Gay Patriot Header Image

The former Congressman dons clown shoes

In the upcoming primary for the United States Senate seat currently held by 2008 GOP nominee John McCain, I have been quietly rooting for the 4-term incumbent, not entirely because of his record (while stellar on national security and spending, has not been as conservative in other arenas as I would like), but also because of his opponent.

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein explains:

I understand why many Arizona Republicans would want to dump John McCain for a more conservative Senator, but I’ve never understood those who argue that J.D. Hayworth is the conservative who should replace McCain. Hayworth, after all, was a top recipent of donations linked to corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and was a reliable vote for President Bush’s big government agenda.

The weakness of Hayworth’s claim to be a small government conservative was brought into sharper focus with the release of this 2007 infomercial that Hayworth recorded for the National Grants Conference, which offers seminars on how to people can get free money from government through grants.

Pretty much summarizes my views of the former Congressman.  Hayworth may talk a good talk on immigration (from time to time), but when he comes to spending, he ain’t a conservative. Got the Klein quote via Jim Geraghty who offers:

Beyond that, the ad is so tacky it makes those “Real Housewives” series look classy. You’re a U.S. congressman, you’re supposed to be above these sorts of things. After you leave Congress, you’re supposed to makeyour money the old-fashioned, honest way: writing a book no one will read, teaching a class that is only for the most diehard of political geeks, trading on your connections with a fat-cat, Gucci-wearing lobbying firm, and in the case of former Ohio congressman Jim Traficant, making license plates. If we have congressman popping up in infomercials, next thing you know we’ll have the President of the United States appearing in commercials for late-night shows.

Like Klein, I too understand why some conservatives are upset with John McCain.  But, at a time of ballooning budget deficits, an earmark-loving, big-spending former Congressman is not the man to replace him.

(What) Was Connie Mack Thinking?

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 7:28 pm - April 29, 2010.
Filed under: Illegal Immigration,Republican Embarrassments

You’re subscribing to NRO‘s Morning Jolt from Jim Geraghty (I always have to cut-and-paste his name…that spelling is beyond me), right?

Yesterday he had a great piece in his daily newsletter that outlined the much more moderated, level-headed, and sober criticism of Arizona’s new immigration law. (You know, the one MSNBC declared “Makes it a Crime to be [an] Illegal Immigrant”.) I’ll cut and paste at length below the jump.

Well, leave it to Connie Mack, a guy who represents the 14th CD of Florida (which includes not a border with a dangerously unstable narco-nation, but, rather Naples) to destroy the concept of a temperate and reasoned objection (of which, admittedly, there are some):

This law of ‘frontier justice’ – where law enforcement officials are required to stop anyone based on ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they may be in the country illegally – is reminiscent of a time during World War II when the Gestapo in Germany stopped people on the street and asked for their papers without probable cause

Perhaps Representative Mack should do some investigating before he opened his mouth. The part I highlighted above is completely untrue and misrepresents the law totally. It could have come from Keith Olbermann. Maybe it did.

Clearly put, the law requires law enforcement to check citizenship only while engaged in “lawful contact, i.e., pulled over already for, say, speeding or hazardously driving. Can this law perhaps be abused by bad cops? Abso-freakin’-lutely. But so can all the laws up to now. Not that this isn’t a legitimate concern, but to characterize this as some sort of Hitler-esque Stasi move is ridiculous and below a Congressman. Espeically a Republican one. Having an issue with this and it making one feel uncomfortable is fair. I’m not totally sold on it myself. But come on, Connie.

(more…)

Steele Plays Race Card

As embarrassing as it is to have an American president who can’t get enough of travelling the world apologizing for what he (and our enemies) perceives as our Nation’s wrongs to whomever will pause long enough for him to bow, comes today RNC Chairman Michael Steele to do the domestic equivalent:

Why should an African-American vote Republican?

“You really don’t have a reason to, to be honest — we haven’t done a very good job of really giving you one. True? True,” Republican National Chairman Michael Steele told 200 DePaul University students Tuesday night.

