In their campaign focused on attacking Mitt Romney’s personal life that he’s a rich guy who, in high school, was a bully who cut some guy’s hair, then, as a young father, put the dog on the car roof as the family motored away on its summer vacation, Democrats do occasionally hit on some policy issues, and often in the oddest contexts.

Even (especially?) in those contexts, they do seem to dwell on one issue in particular, that Republican economic policy is little more than cutting the taxes of wealthy Americans  (while ignoring the “middle class”).

As I was quickly scanning the blogs this afternoon, I caught Scott Johnson’s report on House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s interview with Bloomberg’s Albert Hunt and found the top House Democrat doing just that.  When Hunt asked Mrs. Pelosi whether she thought Barack Obama “do as well with the Jewish vote this time as he did last time”, she suggested that Republican support for Israel really wasn’t about Israel:

But I – I think that he will. I think that he will, because the fact is when the facts get out. You know, as many of the Republicans are using Israel as an excuse, what they really want are tax cuts for the wealthy. So Israel, that can be one reason they put forth.

. . . .

Well, that’s how they’re being exploited . . . .

Huh?  A real, “accountable”, reported would have asked her how she made that leap.   Or would have pressed her on this claim of “exploitation.”  What a narrow world view she has.

Why do top Democrats refuse to address Republican policies on the merits and always bring it back to “tax cuts for the wealthy”?

FROM THE COMMENTS:  AndyN posits that “if you trace this ‘reasoning’ back to its source, isn’t she saying that advocating for tax increases on the rich means you don’t support Israel?” Indeed!

Had sketched out a post wondering if the intensity of Obama’s dishonest attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain were a sign of insecurity in the Democrat’s campaign, that perhaps they have polls showing Romney doing better among undecided voters or that their own support is weaker than it appears in more publicized surveys.

But, in his own inimical way, Glenn Reynolds,linking two posts detailing the Democrat’s dishonesty, offered an insight which nicely (and succinctly) paralleled my own: “It doesn’t seem to me that Obama’s doing especially well, but judging by the flailing and desperation we’re seeing from his campaign, it must seem to them that he’s doing worse than I think.”

More on this anon.  Perhaps.

Because I will be attending a conference all day today entirely unrelated to politics, I won’t have much (if any) time to blog.  In order to get something up that might stimulate some discussion, in lieu of a traditional post (is there such a thing as a “traditional” blog post?), I’ll share part of an exchange from the thread following a left-of-center Facebook friend’s post..

Answering one of his friend’s contention that there were many reasons to vote against Mitt Romney, “most of which would seriously damage the country and the world”, I replied that the incumbent’s policies have already done enough damage:

It’s time for a change and some real reform. And given today’s [this exchange was on Friday] anemic employment numbers, we know the current policies aren’t working. Romney is far from perfect, but at least his policies will start to repair the damage of the last 3 1/2 years.

An Obama supporter retorted, “The reason why the recovery has been anemic is that every single attempt the democrats have attempted to try to fix the economy have been filibustered by the republicans. ”

Reminding him how much of his agenda the president pushed through from 2009-2010, I asked this interlocutor to specify which particular bills Republicans had successfully filibustered in the 111th Congress. (And what attempts Obama had made to lobby moderate Senate Republicans to switch their votes on cloture.)  Not just that, I asked Obmaa’s defenders to specify further which particular Bush policies helped drive us into the ditch.

None did.  Maybe some of our critics can.

Just caught his via Yahoo!:

Undeterred by independent fact-checkers that have debunked the thrust of their claims, the Obama campaign is redoubling attacks on Mitt Romney as an “outsourcer” in a new TV ad airing in eight battleground states.

The 30-second spot — titled “The Problem” — claims Romney condoned the Chinese “taking our jobs and taking a lot of our future.”

“He made a fortune letting it happen,” the narrator says, focusing on Bain Capital outsourcing to China, a country Romney has vowed to challenge as president.

It’s the latest in a steady drumbeat of negative attacks on Romney’s record as a corporate buyout specialist, alleging he profited off of deliberately bankrupting companies and sending jobs overseas.

What ever happened to hope and change?

