It seems the president set the tone for the second half of his first term, his first experience as chief executive with a Republican House (but Democratic talking points notwithstanding, not a “Republican Congress” as his party still controls the Senate) on April 13 when he delivered a speech at George Washington University on the budget.

Supposedly he was going to unveil a new budget plan (he still hasn’t). The president invited House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan whose budget had won a lot of acclaim in conservative circles (and even some praise in liberal ones), but had largely been lambasted on the left.*  Instead of releasing his own plan, he spent the better part of his time attacking Republicans.

The House would pass Ryan’s budget two days later. The Democratic Senate hasn’t passed a budget in 913 days.

In his speech, the president would fault policies of the his predecessor for creating the federal spending problem, telling his audience that “we lost our way in the decade that followed” the 1990s.  But, after crediting Republicans for presenting and championing one vision, he went on to excoriate the plan:

But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known certainly in my lifetime.  In fact, I think it would be fundamentally different than what we’ve known throughout our history.

I believe it paints a vision of our future that is deeply pessimistic.  It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them. . . .

It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors. . . .

This vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America.

Even the Washington Post reported that the budget speech had a “partisan tone.”  Finding that the president “spent much of the afternoon speech at George Washington University criticizing [Ryan's] deficit-reduction plan, called ‘Path to Prosperity,’” the analysts at the Annenberg Center found that the Democrat’s “critique strayed at times from the facts.”

Seems the imperative was not telling the truth, but instead savaging the opposition.  On his various job tours in swing states, the president has attacked Republicans, mixed his partisan rhetoric with backward-looking class-warfare rhetoric (last link via Instapundit).

Which brings me to the title question:  Can the president make the case of his economic policies without demonizing the opposition and raising the specter of class warfare?

* (more…)

It’s not just Barack Obama.  The Democrats of the 21st century will use whatever means necessary, even ones which transgress the norms of political discourse.  In his memoir, the most pro-gay Vice President in U.S. history, reminds us how his 2004 rival attempted to use that good man’s daughter as a wedge issue in their debate:

There was one subject on which he [John Edwards] had done some planning.  A little over halfway through the debate, moderate Gwen Ifill asked us about the the president’s proposal for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages.  Edwards opened his answer this way:  ”Let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter.  I think they love her very much.  And you can’t have anything but respect for the fact that they’re willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her.  It’s a wonderful thing.  And there are millions of parents like that who love their children.”  I was furious with that response.  What gave him the right to make pronouncements about my family?  But you never want to let the other guy get under your skin, so I kept my anger in check.  When Ifill asked me if I’d like to respond, I said, “Well, GEn, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter.  I appreciate it very much.”  ”That’s it?” Gwen said.  ”That’s it,” I said.

When Edwards’s running mate brought up Mary Cheney’s sexuality in the presidential debate a week later, her father concluded that

. . . it was obvious that there was a concerted effort by the Kerry-Edwards campaign to remind viewers that my daughter Mary was gay, to bring her into the debate and into the campaign.  I don’t recall another instance of a candidate for the presidency attempting to use the child of an opponent for political gain.   (more…)

Last year, during “the healthcare debate’s final hours”, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) insisted that “his GOP colleagues need to do more to ‘differentiate themselves’ from the hateful speech spewed” by a handful of Tea Party protesters.

Now, instead of a few fringe members of the Tea Party making untoward comments about their ideological adversaries, we have members of the leadership of Mr. Frank’s party engaging in mean-spirited name-calling. According to Politico,

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.

And he wasn’t alone.  Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi “pulled out a Star Wars reference on the House floor, saying that Speaker John Boehner chose to go to the dark side’ and court the most conservative members of his conference, rather than work on a bipartisan compromise.”   The New York Times called the better part of the debt deal “a nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists.”

Sources in the paragraph above via James Taranto who reports today that the vice president’s office claims the Delaware Democrat did not use the term, but that members of Mr. Frank’s caucus did.  He also provides numerous examples of some very uncivil discourse on the left.  And over at the Sundries Shack, Jimmie offers a snapshot of some of the civil Democratic discourse during the debt debate. (Via Instapundit.)