Can someone please explain why we need an opposition party if its leader is trying so hard to validate the most insidious and obscene false characterization of it himself? Did he turn over the Queen of Diamonds? (Read the rest of the article to see Steele play the race card, victim, and pander to the NAACP…I hope he spoke before dinner had been served.)

Chairman Steele’s response wasn’t, but should have been:

“Why, it would seem to me that the ideas of smaller government, a strong national defense, greater individual liberty, lower taxes would appeal to all Americans. Frankly, we’ve done a good job communicating these values, but a poor job living up to them. Indeed, when we put forth policies and execute programs based on these core principles, the Republican party thrives. At times, however—and I have to honestly say that, to a degree my own time at the helm has occasioned some of this—we get so caught up in the game of government—that Inside-The-Beltway mentality—that we lose track of these important concepts and let power go to our heads.”

Then he should have hit them with this:

“As I said, these are universal American concepts, and frankly, I find the concept of “reaching out” to specific racial segments of the American family anathema to what it means to be American, and quite offensive in its supposition. What black American wouldn’t embrace the concepts of smaller governemnt? Of individual liberty and responsibility? Of lower taxes and a strong defense? To suggest that the Republican party—or any party—needs to do something to appeal specifically to a racial group is insulting to that group. It’s saying that black Americans categorically are opposed (or at least not attracted) to these very values upon which our Nation was founded. Really? Who thinks that? Obviously the Democratic Party does, as they are constantly bringing up race as if we as Americans have a different set of values or goals simply because we don’t share the same skin tone. That, my friends, is offensive. That is racist. That is why I prefer to be a Republican. For even with all our failings that come with the trappings of power, we have always been the party of equal opportunity and equal treatment based in individual liberty and freedom from government overrreach.”

Perhaps he’ll be availed the opportunity to revise and extend his remarks?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from an undisclosed secret HQ)

Well, That Didn’t Take Long:

ZERO cheers for the Senate’s newest member spendthrift pig! After only 18 days in office, Senator Scott Brown has already sided with fellow New England Republicans embarrassments Susan Collins and Olympia Snow (along, this time, with pork-lover Kit Bond of Missouri) in voting to saddle us with yet another $15,000,000,000 in deficit spending.

That bloom is quickly fading.

For a man who was swept into office based on his self-described distaste for an out-of-control government recklessly spending our money, he is off to a very, VERY bad start.

I welcome you, as I have in past such instances to contact these Senators:

Kit Bond
Scott Brown (hopefully coming soon, phone number is (202) 224-4543)
Susan Collins
Olympia Snowe

For my part, I am looking right now at the thank-you letter I received just this week from Senator Brown for the donation I made to his campaign. I have choice words for him and will be formulating a reply over the next couple days.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

UPDATE My apologies. In my haste, I had missed that another Republican embarrassment George Voinovich is also responsible for the boondoggle with his “Yea” vote.

And by the way, YES, I prefer Brown to having Coakley in his stead. By now, Stalinized Health Care would already be the law of the land without him. And YES, I realize that his election was a shot across the bow at the socialist Democractic party and thier overreaches, and so in a sense he has already served that purpose (and nobly). But the rose-colored days ended on the day he was elected and he now has to be held responsible for how he performs his duties (sound familiar?). I treat him no better or worse than I do with the other robber-barons of the Republican party (see links in my original post above to see historical proof of this). It is a greater let-down considering I donated to him because of certain things that are still posted on his campaign website:

Why I’m Running… I want to ensure that we leave them an America that is financially stronger and independent: minus a national debt that we can never repay.

I have been a fiscal watchdog in the state legislature fighting bigger government, higher taxes and wasteful spending.

(Emphases mine)

These proclamations, now can clearly be seen in practice to have been only campaign rhetoric. And we’re the hypocrites the Lefties who troll our Comments section say we are if we don’t shine an especially harsh the light on the ones we support when they let us down.

Is an affair adulterous if the unfaithful partner is separated?

On every first date, I try to let the conversation flow naturally so each of us can get to know the other as he is, instead of matching ourselves us to some ideal image of the perfect mate, I do try to get two things across, the first about my politics because I know that’s a deal-breaker for some gay leftists and the second about monogamy because his eagerness for an open relationship would be a deal-breaker for me.