Do hope the Romney campaign — or the presumptive Republican nominee’s SuperPAC defenders — fire back with ads wondering why the incumbent is running a relentlessly negative campaign, actively misrepresenting the Republican’s record.

Seems the only way Obama can win is by repeating repudiated attacks on his Republican rival.

After the market meltdown in September 2008, most Democrats (as well as their allies in the legacy media) pointed, in the most general terms, to Bush-era “deregulation” as the cause of the crisis. They did, to be sure, often have trouble identifying specific regulations the then-president lifted–or laws and regulations that Republican Congresses had repealed while W served as the nation’s chief executive.

Indeed, three years ago, I reminded our readers that

Even Obama-supporting columnist Sebastian Mallaby wrote, during last fall’s campaign, that the “claim that the financial crisis reflects Bush-McCain deregulation is not only nonsense. It is the sort of nonsense that could matter.”

Last night, as I was reading Karl’s post how how extremism is “not just a GOP P.O.V“, a similar thought about Obama’s rhetoric came to mind.  Just as he and his allies blamed deregulation in the abstract in 2008, now, they’re blaming Bush policies in the abstract for the crisis which Republicans believe to be the collapse of the welfare state model.  ”In the Obama version”, David Brooks writes, “the welfare-state model was serving America well until it was distorted a decade ago by a Republican Party intent on serving the rich and shortchanging the middle class.”  (H/t: Karl who excerpted it.)

And just how, Mr. President, did George W. Bush and his Republican minions distort that model?  What specific policies did they implement which shortchanged the middle class?

Am wondering if Mr. Obama ever cites specific Bush policies when he laments all the problems he inherited from his predecessor.  And, no, whining about tax cuts for the wealthy doesn’t count (particularly since Mr. Obama chose to extend the Bush-era tax rates–and the Bush cuts didn’t just go to the wealthy).

Tax cuts don’t cause market meltdowns.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Our critic Levi helps make my point:

Bush is responsible in that there was no atmosphere of regulation from the federal government, so all these financial entities went berserk. Additionally, the tax cuts that Bush passed freed up a lot of rich people’s money, which directly lead to more severe inflation of the housing bubble and made the impact when things burst that much more dramatic. It definitely has to do with some policies that Bush enacted, but it’s his responsibility mostly on the basis of his inaction.

No atmosphere of regulation?  What does that mean.  And note that the only specific Bush policy he cites is one that Obama chose to continue.

It’s not just Dan Savage.  Another left-of-center Obama supporter has offered a prejudiced view of gay conservatives.

In response to GOProud’s endorsement of Mitt Romney, Joe Behar wondered if “the GOProud guys are just attracted to Mitt Romney’s sons Matt, Mutt, Tag, Tip, Tack, and Bashful“. “Does Joy“, asks our reader Greg who alerted me to this story. . .

. . . really believe that gay men only think with their penises? And the stereotyping of gay men as mincing enthusiasts of Broadway musicals is pretty “out there” as well. Such claims from a conservative would be equally offensive — and would be the basis for the same sort of outrage that a Dan Savage type comment from a conservative would be.

Will gay groups take Mrs. Behar to task for her prejudiced assumption about the attitudes of this subset of the gay community?  So far I can’t find anything on the web-pages of HRC or NGLTF.  Nor do they have anything about Mr. Savage’s “hateful remarks” (borrowing the term HRC used when Sarah Palin’s daughter called some a “f***ot”.)

Does it even occur to Behar that gay people, like most Americans consider a great variety of factors when choosing a political candidate to support?

Seems I’m getting a lot of my blogging tips today from Facebook.  One friend linked an article about Bravo host Andy Cohen who, even though he executive produced the documentary, Gay Republicans, doesn’t get gay Republicans:

I’m interested in why someone would support a party that doesn’t necessarily support equality for that person. And I can only assume it’s about the wallet. It’s about ‘I’m a fiscal Republican’.

. . . .

So, I can’t — I can’t understand, Chris, the idea of saying, ‘Oh well, they’re going to put more money in my bank account. Who cares if they don’t believe I can get married?’ I don’t get it.

