead of partisan politics and has done so again this week, diplomatically adddressing intelligence leaks from the White House:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Monday that someone at the White House was responsible for the recent leaks of classified information.

“I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks,” Feinstein said in an address at the World Affairs Council, The Associated Press first reported.

Feinstein said she was certain that President Obama had not disclosed any of the classified intelligence, but believed others in the administration were responsible.

This puts the California Democrat at odds with senior Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod who “has denied that the leaks came from sources in the White House.”  Feinstein’s contention that the president himself did not leak the classified information led Ed Morrissey to quip, “That’s why a President hires staff and appoints political players — to do that kind of work for him.

“Leaks”, that 2010 CPAC blogger of the year adds (more…)

No, Barack Obama is not a pragmatist, particularly on gay issues

I know very little about Gordon D. Fox, the Speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives.  And that little I have read of the man indicates that in the debate over gay marriage, he is one of the few, to borrow (and build upon) an expression, adult politicians in the room.

Although the Democrat, who happens to be gay, supports state recognition of same-sex marriage, he had a back-up plan when he could not get enough votes (on gay marriage legislation) in a chamber where, according to ballotpedia, his party controls 65 of the 75 seats:

Rhode Island’s House speaker has given up on passing legislation extending marriage rights to gay couples this year, because he says there is no realistic chance for passage of the bill in the Senate.

Gordon Fox says he will recommend that the House doesn’t move forward with a vote on the marriage equality bill during this legislative session, and instead will support a civil unions’ bill that gives legal rights to same-sex couples in the Ocean State.

In short, when he couldn’t get the votes on gay marriage, he adopted a different tack — and today the Ocean State recognizes same-sex civil unions.  For some, this may not be the ideal, but for gay couples, it’s a lot better than it was before Fox’s sensible compromise.

Which brings me to Barack Obama.  Last night, when returning him from an Outfest event, I caught this from a lesbian Facebook friend, who had recently attended what appears to be the Democrat’s 150th fundraiser* where she was one of many gay and lesbian Angelenos giving the president an “enthusiastic welcome” in Beverly Hills:  “He is eloquent and charming, but also a very pragmatic realist.”

A “very pragmatic realist”?  Oh, really?   (more…)

The good person concealed beneath our political persona

As I consider measures to promote civility on this blog, let me relate some thoughts about a friend of mine, a left-wing lesbian who often offers tart political commentary on Facebook, including links lambasting Republicans in general and the party’s leading figures in particular.  (Some are based on outdated ideas and inaccurate reports.)

Had I just seen her political Facebook posts  — without knowing her personally — I wouldn’t consider her worthy of my time.  Fortunately, I’ve known her almost as long as I’ve been in LA.  She has a great story to tell and is a good person to know.  She is more than her politics.  And she’s a good friend.

To our conservative readers, bear that in mind when you read a liberal critique of one of my posts — that there is more to these readers than their liberal commentary.  And to our liberal readers, bear that in mind when you read my posts — and those of our defenders.  There is more to us than our politics — and we tend our views with the same conviction you do, not out of any animus for our adversaries, but because of our confidence in their efficacity.

We are all of us, well, most of us at least, more than our politics.  There is many a good person, bigger than his politics, concealed beneath a political persona.

Has messiness of GOP presidential nomination process helped Obama?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:43 pm - January 5, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Decent Democrats

Two of my favorite pundits, Glenn Reynolds and Michael Barone, frequently excerpt and link Walter Russell Mead’s commentary at the American Interest.  Mead, a Democrat who voted for Barack Obama in 2008, but who supported the Iraq War in 2003, offers trenchant analysis of politics and social trends and frequent criticism of his party and its ideological associates (i.e., liberals).

Given his insight, Mead ranks (along with such conservative “wise men” as Barone, Victor Davis Hanson and Charles Krauthammer) as one of the few pundits regularly offering sage commentary on the news of day, often spotting trends before others notice them.  In his post which Glenn linked today, Mead contends that the “driving force in the country remains a deep unhappiness with the status quo and with both parties, but ten months out from the election, this mood looks as if it will hurt Democrats more than Republicans.

The entire piece is well worth your time (as are most of Mead’s posts), but one passage struck out to me, perhaps because his views reflect my own on Obama’s recent uptick in the opinion polls:

The serial rise and fall of ultimately unsatisfactory GOP candidates makes the incumbent look better by contrast even as the candidates field-tested attack ad themes the Democrats can turn to next fall.  President Obama’s numbers are up a bit even as short-lived GOP favorites crash and burn.  Throw in the House payroll tax kerfluffle, and the GOP sometimes looks as if it is trying to drive voters away.

One wonders how the polls will shift when the focus turns back to the incumbent. It sometimes seems Obama’s poll numbers tend to drift upward when he does not dominate the news cycle.

How will he fare when the various Republican candidates stop savaging each other and concentrate their fire on his policy failures and the anemic state of the economic recovery?