The question always arises that, once you start dating, when does the monogamy attach?  Obviously it hasn’t yet attached to the (first) date I had this weekend where I did broach the monogamy issue (but not the political one). So, I assume it attaches when we define ourselves as boyfriends, agreeing to be faithful to one another.

Some wait until they have had a ceremony, but the point is that there is a clear, definable moment when monogamy attaches. And that leads to the question, when does it “detach.” And that’s not always so clear.  If two parties plan on divorcing, need they wait until the divorce goes through?  Or can they start seeing other people once they make their intentions clear?  And  say a married couple separates, should each partner then remain celibate?

It would seem that in some such cases, celibacy would be unwarranted. And that makes Senator Ensign’s affair a bit less problematic, but it doesn’t excuse Mark Sanford. While the South Carolina Governor has been separated from his wife for “about two weeks,” all evidence indicates the affair had begun long before that separation. Ensign, by contrast, was separated from his wife while sleeping with a campaign aide and ended the affair when he reconciled with his wife. Even so, his lady friend was married at the time, so while his marital vows may been on hiatus, hers were not. It was definitely adultery.

Despite this wrong, there is no evidence the Nevada Senator abused hs position as a public official.  Sanford, however, appears to have used state resources to fund his tryst.  So, I’m with John Podhoretz on this one, he really has “no choice but to resign.

But, this all leads me to wonder if the media would give the Nevada Republican a pass if he had had different partisan affiliation?

UPDATE:  Glenn links a great article this morning on Reason where Steve Chapman offers some thoughts on adultery which pretty much parallel my own.  He does not, however, address the separation “conundrum.”  Since Sanford was not separated at the time his affair began, he was clearly violating his marital vows.   Chapman pretty much echoes my views, holding “Sex without marriage is OK. Sex in violation of marriage is not“: (more…)

Republicans Pass Cap-and-Trade Bill

Well, that’s the way the headlines should read.

Once again, free-marked hating Republicans are to blame for another Obama profligation of our tax dollars. Yes, the House of Representatives passed today the largest tax increase in American history. It comes in the form of Cap-and-Trade, a taxing scheme whereby the government will be able to extort endless amounts of dollars from companies (wonder where they’ll get those dollars?) for, well, um…doing business, all in the name of their religion so-called “global warming”.

The bill was passed without time to read it (sound familiar?) and would cost Americans several times more than it suggests (sound familiar?) and its passage was characterized as vital by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Barack Obama (sound familiar?).

But as with the “stimulus” pork bill of his early presidency, we can’t lay complete blame at the feet of The One and his socialist minions in Congress. Once again, shameful Republicans made the difference in the passage of the bill.

The final vote was 218-212, with 3 not voting. The number of embarrassed embarrassing Republicans who voted aye? Eight. Had they voted no, or even sat it out, this disgusting piece of legislation would be dead right now.

As a public service, here are the names of those who should be beaten in 2010. Please, if you live in their districts, do all you can to find someone anybody to challenge them in their primaries:

Mary Bono Mack, CA-45
Michael Castle, DE-At Large
Mark Kirk, IL-10
Leonard Lance, NJ-7
Frank LoBiondo, NJ-2
John McHugh, NY-23
David Reichert, WA-8
Chris Smith, NJ-4

I encourage all who live in these districts to call their Representative and let them know that you’ll be waiting for them when they get back from DC for their Independence Day vacation.

Next this legislation moves to the Senate. And we remember how great Republicans there are at holding the line on anti-business legislation, right?

When these anti-growth, anti-business, anti-free-market policies start destroying what is left of our economy, and people start blaming Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi for driving the country into a ditch financially, let us not forget those in our own midst who literally were the difference in passing such disastrous legislation.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot), from HQ

Sanford scandal detracts from issues (& scandals) of greater relevance

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:00 pm - June 25, 2009.
Filed under: Democratic Scandals,Republican Embarrassments

To a large extent, Mark Sanford is responsible for the public embarrassment he now suffers for his extramarital liaison with an Argentinian charmer.  In an ideal world perhaps, a politician’s privates affairs should not be made public unless they impact his professional duties.  (Well, in this case, they did with the governor going incommunicado “for the better part of a week.”)