Do hope Mr. Frank and his Democratic colleagues do more to ‘differentiate themselves’ from mean-spirited discourse.

Perhaps the most depressing thing about the debate on gay marriage is the dedication of gay marriage advocates to demonizing those who oppose state-recognition of same-sex marriages.  With their childish “No H8″ campaign, they contend that people oppose their view because they hate gay people.

No, there are, I grant, some folks who oppose state recognition of same-sex marriages because of their animus against homosexuals, but they do not represent all such opponents.  Many oppose such recognition because they believe marriage should be reserved for different-sex couples.  Indeed, a good number of these folks (but, alas not all) support state recognition of civil unions, similar benefits, different name.

Should we call the legislators in Rhode Island and Illinois “haters” because they moved forward to recognize civil unions for same-sex couples without calling them marriage?

In fact, some who oppose same-sex marriage treat gay people with dignity.  Such individuals have, for exampl,e hosted me in their homes, listened to my arguments, stood with me in hours of difficulty and even let me play (unsupervised) with their kids.  They know gay people aren’t demons; they don’t disapprove of us, it’s just that their understanding of marriage differs from that of gay activists.

Which brings me to the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing earlier this week on the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill (that I support) which repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

While I believe Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) is wrong to oppose the Act pending before the current Congress, he’s spot on when he takes issue with another supporter of the measure:

One of the witnesses before us today says that DOMA was passed for only one reason: “to express disapproval of gay and lesbian people.”  I know this to be false.  (more…)

HRC is not the only gay organization to beclown itself this week.  GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) which bills itself as an organization that holds “the media accountable for the words and images they present,” has just honored someone who uses the harshest of words to defame a group of his fellow gays, those who do not share his left-of-center worldview.

It awarded, Caroline May reports in the Daily Caller, the best blog distinction to a website run by Joe Jarvis, a blogger who . . .

. . . often refers to gay conservatives in language unfitting of GLAAD’s catch phrase, “Words and Images Matter” — frequently using misogynistic language and comparing conservatives to Nazi collaborators.

“One thing about the kapo bootlickers at GOProud, we alway$ know where their prioritie$ lie,” Jarvis wrote in December about the conservative gay group GOProud’s support of tax cuts.

He has also used scatological term to attack conservative bloggers personally. By designating him as the best blogger, GLAAD has honored an individual who regularly defames approximately one-third of all gay people.  Please join me in contacting GLAAD and asking them why they choose to single out someone who regularly demeans gay conservatives.

Gay conservatives who support GLAAD would be wise to ask for their money back and direct it to more responsible organizations.

Since Barack Obama has taken office, the SEIU-backed rallies against responsible Republican reforms in Wisconsin have been the closest thing on the left to the Tea Party rallies against big government on the right.  Like most rallies, theirs have attracted a number of extremists shouting angry slogans and hosting mean-spirited posters.

Last March, when a handful of Tea Party members protesting the president’s health care overhaul called “Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) . . . a ‘Homo Communist’“, that unhappy Massachusetts Democrat said his GOP colleagues needed “to do more to ‘differentiate themselves’ from the hateful speech spewed in the healthcare debate’s final hours.”

Now, Zombie alerts us not to conservatives using “Communist” as a slur, but to actual participants in an rally “co-sponsored by the SEIU” proudly proclaiming themselves as Communists:  ”Not only did the SEIU help to organize the rally in conjunction with communists, they marched side-by-side with communists, while union members carried communist flags, communists carried union signs, and altogether there was no real way to tell the two apart.”

Just wondering, if Barney doesn’t do more to “differentiate himself” from these Commies, does that mean they are representative of Democrats, given Communist participation in a rally of one of that party’s key allies?