UPDATE:  Seems Hanson shares my view that the president’s poll numbers drift upwards when he is not in front of the cameras, hectoring us:

President Obama went into a deep slumber in December. When he woke up this January, he found himself back even in the polls, with neither a press conference nor another overhyped presidential televised address to be heard. Sleep, quiet, and solitude — all that appears wiser than campaigning, visibility, and speaking, both for Obama and Americans. In short, the president has really hit on something: an Obama going into a Rip Van Winkle somnolent state might just mean waking up again as president.

. . . .

The more he kept out of the news and kept quiet, the more his negative and positive ratings went back in sync, until they are today about even, a radical shift in just about a month — and as a result of doing absolutely nothing. Do Americans sort of like Barack Obama the more that they do not see or hear much of him — at least while they hear too much of the Republicans ripping each other apart?

Via Instapundit.  Read the whole thing.

No need for gays to keep covering for Barney Frank

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:57 pm - November 9, 2011.
Filed under: Decent Democrats,Virginia Politics

Patrick Forrest may have come up short in his race for Virginia Senate, but in an Alexandria-based district far more favorable to his political party, Democrat Adam Ebbin won by a comfortable margin.  I knew — and liked — Adam back in my Northern Virginia days.  He is very liberal and extremely partisan, but is a generally nice guy.  He was always civil when we locked horns (as we did on numerous occasions).

And when the then-chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Tom Davis spoke to the Log Cabin Republican Club of Northern Virginia (while I served as the club’s president), that Democratic partisan showed up.  He braved a crowd of Republicans and listened politely when the Republican Congressman spoke, even asking a question, as I recall, and doing so in a civil tone and manner.

With Adam’s election as well as the election in successive congressional cycles of two openly gay Democrats, Colorado’s Jared Polis and Rhode Island’s David Cicilline, to the U.S. House, there’s no need for gays to keep covering for Barney Frank, the arrogant and mean-spirited Democrats from Massachusetts, unwilling to answer for his conflict of interest with a government-sponsored enterprise which he regularly defended and which now sucks cash from the federal treasury.

Polis, while very liberal, like Ebbin, appears to be a very stand-up guy.

In short, Barney is no longer the only gay man in elective office.  Unlike Ebbin, he is not the kind of man to whom others can look up; Barney is just not a good role model.  More than that, he’s an outright embarrassment. (more…)

Andrew Cuomo: Trying to be the next Bill Clinton?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:57 pm - November 6, 2011.
Filed under: Decent Democrats,We The People

Well, the current Governor of New York once did serve in the cabinet of the immediate past Democratic President of the United States. But, unlike the Democratic incumbent, he does seem to understand the legacy of the former, the most legacy-obsessed chief executive. He appears to recognize that the shibboleths of his party’s left-wing won’t help win the hearts of the American people.

He’s not buying into the class warfare rhetoric of Barack Obama or the president’s intellectual allies in #Occupy Wall Street. “You are kidding yourself,” the New York Democrat said, “if you think you can be one of the highest-taxed states in the nation, have a reputation for being anti-business — and have a rosy economic future.

Via Instapundit.  Seems this Democrat learned well from his former boss.  His party’s path to victory cannot be on terms which worked in the early parts of the last century.  You can’t treat business as the enemy; the corollary to that notion being that free enterprise is the engine which drives our economy.

Seems this man may succeed where his father failed.

Ed Driscoll, however, thinks Andrew Cuomo Is Kidding Himself (h/t to Insta for this as well).

Perry may lack presidential qualities, but he’s not a racist

The likelihood that I would back Rick Perry for the Republican presidential nomination has been waning since he accused the Chairman of the Federal Reserve of “treasonous” behavior for “printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history”.  Even after his commentary caused a media firestorm, he stood by those comments.

Now, I agree with the Texas governor that it is “treacherous” for the Federal Reserve to print more money at the present time as that would fuel inflation and thus further retard any real economic recovery.  Yet, Bernanke’s action is hardly treason; he’s not trying to betray his country, he’s trying to help it. The policy may be wrong-headed, but the policy-maker does not intend to harm the country.  And isn’t intent necessary to commit treason?

A man who aspires to national leadership does not so fault the motives of public servants — or his ideological adversaries.

That said, I believe the mainstream media have blown the story of the stone with the offensive word (that Perry and his family painted over) way out of proportion.  On Monday, John King devoted a segment of his eponymous CNN program to the “invented scandal”.  Fortunately, he included Donna Brazile in the discussion (let’s hope we see more of her*).  This sharp lady also seems to offer a smart and sensible commentary.

This Democratic strategist who happens to be African-American brought some sense to the discussion:

I’ve known Rick Perry when he was a Democrat. So I believe I can say this with credibility that he’s not a racist. So I don’t think that’s the issue.

The issue is the insensitivity of having that word written on a rock, and not doing something about it, and according to him they did something about it.

Now let’s go beyond that and stop dealing with what I call race in a very superficial way. It’s more of a distraction. It’s more annoying when you discuss it, especially when you discuss it in political company. So I think we need to move on.

Governor Perry will have to say that for himself. I can tell you that he is, at least from my knowledge of him back in the 1980s, he’s a decent person.

While some in the Democratic Party — and their allies in the mainstream media — have been grandstanding the issue, at least one Democratic partisan dismisses this story.  Why must they dwell on stories like this?