We, however, do not live in an ideal world.   The reality, as the Anchoress puts is that media are “just lying in wait for the chance to expose . . politicians, particularly politicians on the right.”  She is baffled that men like Sanford don’t “think long and hard, not just twice but a dozen times, before they indulged themselves in behavior that can only blow up in their faces.” Michael Barone echoes this incredulity at Sanford’s folly, “I can’t understand why so many men thinking about running for president commit adultery.”   Jim Geraghty, while still critical, is a bit more sympathetic, wondering if maybe the Republican, as many men do, met his true love only after marrying another woman (a notion, I should note, behind the primary theme of my novel).

Given the gossipy, melodramatic aspects of this story (it almost reads like a plot from a daytime soap opera or mediocre movie), the media are likely to make much of it for the new few days, if not weeks.  And I dare say they would do so even if it were not for Sanford’s political affiliation, yet that affiliation certainly accounts for the better part of their glee.  (The MSM doesn’t seem nearly as gleeful about the extramarital indiscretions of one of the leading Democratic contenders for the California gubernatorial nomination.)

Yet, this glee, as Roger Simon reminds, comes at the expense of attention to more pressing items of national interest:

At this moment, the eyes of this country should be fixed on the horrific events coming from that company [Iran] and the struggle for freedom against all odds by many of its brave citizens. They need our support more than anything. Instead – and it doesn’t take Nostradamus to predict this – our cable networks will be treating us to wall-to-wall Argentinean hanky-panky cum gubernatorial soap opera when an historical event of titanic proportions is taking place.

Not just that, while the media dwell on this “sexy” scandal, they all but ignore scandals more relevant to politicians’ service in office involving (as they do) politicians’ abuse of public trust and squandering taxpayer dollars.

Maybe it’s because the politicians involved in those scandals don’t have (R)s after their names.

Specter: GOP Killed Kemp

As I said last week — Democrats, you can have this old coot.  He’s not only an arrogant and selfish SOB, it sounds like he’s crazy now (or more crazy than usual).

“Well, I was sorry to disappoint many people. Frankly, I was disappointed that the Republican Party didn’t want me as their candidate,” Mr. Specter said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “But as a matter of principle, I’m becoming much more comfortable with the Democrats’ approach. And one of the items that I’m working on, Bob, is funding for medical research.”

Mr. Specter continued: “If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine.”

So just to be clear, if we all went back in time (say, in a DeLorean) and pursued the Democrat healthcare agenda (which Specter thinks is like Nixon’s) — then Jack Kemp wouldn’t have died.

I’m not even sure what there is to say about this ranting.  Except:  I’ll be surprised if he is still the Senator from Pennsylvania after November 2010.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Accountability for Spendthrifts

Mea culpa for having taken so long to post this. I’m sure you’re all dying to see how the Shameful Six fared this week at the trough.

Well, the vote on the actual embarrassment budget was technically a voice-vote, so nobody would formally have to go “on record” as having voted for it (ah, the integrity of our elected representatives, matched only by the president who found time to hold a ceremony for the ladies on the same day but ducked away out of sight to put pen to paper to use your tax dollars, but I digress…).

The real vote was on cloture to move the question in the first place. If a Senator wanted to stop this piggish legislation, this is where he’d have done it. And did our half-dozen redeem themselves?

Sen Richard Shelby (R-Alabama): Yea
Sen Kit Bond (R-Missouri): Yea
Sen Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi): Yea
Sen Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska): Yea
Sen James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma): Nay
Sen Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky): Nay

Senators Shelby, Bond, Cochran, and Murkowski should be ashamed of themselves. If they’re not, their constituents should contact them to let them know how ashamed they are of them.

Oh, but there’s more! Even other embarrassing “Republican” Senators voted for this monster:

Sen Lamar Alexander (Tennessee) (contact here)
Sen Olympia Snowe (Maine) (contact here) (
Sen Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania) (contact here)
Sen Roger Wicker (Mississippi) (contact here)

Fear not, budget hawks! We have the following Democrats on our side (all voting Nay):
Sen Evan Bayh (Indiana)
Sen Russ Feingold (Wisconsin)
Sen Claire McCaskill (Missouri)

Just think…a couple more Decent Democrats, and we could have had a victory for responsible government. These three deserve our thanks and should be commended for going against Harry Reid and President Obama and their shameful and irresponsible use of our money. The eight “Republicans” who voted Yea should find other work.