Is anyone really surprised?  I mean, REALLY? (h/t - Instapundit)

Glenn Reynolds linked something this morning, to which some of our blog readers had also alerted me, but something struck me today when I actually watched the transcript.  Take a gander at who laughs when Bill Maher makes a statement which would have earned him opprobrium if he were conservative:

The Blogprof who posted the video quips, Maher “will not get called out on his anti-Semitism“.  I mean, well, a Muslim Congressman didn’t castigate him when the one-time funny man called the lawmaker’s sacred text a “hate-filled holy book.“

If the unhappy Barney Frank were a Republican, the media would have a field day with some of his silly statements.  I mean, all they need do is hold Barney to the standards he sets for his partisan adversaries.  Remember just over a year ago in the health care debate when he insisted “his GOP colleagues need to do more to ‘differentiate themselves’ from the hateful speech spewed in the healthcare debate’s final hours.”

Well, last night, Glenn Reynolds reported on some rather angry things said to one of the Massachusetts’s Democrat’s Republican colleagues:

REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN PETER KING gets death threat and bloody pig’s foot. “A frozen pig’s foot and a note laced with anti-Semitic rants were sent to Rep. Peter King’s Capitol Hill office, a congressional source familiar with the situation confirmed to CNN Monday.”

Sounds like hateful speech to me.  Now, under normal circumstances, we wouldn’t hold Democrats responsible for the angry rhetoric of their ideological confreres. But, well, since Barney asked his Republican colleagues to “differentiate themselves” from the angry rhetoric of their ideological confreres, shouldn’t we be asking him to do the same?

I’m not holding my breath.

Will the civility police denounce Democrats for “prying into his family’s private health insurance record“:

U.S. Sen. Scott Brown — an upstart Blue State Republican in the cross hairs of national Democrats — is lashing out at the party’s opposition researchers, accusing them of prying into his family’s private health insurance records, and demanding that they stop fighting dirty.

“It seems in bad form. Obviously, when it comes to information about my wife and daughters, it crosses the line. I find it offensive and so do they,” Brown told the Herald yesterday.

Now, to be sure, from time to time, Republican do play dirty tricks, but more often than not, it is Democrats — and their allies among liberal interest groups– who engage in the “politics of personal destruction.”

It seems that the guiding principle of today’s Democratic Party is retaining power at all costs — and to destroy any Republican who threatens that power.

(H/t:  Instapundit.)

Will ANSWER be in front of the White House tomorrow yelling “No Blood For Oil!” ????

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

. . . can we claim a right to his?

I mean, this guy who acts as if he is today, something he never was, a member of the working class, shocks the audience on Rachel Maddow’s show “by telling the rich and bankers that ‘we have a right to your money!’”  And well, with the success of his movies, the guy can really count himself among the rich.

Noting that Michael Moore had declared in the same clip that “This is War”, Glenn Reynolds quips,

I guess the “new civility bullshit” is officially over. Bear that in mind as you contemplate a response. I don’t think these people realize that they are setting precedents that they may come to regret. They are as feckless in this behavior as they are in their fiscal approach. The consequences are likely to be insalubrious.

As I was reading about the Wisconsin Senate’s vote to curtail the privileges the state had granted pubilc employee unions, I was watching Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted which provided footage of various MSM reporters concerned about allegedly violent rhetoric at McCain-Palin rallies and asking Republicans to denounce it.  Interesting how concerned they were about violent rhetoric when they had no actual evidence of such rhetoric.

I wonder how many reporters will call on Wisconsin Democrats — or any Democrats for that matter — to distance themselves from Mr. Moore’s incitement to violence.

UPDATE:  Yes, the media who seem obsessed with imaginary conservative violence seem oblivious to actual liberal antics as per Bryan Preston’s observation: (more…)

Something to bear in mind next time you hear some from the left complain about the declining civility in our political discourse and the supposedly increasing number of right-wingers, particularly Tea Partiers, comparing the president to Hitler:

The head of one of the nation’s most powerful labor unions did not condemn the violent rhetoric in placards and signs held by union supporters demonstrating in Wisconsin despite two direct attempts Sunday to get him on the record declaring them inappropriate.