Oh, yeah, because their favored candidate has polling numbers like these.

* (more…)

So, it seems waterboarding helped us track down bin Laden

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:43 am - May 4, 2011.
Filed under: Credit to Democrats,Decent Democrats,War On Terror

Leon Panetta has always conducted himself with dignity on the public stage. And in this exchange with Brian Williams, he comes off as a pretty stand-up guy, not milking the dispatch of Bin Laden to partisan ends and giving credit to the immediate past president and his team for their efforts in tracking down the Saudi-born terrorist.

In this video, he indicates that our intelligence officials gained some information that would later help us track down the hide-out of the Al-Qaeda leader through, um, well, “enhanced interrogation techniques“.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

VIdeo via Gateway Pundit.

When asked, Doug Powers reports, “whether or not advanced interrogation techniques helped get Bin Laden,” Attorney General Eric Holder “said he didn’t know.”  You’d think an official of an administration which has been most critical* of such polices would have given an unequivocal response (in the negative) if they hadn’t helped.

Of all the Democrats the president could have tapped to take over from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Panetta seems the best choice. He acknowledges truths at odds with his party’s anti-Republican talking points and acknowledges the accomplishments of Republicans as well as the merits of their policies.

RELATED:  Ed Driscoll alerts us to this observation in Investor’s Business Daily, “If President Bush had not invaded Iraq, President Obama likely would not have found Osama bin Laden. The al-Qaida operative who fingered bin Laden’s courier was caught in Iraq helping terrorists in 2004″.  Ed’s initial roundup on the death of Mr. Bin Laden also has a plethora of pithy points and interesting links.

ALSO RELATED AND WELL WORTH YOUR TIME:  Michael Barone contends that to get bin Laden, Obama relied on policies he decried.

*UPDATE:  Peter Wehner reports: “After all, Barack Obama was a fierce critic of EITs [Enhanced Interrogation Techniques] during and after the 2008 campaign.


I’m on the west coast on business and last night at about 8pm Pacific time, I was getting frantic texts from home: “Obama will be giving a major national security speech from the solemnness of The White House at 10:30pm. Very weird, especially for this President who prefers cheering audiences as much as his TelePrompTer.

And then came the words I had longed to hear for nearly 10 years: Osama bin Laden is dead.

I began to cry as I thought of the thousands incinerated, slaughtered, and fell to their deaths on Sept. 11, 2001.

My heart goes to the family of our close friend — Joe Ferguson — who died when Flight 77 slammed into the side of the Pentagon that bright blue September morning. I hope they will have some sense of closure. The War isn’t over, but the AQ Commander In Chief has been defeated in battle.

My hearty thanks goes to our intelligence and defense communities. A big thanks to President Obama, CIA Director Panetta and SecDef Robert Gates for what appears to be a rare coordinated intel/military ops that worked flawlessly.

Finally, nothing can express my grief and sadness toward the families of 9/11 victims and to those families who gave our nation their sons and daughters in the first round of the Global War on Islamic Terror.


Is Cuomo a Reaganite?

In 1984, the then-incumbent governor of New York’s father catapulted into the liberal limelight with his passionate speech denouncing Reaganism at the 1984 Democratic National Convention in New York.  Now, his son, the current incumbent delivers an address embracing the ideas the Gipper once promulgated on the national stage:

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo called for “a fundamental realignment” of state government on Wednesday, saying New York needs to rethink the services it provides and face up to its overspending problem before it is too late.

“We need radical reform, we need a new approach, we need a new perspective,” said Mr. Cuomo, who was giving his first State of the State address. “And we need it now.” . . . .

The new governor mentioned the word “tax” or “taxes” 21 times, mostly to denounce them and promise to lower them. “What made New York the Empire State was not a large government complex,” he said. “It was a vibrant private sector that was creating great jobs in the state of New York.”

The proposals laid out by Mr. Cuomo — including reducing the number of agencies, authorities and departments by 20 percent and capping the annual growth of state government to the rate of inflation — set up a clash with the more liberal Democrats who control the State Assembly.

Kudos to the younger Cuomo for standing up to his party’s establishment and embracing the ideas which helped make his state great — and which animated the GOP (at least in its ideal form) for the past three decades.

Let’s hope he succeeds in his endeavors to reduce the size of his state’s government and increase the freedom of its entrepreneurs.

UPDATE:  This Cuomo guy is sounding a lot like his colleague across the Hudson:

In the past, notes E. J. McMahon, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute’s Empire Center for New York State Policy, governors who tried to cut the state’s health-care system were attacked with hard-hitting ads like one that portrayed a woman running down the street with a sick kid in her arms, only to find the emergency room locked. “‘Tell Governor Pataki not to kill Grandma,’” McMahon intones dryly. “And the ads work! Pataki caved after passing a few tough budgets.” Cuomo himself has described the process thusly: “The governor announces the budget; unions come together, put $10 million in a bank account, run television ads against the governor. The governor’s popularity drops; the governor’s knees weaken; the governor falls to one knee, collapses, makes a deal.”

Via Instapundit.  Doe hope Cuomo’s Democratic colleague in another big, blue state understand the game the unions play.