Who needs a drink?

-Nick (Colorado Patriot) from HQ

Fat, Disgusting, Piggish Earmarks…

I know it will make The Detractors squirm, but I’m going to do something that, according to their caricatures of us we’re not supposed to do (that’s twice this weekend): Criticize Republicans.

If you follow this link to the Taxpayers for Common Sense’s spreadsheet of the latest markups to the 2009 Budget, you’ll find a comprehensive list of all earmarks (over 9000 at lastest count). There are tabs broken down by Congressmen, Senators, and by bill (with each department called out).

The count seems to be going through revisions, and they’re now up to Version 3. If you want to be kept up-to-date, keep an eye on the group’s homepage and look for the link to the most recent earmarks post. It’ll be under “Latest News”.

After Byrd (natch), the greatest porker in the Senate is none other than Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, and after him, Republican Kit Bond of Missouri. Then comes DiFi. But then it’s back to Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), and “Leader” Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) also contribute to the embarrassment of a Republican party that still hasn’t learned the lesson by also appearing in the Top 10. WTF?

For those who are not as mathematically adept as I, that’s SIX out of the Top TEN! Together, these Republicans account for $454,404,466 in earmarks (that’s also approximately 60% of earmarks from the same Top 10).

My friends, as Senator McCain would say, this is NO WAY to win back the confidence of the American voter. Sometimes you really have to clean house (or in this case, the other chamber…I haven’t even gotten to the House yet!). If you live in any of these states, (or even if you don’t) I implore you to contact the offices of these Senators and demand they reverse themselves. Without a responsible move, I’m afraid these six Senators WILL HAVE TO GO.

After the jump is the pertinant contact information for the Shameful Six:
(more…)

Barack Hussein Hoover

Last week, Michael Ledeen compared the President to one of the worst presidents of the twentieth century, Jimmy Carter. But, as I read Amity Shlaes’s The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, it seems he has more in common with another failure of the previous century, Herbert Hoover.

Like that hapless (as least as president) Republican, this ambitious Democrat has great faith in the power of the state to fix the economy.

Writing about Hoover in his pre-presidential days, Shlaes observes that Hoover “feared criticism . . . he encountered it so infrequently. Luck and talent had done their work, and he began to feel his greatness was unlimited.” Kind of sounds like his twenty-first century successor.

But, the similarity doesn’t end there; Hoover “disdained laissez-faire economics.” Indeed his presidential predecessor Calvin Coolidge didn’t much care for the incredibly intelligent Iowan:

Where the president [in 1927] eschewed technology, Hoover was always playing with it. Coolidge also hated Hoover’s tendency to react to news with grand-intrusive plans. Could not Hoover see where some of his rescues led?

From this introduction to Hoover and our forty-day experience with President Obama, it seems the two presidents share what Victor Davis Hanson describes as the liberal philosophy:

The liberal philosophy maintains that government, better than thousands of informed and self-interested individuals, can direct and guide our lives and national purpose. It has more confidence in the tenured bureaucrat than it does the small businessman, whose unpredictability and autonomy prove too disruptive to the common vision.

And we all know the results of Hoover’s trust in bureaucrats.

Scott McClellan Makes His Last Stand On Olbermann’s Show

Last night, while doing my cardio, I was “treated” to forty-five minutes (the length of my workout) of insight into the Bush-hating mindset. One of the television monitors featured MSNBC. Neither Chris Matthews nor Keith Olbermann could offer any insight into Bush’s Farewell Address. Instead, they offered insight into their own obsession with the man.

They were upset that he failed in his speech to grovel and apologize for his supposedly failed Administration. When aren’t they upset with something the president has said or done?

Given how perennially upset they are with George W. Bush, his team and his defenders, one wonders, along with Gateway Pundit, “What will MSNBC do without President Bush?” He has become a target on which they have long projected their own inner demons.