On several occasions over the past two weeks of demonstrations in the Wisconsin capital of Madison news media have zeroed in on signs that liken Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and recently ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Appearing Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka was twice asked whether he found the tone at the nearly two-week long demonstrations “wrong” or “inappropriate.”

Trumka did not answer, instead saying, “We should be sitting down trying to create jobs. … “

H/t Instapundit.

If it’s wrong to compare the president of the United States to the late German Führer (and it is), then it’s wrong to compare the governor of Wisconsin to the same bloodthirsty fascist.

Even though our reader and occasional blogger Sonicfrog doesn’t like former U.S Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa), considering him “an example of an anti-gay Republican“, he wonders at the lengths some of our fellow gays go to smear the man whose political career ended over four years ago.  (If Santorum runs for president, his polling may break into the single digits.)

Put the shoe on the other foot. Would you be cheering if someone associated your name with something you considered vile and extremely improper? I don’t think so. The guy is lame on his own.

When he took one of his “very liberal Facebook friends” to task for “gleefully” posting a link to the story documenting the smear, said liberal responded:

bull***t. santorum deserves much worse than this. a disgusting smug self-righteous religious blowhard like him should never be allowed to achieve any significance in our government and anything done to ‘smear’ his name is acceptable.

Anything done to ‘smear’ his name is acceptable?  And this fellow allies himself politically with the folks decrying the harsher tone of our discourse.

“And you wonder,” Sonic concludes, “why I don’t associate myself with the liberal pro-gay anti-Republican establishment that I’m supposed to belong to simply because I’m gay.”

Methinks some of our readers might share his sentiments.  Read the whole thing.

In the aftermath of the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), even after we learned of the shooter’s mental illness and lack of conservative pedigree, the editors of the New York Times, in the highest of dudgeon, still refused to let go of their narrative, telling us that

. . . it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats.

The shooter’s “paranoid Internet ravings about government mind control” may “place him well beyond usual ideological categories”, but heck according to the old gray lady, he’s still “very much a part of a widespread squall of fear, anger and intolerance that has produced violent threats against scores of politicians and infected the political mainstream with violent imagery.”

Well, in the past few days, there have been numerous violent threats issued against politicians setting a state on edge, and, well, this gale of anger, producing violent threats against leading politicians while infecting political discourse with violent imagery, ain’t coming from the right.  Our reader V the K links a video interspersing Democratic calls for civility (and attacks on the supposed angry rhetoric of the right) with some of the language they decry on signs of those protesting Wisconsin Governor Walker’s reforms.

Let’s hope those folks so concerned about the violent rhetoric on the right will rise to condemn the actions of Badger State public employee unions and their allies.

Over the National Review, Jay Nordlinger has been all over this story, with Glenn Reynolds linking one of his many posts and quipping, “VIOLENCE: THE TEA PARTY GETS BLAMED, BUT IT’S USUALLY THE UNIONS WHO ACTUALLY DO IT:” (more…)

Barney Frank Isn’t Retiring Yet. Well, it would be a good thing for the United State Congress — and public discourse — if this unhappy man set off for Miami Beach and away from the television cameras. But, his self-righteousness and hypocrisy are just too easy to mock.  So, maybe we shouldn’t regret that we’ll have Barney to kick around some more.

And, Barney, let me remind you something Glenn noted, “The mockery has only just begun.”

Oh yeah, well besides a strong American President…

No, it is something else.  Can’t quite put my finger on it….

*snap*

OH YEAH!

Why aren’t left-wing progressive actor Sean Penn & left-wing liberal Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) in Cairo defending Mubarak against regime change like they did for Saddam?  Does that mean Penn & McDermott tacitly support The Muslim Brotherhood — the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat?   Or is Muburak “their kind of dictator”… and Saddam Hussein was not?

Just askin’ the tough questions that Katie Couric won’t, folks.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

How else to interpret this comment?

In the next Congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.

The rule is a mostly symbolic overture to the Tea Party, for which an animating cause was that much of the congressional agenda over the last two years, including the president’s health care law and the bailouts for Wall Street, has been unconstitutional.