Hey, Andy, it’s not about equality.  It’s about freedom.  And we support the GOP because we believe the best government is that which governs least.  You’d think that someone who would take the time to make a documentary about gay Republicans would take the time to understand their ideas.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Tim in MT offers:

Only in liberal la-la land can 2 adult men go on TV and tell each other “I don’t get it!” about other people’s ideas and think they come across as thoughtful commentators… *eyeroll*

Indeed.

As I worked on my essay answering the question “What does it mean to be gay”, I reviewed a paper on individuation I had written for a class in Jungian psychology and highlight this passage on the “shadow”(that part of one’s self of which we remain unconscious) as it is particularly relevant to an issue about which I have blogged in recent days:

In recent debates on gay marriage, we see how many gay people have projected their shadow onto Republicans and social conservatives.[1] Promoting a benefit concert for the gay group, “Freedom to Marry,” John Cameron Mitchell, an openly gay actor and writer, not merely faulted [then-]California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for vetoing a same-sex marriage bill, but accused him of enshrining “fear and loathing in the Constitution”.  Mitchell is not the only gay activist to accuse the Governor – and other opponents of gay marriage – of hatred.  Even as they vilified the Governor for vetoing the gay marriage bill, that Republican signed four gay-friendly pieces of legislation.  That is, the anti-gay image that many projected onto him did not correspond with the reality of his record on gay issues.

Instead of understanding why this politician has a different opinion on gay marriage than they do, they define him as evil.  To be sure, gay activists are not unique in ascribing such aspects to their ideological adversaries:

It is in the nature of political bodies always to see the evil in the opposite group, just as the individual has an ineradicable tendency to get rid of everything he does not know and does not want to know about himself by foisting it off on somebody else.  (C.G. Jung, The Essential Jung, 398)

Thus, in projecting something about themselves onto Governor Schwarzenegger, gay activists are only doing what activists have done frequently throughout history.   As a gay conservative blogger, I have frequently found some of our critics projecting their shadow onto me.  Almost since the moment my blogging partner launched the blog, it has attracted regular critics who often post nasty remarks in our comments section, misrepresenting our ideas and attacking us personally.[2]

While I don’t know precisely what these individuals are projecting onto us, I note that their angry expressions are similar to those of other gay leaders – and activists.  Like John Cameron Mitchell, they vilify Republicans and those on the political right in harsh and derogatory language.  To some degree, it seems that Republicans have become a kind of collective shadow for a large number of gay people, particularly gay activists.
(more…)

Yesterday, BuzzFeed offered this headline, Jeb Bush: No Place For Father, Reagan In Today’s GOP. for a story about remarks Jeb Bush had made earlier the day. Problem is the former Florida governor said no such thing.  Here’s the paragraph in question:

“Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad — they would have a hard time if you define the Republican party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground,” Bush said, adding that he views the hyper-partisan moment as “temporary.”

Emphasis added.  BuzzFeed staff did not provide the comment where Bush said, as they paraphrased, “that both Ronald Reagan and his father George H. W. Bush would have had a difficult time getting nominated by today’s ultra-conservative Republican Party.”  Jeb never called his party “ultra-conservative” (at least not in any text they provided).

But, golly gee whiz, the headline fits the narrative as does the line quoted above.  Guess they missed that little word, “if.”  Jeb  never said the Republican Party had an orthodoxy, merely offered a hypothetical view of the party — which he singled by that word.

In the very article, the BuzzFeed staff did report that, “Bush also had praise for Rep. Paul Ryan for proposing a budget and disdain for Democrats for refusing to engage it.”  Doesn’t seem that a man who praises a man like Ryan, widely admired in Republican circles, would also call the party “ultra-conservative.”

Bush, they do note, “also blamed President Obama for much of the conflict.”  Wonder what that notion didn’t get more prominence. (more…)

I just returned from voting in the California primary election. Turnout at my eastern West Hollywood precinct was light.

When I went to vote, I gave my name and showed my “Official Sample Ballot and Voting Instructions” booklet. I asked if they wanted to see my ID. California law doesn’t require it, one official said. This is an invitation for vote fraud, I responded.  Well, we don’t require it.  Finally, one poll worker did asked to see it–after I had made clear this was a necessary safeguard, expressing the fear that someone could use lax standards at precincts to steal an election

Oh, and if you don’t think vote fraud is problem, look how easy it is for someone to vote under another person’s name–in the case the Attorney General of the United States, a man who uses his authority to challenge state requirements that voters to furnish identification — as did Massachusetts Democrats at their recent convention:

In his Daily Caller piece on Dan Rather’s Wednesday appearance on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart”, Jeff Poor reports that “one-time CBS “Evening News” anchor Dan Rather said that allegations that the mainstream media reports news from a liberal perspective have been greatly overstated.”