Olbermann brought along a professional stooge to help make his case. He invited former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan on the show to comment on the president’s farewell address.  Having nothing better to do, he accepted.  Well McClellan didn’t offer much analysis, just ofered some left-wing talking points about how Bush failed to be candid with the American people and didn’t admit his mistakes.

He didn’t address the substance of Bush’s message, merely commented on what wasn’t there. He knew how to please his left-wing host.  Basically, he just repeated Obemann’s points, but with different words.  Well, he did call W a decent guy, words which never pass that angry announcer’s lips.

Look, Scott may not have been a very competent spokesman for a president under constant attack from the news media, but he’s not stupid. He knows that conservatives weren’t pleased with his performance as White House Press Secretary. He was forever in a “defensive crouch,” failing to properly promote Administration policies and discredit dishonest attacks, and take issue with antagonistic arguments.

Eager for him to leave the Administration, conservatives would not be honoring him at their conclaves or featuring him on their television and radio programs.

But, the left-wing media forever maligning McClellan’s former boss would give a place of honor to an Administration turncoat. He knew what it would take to gain their favor: bash Bush and his team.

(more…)

If Senator Stevens Holds His Lead . . .

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:53 am - November 5, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Elections,Republican Embarrassments

. . . who will Governor Palin appoint to replace him if his conviction is upheld or the Senate expels him?

Ted Stevens & the Problem of the GOP

While we have said little about Ted Stevens on this blog, with Bruce offering one mocking post, noting the number of projects named for Alaska’s senior senator he discovered when he visited Anchorage, we have not hesitated to criticize members of our party for continuing to push pork-barrel projects.  I took on then-Senator Trent Lett on his penchant for pork here and addressed the problem of Jerry Lewis, then-Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, in this post.

And Stevens, famous for seeking an earmark for the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” has long been the king of Pork.

The pork-barreling ways of such Republican leaders are one reason Lewis and many other House (& Senate) Republicans are now former committee chairmen.  Had Republicans stayed true to our party’s fiscal principles and not adopted the spendthrift ways of such legislators as Stevens, Lewis and Lott, the GOP might still have its congressional majorities.

Thus, I’m not shedding a tear for the Alaska Senator’s latest woes.  He seems to think his forty year-Senate exempts him from the normal Senate disclosure rules.  Maybe it’s that he’s never “had a close election race since being appointed to the Senate in 1968.

If he were a decent man, he would say that, after his long career, he wants to leave politics with his good name intact.  Thus, he will withdraw from the current Senate campaign in order to focus all his efforts on defeating the charges against him.  

Personally, I think he should have retired long ago.  And Glenn Reynolds has been publicly calling for his retirement for at least a year.

Ted Stevens really represents one of the greatest problems of the GOP in recent years.  Many of our leading politicians subscribe only to the principles of power and pork and not the conservative ideas which have proven successful for Republican candidates in any number of elections over the years.  No wonder that while the Democrats currently enjoy an edge in party identification, more Americans identify as conservative than as liberal.

This “ideology gap” could help he GOP if our elected officials stayed true to their principles.  But, alas, all too often, we’re saddled with unprincipled politicians like Ted Stevens.

Life’s Little Ironies: McClellan Wrote a Book, McCurry Didn’t

Funny that the White House Press Secretary who helped facilitate an Administration’s decline in the polls writes a book while the one who helped save his boss from having a public relations disaster sink him doesn’t.

Scott McClellan, considered one of the least effective press secretaries in the history of presidential public relations gains his fifteen minutes of fame and media accolades (now all but over) by writing a book trashing his colleagues. Mike McCurry, however, considered one of the most successful such press secretaries, never wrote a book about his White House experiences.

I would love to learn about the challenges McCurry faced as he helped Bill Clinton save face.

Just an interesting irony of life that of two men who plied the same trade, the one who was less successful wrote the book. Almost as if Rommel wrote the book on military strategy in World War II while Patton, Montgomery, Eisenhower and Patton all remained silent.

And all this reminds me of another McClellan. It’s as if General George McClellan wrote a book on the Union’s military strategy in the Civil War while General Ulysses S. Grant did not.