But some House Democrats are steamed at the charge their agenda has gone beyond Congress’s constitutional authorities.

“It’s an air kiss they’re blowing to the Tea Party,” said Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Barney Frank about the rule. “Anything we’re doing that’s unconstitutional will be thrown out in court. Some of them interpret the constitution very differently, but no, that will not be a problem.”

Emphasis added.  Jennifer Rubin (who alerted me to Barney’s petty petulance) quips, Congressmen “all do take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but I guess the Democrats consider this piffle.”

Poor Barney, that unhappy Congressman from Massachusetts, can’t be troubled to consider the constitutional authority allowing legislation before he votes on it, leaving it to courts to sort it out later.  Guess that’s above the mean-spirited Democrat’s pay grade.

And I thought he was so smart!  Guess he’s just not smart enough to determine the constitutionality of legislation he votes on.

Remember what a crybaby the unhappy Barney Frank was in victory, unable to graciously acknowledge his opponent’s spirited, but, alas, unsuccessful campaign?  Well, as crass as the mean-spirited man from Massachusetts was in victory, his similarly septuagenarian party leader, outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is graceless in defeat.

Via JammieWearingFool, comes her commentary on her successor’s tears.

Incoming Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said incoming Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is “known to cry.”

“You know what? He is known to cry. He cries sometimes when we’re having a debate on bills. If I cry, it’s about the personal loss of a friend or something like that. But when it comes to politics — no, I don’t cry. I would never think of crying about any loss of an office, because that’s always a possibility, and if you’re professional, then you deal with it professionally,” Pelosi (D-Calif.) told the New York Times magazine.

She noted: ”I have deep emotions about the American people. If I were to cry for anything, I would cry for them and the policies that they’re about to face.”

How rich is this comment.  Couldn’t she just acknowledge the humanity of the man and many of us cry at emotionally challenging — or uplifting — moments?  Why does she have to use the occasion to try to lecture her partisan adversary on her superior temperament.  Well, if she she really believes what she says, she doesn’t lead by example.  Later in the post, JWF asks, “As to her claim she never cries over politics, how does she explain this performance?”  Yep, he’s got video of Pelosi crying over politics.

And her nastiness is on full display in her comment on the tears she claims she would shed.

Yup, he’s got the San Francisco Democrat demonstrating, by her own standard, some very unprofessional behavior.

Welcome Instapundit readers!!  While you’re visiting, you may want to check some of our posts on California politics and our thoughts on how Tea Party ideas resonate with gay people!

Perhaps the best thing about the unhappy Barney Frank’s victory on Tuesday was that, to borrow an expression, we will have Barney Frank to kick around for two more years.

As you all must know by now, that career politician was reelected to a sixteenth term on Tuesday, with the lowest percentage of the vote of any incumbent Massachusetts House Democrat this year.  He won with 54% of the vote, his lowest showing since his first election in 1980.  But, that self-righteous partisan did not take his victory gracefully.

I couldn’t watch the whole thing.  He seemed, as Michael Graham put it, “outraged that he had to run a race at all”, even calling Republican campaigns “beneath the dignity of a democracy”.  ”This”, Graham adds, “from a guy who ran millions of dollars in attack ads, repeatedly insulted Bielat, and shouted down his own constituents.”

“In this train wreck of a victory speech,” Ed Morrissey observes, “Frank spent more time attacking the media and his opponent, Sean Bielat, than most losing candidates do in conceding their races.”  Glenn Reynolds thinks Barney “is actually hurt that he had to take it, not just dish it out this time around. But the Tea Party movement has not yet begun to dish . . .”

Glenn encourages us to mock self-righteous politicians like Barney, “don’t treat them with the respect they — wrongly — feel is their due. They’re not used to being challenged. Keep it up, and odds are they’ll either quit, or embarrass themselves fatally.” Well, that’s just what we’ve been doing her at GayPatriot, mocking the mean-spirited man from Massachusetts.

And we’re not going to let up. (more…)