Poor includes this excerpt from Rather’s remarks on the Comedy Central program:

“It hasn’t been my experience,” [Rather] replied. “Most journalists I grew up with, most journalists I worked with and practiced with were trying to be honest brokers of information. Now, what sometimes got you a reputation of liberal, journalists generally form an apprenticeship covering the police beat at midnight, after midnight, on Saturday night, the charity hospital. Journalists, the best of then, do see a Dickensian side of society that most people don’t see. So when they try to call attention to that, people who don’t like it say, ‘Oh, you’re a liberal.’”

Via Hot Air Headlines.

Dan Rather seems to be assuming that a concern for the less fortunate makes one appear to be liberal?  What then does he make of repeated reports showing conservatives more generous in supporting charities with their own money than are liberals with theirs?

And please note that I title this post with a question and include it in the Random Thoughts category.

NB:  Tweaked the post a tad.

Shortly after we learned that Richard Grenell decided to step down at Mitt Romney’s foreign policy/national security spokesman, I tried to reach the former aide to John Bolton to ask him a simple question:  whether or not, he, like most gay conservatives, received more grief from the gay left than from social conservatives.

Well, my blogger friends may or may not have passed my messages on to Mr. Grenell.  But, I may finally be getting an answer — or a close approximation of one.  Our reader Leah alerted me to blogger William A. Jacobson’s post where that law professor excerpted an article from Palm Springs’s Desert Sun reporting the gay Republican “took heat from both the political left and the right“:

In an interview with The Desert Sun, Grenell said: “The far left doesn’t want a gay person to be conservative and the far right doesn’t want a conservative to be gay. Some of the most hateful, mean-spirited intolerant comments about me being the foreign policy and national security spokesman for Governor Romney … were coming from the left.”

But it was the far right that gloated louder than the far left after Grenell’s resignation. Leading the charge was the conservative American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, who called Grenell’s resignation a “huge win for us.”

Grenell denies he was forced out by social conservatives, noting that he’s been an openly-gay Republican spokesman for decades.

Emphasis added.  He insisted that he resigned because he didn’t believe that he should be the story:  ”When the messenger becomes part of the message — if you really care about these issues — you should step aside.”

So, folks on the left offered some of the most hateful, mean-spirited intolerant comments about him being the foreign policy and national security spokesman for Governor Romney . . . . Hmmm. . . . Does parallel the experience of us here at GayPatriot — and the reports we have received from our readers.

Wonder when the legacy media will get around to cover that particular aspect of the Grenell matter — or the general story about left-wing intolerance toward “uppity” conservative minorities — and if they’re going to ask the “first gay president”, to borrow and paraphrase an expression, to differentiate himself from such hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric.

Recall that North Carolina teacher, now suspended without pay, who upbraided a student for daring to, as she put it, “disrespect” the President of the United States in her classroom.  She had told her class that it was “criminal to slander a president”:

“Do you realize that people were arrested for saying things bad about Bush?” she says of former President Bush. “Do you realize you are not supposed to slander the president?”

Oh, really, where does it say that in the Constitution?

Nobody, points out blogger Rhymes with Right, himself a teacher,

. . . was arrested for saying bad things about George W. Bush. In fact those who did so became cultural heroes — don’t you remember that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” and that Cindy Sheehan was treated as some sort of demigod by those opposed to Bush and his policies?

Yes, even in the dark days when that supposed fascist reigned in Washington, people remained free to criticize the president and were often celebrated for doing so.

I wonder how many of those same people will criticize the North Carolina teacher for criticizing a student who engaged, to borrow an expression they might like, in “the highest form of patriotism.”

Obama gets Reagan wrong on infrastructure

RELATED: No, Mr. President, Ronald Reagan didn’t campaign on raising taxes

No, Time Magazine, Obama does not “Heart” Reagan*

Barack Obama just can’t seem to get Ronald Reagan right.