UPDATE (only slightly related): Maybe I spoke too soon on McClellan’s fifteen minutes being all but over. Yahoo! (ever ressembling the MSM in its anti-Republican tilt) leads with this news item: Former aide: Bush should tell all on CIA leak. If McClellan’s new views didn’t correspond with the MSM narrative, they wouldn’t pay him much any heed.

(more…)

McClellan: Showing Symptoms of Huffingtonitis?

An individual afflicted with Huffingtonitis (named for one if the syndrome’s most prominent victims) “defines his political views and makes public statements in order to win social approval and/or acceptance.”

By his own admission, an outsider in the Bush White House and pretty much shunned by conservatives since he left (due, in large part, to his dismal performance as Press Secretary), Scott McClellan must certainly be seeking a place to belong. Now that he has been warmly embraced by Keith Olbermann, the angry left’s most prominent representative in cable TV, expect him to tilt even farther to the left so as to better fit in — and convince his new-found friends and admirers that he really is one of them.

It doesn’t matter to them that, if what he now professes to be true defines him as a coward and conscious collaborator with the “Bush regime,” what’s important it that he now toes the party line.  That way he can better find acceptance.

Basking in the adulation of Olbermann and his ilk, McClellan now knows what he needs do to find welcome in that crowd. Arianna, David Brock and Andrew Sullivan, you’ve got company!

McClellan: Selling Out to Sell his Book (& secure his fame)

Scott McClellan, perhaps the least distinguished of White House press secretaries in recent years, has now found himself the center of a media firestorm. It’s not unusual in this media culture for such mediocrities to gain such attention Usually when they do, they have something the media wants to sell or promote.

In most cases, their fame doesn’t last very long. I doubt that he has the staying power of a Paris Hilton or Madonna. Some people do find Hilton attractive while the latter has a passable singing voice and a talent for understanding the music industry and pop culture. McClellan, well, um, what qualities did he have? Um, Um. . . . .

Wait a second, how did he ever get this job in the first place?

Whatever the case, he has shown himself to be a person of incredibly low class, one who would sit silently by while supporting an Administration (which he now claims was) pushing propaganda and deception or as one who would sell out the man who gave him the job which put him in a position to achieve such prominence.

Last night on FoxNews’ Special Report with Brit Hume, Charles Krauthammer said as much (pretty much nailing it in my view):

Frances Townsend, who was the president’s terrorism advisor in the White House, said earlier today that there were lots of meetings in the White House among the advisors with lots of give and take and questioning, and pushing back, and that in these meetings Scott McClellan said nothing.

You also heard others have said — Ari Fleischer, who was his predecessor, and who was close to him, said that Scott McClellan never shared any of these misgivings in public or in private.

So you’ve got to ask yourself what kind of man collaborates on what he now says was deceptive propaganda to drag America into what he now calls an unnecessary war, and does it without ever privately or publicly saying anything, and without doing the obvious, which is to resign.

And the answer is one of two things — either he is the most dishonorable man in Washington, staying in a position and collaborating in what are essentially high crimes that he now asserts, or this is a guy, a young man, who sort of left under a cloud, who had one of the most undistinguished careers as a Press Secretary ever, who was legendary for his incoherence, and who doesn’t have a lot of big future on the side, is going to cash in on the one chance — the book — by telling stuff like the scurrilous stuff he has in the book about overhearing the president talking about alleged cocaine use in a telephone discussion.

That kind of stuff, I think, is — he knew that that would sell, and that’s why he did it.

Let me repeat, what kind of man collaborates in what he now claims is deceptive propaganda?

But, I don’t think at the time McClellan thought he was pushing propaganda. I don’t think he thought very much about what he was doing. He just did it. After he left the White House, he had a choice to spend the rest of his life in honorable oblivion or to spin his story to fit the narrative the media wanted and so become an instant celebrity. For fifteen minutes at least.

We’ve seen this all before. Four centuries ago, Christopher Marlowe wrote a pretty good play on a similar topic. As did Goethe just over two hundred years later.