In the past year, we’ve heard Democrats, including the president himself, fault Republicans in the 112th Congress for, attempting with their budgets to starve the poor and deprive others of needed social services, as if they insist the less fortunate alone and isolated in a cruel world and oppose all notions of charity and compassion in general and government assistance in particular.

But, as conservative bloggers and pundits (including yours truly) have noted, even the Ryan budget maintains federal domestic spending at or above (mostly above) levels experienced in the Clinton era.

John Hinderaker reminds us of the dishonest Democratic demagoguery in other arena, that of environmental protection, where some Democrats contend Republicans have become far more radical, departing from the traditions of past Republican presidents.  John reminds us that it’s not Republicans who have changed, but the Democrats who have become more radical than they once were:

But is it Republicans who have changed on the environment, or Democrats? What Republicans are advocating repeal of the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act? None. What Republicans do object to is the extremism embodied in Barack Obama’s EPA, a senior official of which says that the agency’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” oil and gas companies.

It’s important to bear in mind that even as Republican candidates and elected officials today talk about scaling back federal regulations and cutting government spending, they’re only talking about repealing legislation passed in the Obama and George W. Bush eras and keeping in place (often to the chagrin of the libertarian-minded among us) legislation enacted before the end of the last century or reducing spending to levels seen under Clinton, Nixon or Reagan.

Maybe it’s that because at least starting in college, we have to confront the biases of our professors, listening to, engaging with and responding to their arguments that we develop the appreciation of opposing arguments.

Yesterday, Bruce alerted me to a poll (which I had also noticed) showing how (compared to Democrats) broad-minded Republicans are:

Yet another new survey shows that Republican supporters know more about politics and political history than Democrats.

On eight of 13 questions about politics, Republicans outscored Democrats by an average of 18 percentage points, according to a new Pew survey titled “Partisan Differences in Knowledge.”

The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party.

. . . .

Pew’s new study echoes the results of many other reports and studies that show GOP supporters are better educated, more empathetic and more open to criticism than Democrats.

Emphasis added.  In addition, more than twice as many liberals as conservatives “deleted friends from their social networks after disagreeing with their politics.”

And yet the perception persists that conservatives are intolerant troglodytes, lacking the understanding of their arguments of their ideological adversaries or unwilling to associate with those holding views different from their own.  Wonder why that is.

The media are all abuzz about Mitt Romney’s likability ratings, perhaps because it’s one of the few issues where polls, even those skewed to favor Democrats, show him struggling to hold his own against the president.  As is often the case, Ed Morrissey puts this story in its proper context, finding that in one of the skewed surveys, nearly 40% of the respondents have yet to form an opinion about the former Bay State governor:

More than a third of respondents (37%) don’t know enough about Romney to form an opinion of him, while only 13% say that about Obama. (Really?  After more than three years as President?)  That is why having a dead heat at this stage of the race is such bad news for Team Obama, along with a re-elect number in the mid-40s.  Romney has much more room to improve his standing than Obama does, and that’s why Team Obama has been so desperate to attack Romney on a personal basis.

Emphasis added.  As non-affiliated voters start to focus on the presidential election, the Obama team (along with their allies in the legacy media) are doing their utmost to define Obama’s likely successor.

They’ll be fighting against the tendency of the American people to give a party’s presidential nominee a fair hearing once his party starts to coalesce around his campaign.  Indeed, one poll which weighted Democrats disproportionally to recent voting patterns, released this past Tuesday “indicates that Romney’s popularity is starting to rebound now that the divisiveness of the primaries appears to be all but over“:

Forty-four percent of people questioned in the survey say they have a favorable view of the former Massachusetts governor, up 10 points from February, during some of the most heated moments of the GOP primaries and caucuses. Forty-three percent say they have an unfavorable opinion of Romney, down 11 points from February. Thirteen percent are unsure.

No wonder Joe Biden is trying to “Bork” Mitt Romney; he and his fellow partisans want to prevent those thirteen percent from gaining a favorable opinion of the presumptive Republican nominee while solidifying the unfavorable view of the forty-three percent.