Questions for Scott McClellan

If former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan were over 70, we might consider him for the Jimmy. With the upcoming release of his book, it seems he has learned something that he never seemed to master while in the White House, how to garner favorable press attention. It’s simple really. All you need do is attack George W. Bush, his team and his supporters.

In this book, McClellan apparently emerges for a stance during his White House tenure which Bill Kristol defined as a “defensive crouch” to go on offense against his former Administration colleagues.

With this offense, I have some questions for McClellan:

According to Mike Allen, you fault the president for his “failure to be open and forthright on Iraq.” I agree he should have been more forthcoming on Iraq. But, Scott, you were press secretary, did you press the president to do so? Wasn’t that your job?

Then, you go on to call the war a “serious strategic blunder,” contending it “was not necessary.” When did you come to that conclusion? If you came to that conclusion while working at the White House, why didn’t you resign? Or at least share these doubts with the president and your colleagues?

You fault the Administration for its “excessive embrace of the permanent campaign approach to governance,” yet claim that you were “outside” the walls the president’s team “built against the media,” indciating you were not part of any White House inner circle. Wouldn’t an Administration engaged in a permanent campaign want to keep the press secretary in the loop so as to better get its message out?

I’m eager to hear your answers to these questions and wonder why you have so completely embraced the rhetoric of the president’s “liberal critics.” Are you looking for the MSM to provide you your next job?

I mean, now that you have offered red meat for the Bush-hating crowd, I’m guessing this book will put the kibosh on the rumors about you circulating on left-wing web-sites.

Log Cabin Gets Free Speech Wrong

In Log Cabin’s release calling on Oklahoma legislator Sally Kern to resign because of her recent remarks, its president Patrick Sammon said, “Free speech doesn’t mean the right to compare law-abiding, tax-paying citizens to terrorists.”

Um, Patrick, actually, it does. That’s why it’s called free speech. People are free to say whatever they want, no matter how stupid. And alas, no matter how hateful.

Free speech protects the rights of misguided, narrow-minded individuals like Ms. Kern to say whatever she wants even if it makes as little sense as her latest remarks. Just as it protects your right to call on her to resign. Or Rev. Wright’s freedom to spew hateful bile about white Americans.

It even protects Andrew Sullivan’s right to call himself a conservative as he verbally swoons over the most liberal member of the United States Senate and backs his candidacy for president of the United States.

I agree with Patrick that “Oklahoma deserves better” than Sally Kern. But, once we start saying that free speech doesn’t protect her nonsensical ramblings, what other kind of speech will we find is not protected by free speech?

UPDATE: I e-mailed this post to Patrick Sammon and he wrote back, clarifying his remarks cited above. To read them click here (more…)

Rev. Wright’s Bigotry More Significant than Rep. Kern’s

This weekend when I realized that since Bill Clinton and Gary Condit, the sex scandals attracting major media attention have all involved gay sex or solicitations for such sex (McGreevey, Foley, Craig), I quickly typed up an observation, perhaps my shortest post ever.

A reader, upset that I hadn’t addressed an issue I had then heard nothing about, wondered why I hadn’t said anything about the “venomous anti-gay hate speech by Oklahoma Sate Rep. Sally Kern” (his words), I replied noting that Ms. Kern is hardly anyone in “the national spotlight.”

It seems the media has dragged this misguided woman into the national spotlight, probably because of her partisan affiliation (alas, she’s a Republican). Her contention that homosexuality is a greater threat to America than terrorism is just plain silly. Ed Morrissey said it best when he wrote, “Republicans at some point have to distance themselves from those whose paranoid impulses lead them to these extremes.” (Thanks to a reader for the link.)

Lots of local officials say some really ridiculous things. The national media picks a comment a Republican made while ignoring those made by Democrats.  How long had they ignored the hate-speech of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright who served the spiritual advisor to an up-and-coming Democratic member of the Illinois Senate and later served in the United States Senate?

They only took an interest in his angry remarks when that Democrat emerged as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

This hate speech becomes a national issue because Senator Obama is a candidate for national office. Does Ms. Kern have such influence? Does she advise Senator Inhofe? Senator Coburn? And heck, those two Republicans aren’t even running for President.

(more…)