A nonincumbent’s unfavorability ratings are not set in stone.  Indeed, the New York Times‘s Nate Silver reminds us that once past general elections have gotten “under way, such as in 1988 and 1992“, there “have been clear reversals in favorability ratings”. (more…)

On Monday, when doing cardio at the gym, I looked up to catch President Obama’s speech at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton.  In the eighteen minutes that I watched the speech (until CNN cut away), I heard little but attacks on Republican policies, with frequent references to the middle class.

In a report on the speech (via Instapundit), The Washington Times‘s Dave Boyer reported that

Pausing between $10,000-a-plate fundraisers for his re-election campaign, President Obama called on Congress in a highly partisan speech Tuesday to approve a tax increase on the wealthy to pay for programs for the middle class.

This “highly partisan speech” was an official speech, allowing the president to bill taxpayers for the fundraising trip to the Sunshine State, packing the 30-minute address, as he did, “in the midst of three fundraisers in the battleground state, prompting complaints by Republicans that Mr. Obama was fleecing taxpayers for campaign travel.”

In the speech, billed by the White House, as remarks on the economy, the president offered no new policies to strengthen the anemic recovery, choosing instead to fault Republicans for gutting what he calls “investments” (his terms for government grants):

They proposed a budget that showers the wealthiest Americans with even more tax cuts, and then pays for these tax cuts by gutting investments in education and medical research and clean energy, in health care.

. . . .

Now, thousands of medical research grants for things like Alzheimer’s and cancer and AIDS would be eliminated.  Tens of thousands of researchers and students and teachers could lose their jobs.  Our investments in clean energy that are making us less dependent on imported oil would be cut by nearly a fifth.

Note the conditional of the president’s attacks.  People could lose their jobs.  Investments in “clean” energy?  Has he been paying attention to the number of such companies which have gone belly up (despite receiving federal grants and loan guarantees)? (more…)

Just caught this on Yahoo! headlines:

Wonder how often Yahoo offers headline which feature claims Republicans make that have a basis in political and economic reality such as:  ”Romney:  Obama policies cause women to suffer disproportionate share of job losses.”*  You could remove the “Romney” from the headline and it would far more accurate than the above headline if Obama were removed.

Take off “Obama” from and, well, it’s just a silly statement with no basis in reality whatsoever.  The Gipper would never support the Buffett rule (see below).

In the linked article, Oliver Knox quotes the president’s remarks, but also reports that “Reagan also championed the very same ‘trickle-down’ economics that Obama has roundly denounced—the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy lead to investment that generates growth and thereby jobs.”  Yet, only those critical of Reagan’s economic policies use the expression “trickle-down” to describe them.  And the Gipper favored cutting taxes across the board, not just on the “wealthy.”

Citing the actual speech where the Gipper discussed “problems with the tax code“,  an address which included  an “anecdote about an executive who was paying a lower tax rate than his secretary”, Philip Klein reminds us that

. . . Reagan was talking about simplifying the tax code, whereas Obama’s Buffett Rule would add another layer of complexity. Reagan was arguing for allowing people to keep more of their own money and reduce the burden of government. By contrast, Obama is arguing for instituting the Buffett Rule so that more money is available to pay for government programs.

* (more…)

So claims blogress diva Ann Althouse in her post on one of the Democrat’s many criticisms of Republicans for their Ryan budget:

Obama mocked Romney this way: “He said that he’s ‘very supportive’ of this new budget, and he even called it ‘marvelous’ — which is a word you don’t often hear when it comes to describing a budget.” Comic pause. “It’s a word you don’t often hear generally.”

. . . .

My first association, on hearing one man mock another for saying “marvelous,” was: Gay. It’s an I’m-more-manly move. I heard a smidgeon of homophobia. Perhaps I heard it because, a few days ago, on winning the Wisconsin primary, Romney introduced Ryan, saying: “Congressman Ryan, he’s a great leader, wonderful speaker, but he’s not gonna take Ann’s place.” (Ann being, of course, Mitt’s wife.) At the time, I quipped: “Combatting the ‘bromance’ rumors!”

. . . .

But Romney uttered “marvelous,” the adjective. He was talking about Paul Ryan’s budget, and Obama snickered. Am I wrong to hear a tone of homophobia? (more…)