Gay Patriot Header Image

Rick Santorum drops the (pink bowling) ball*

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:18 pm - March 30, 2012.
Filed under: Gay PC Silliness,Republican Embarrassments

Back in 1998, Chris Bull published a very good book, Perfect Enemies: The Religious Right, the Gay Movement, and the Politics of the 1990s, about how social conservatives opposing gay rights and gay activists were made for each other.  Every time Rick Santorum opens his mouth and says something silly and gay activists, clutching their pearls and reaching for their smelling salts, respond (in the highest of dudgeon) behaving as if the former Senator has just demanded his legions go out and convert gay people — or threaten them with the hell-fire — it seems such folk were made for each other.

A silly statement is not (necessarily) a hateful one.  Nor does it amount to bullying, but it is often revealing.  “Even in the most private, apolitical moment of the day,” Jennifer Rubin reports,

Santorum couldn’t suppress the urge to judge.” This year it was publicly chastising a boy for using a pink bowling ball. Seriously. The world according to Rick must be preached to all of us.

I couldn’t find video of this, and maybe (as the person who alerted me to the story speculates) the former Senator “was being playful in a pseudo-macho way”, but Rick Santorum is not known for his jocular gestures.  More than anything, this comment betrays a certain insecurity — and a failure of discipline.  What does it accomplish for a man who knows he’s being followed by a gaggle of press to say such a thing?

Even though press reports provide no evidence that Santorum linked the pink ball to gay men, the folks at HRC found the former Senator contending the former Senator’s comments could harm gay people.  Really.

Almost out of breath, HRC Vice President of Communications Fred Sainz said, “This is another example of Rick Santorum intentionally making ignorant statements that have a real impact on LGBT people“.  Give a break.  Most gay people who hear of this will laugh at the former Senator’s strangeness.  Only those who have this need to be perpetually aggrieved will feel threatened by his quip. (more…)

Barack Hussein Hoover, II

Yesterday, two of my favorite blogger/pundits, Glenn Reynolds and Michael Barone, linked a post where Walter Russell Mead compared the incumbent chief executive not just to the worst president of many of our lifetimes, but also to the man considered by many the worst president of the century just concluded, Herbert Hoover. That big-government Republican . . .

. . . had long been known as a leading progressive, and in the face of the Depression he was ready to countenance a significant expansion of the government’s role. His Reconstruction Finance Corporation would be taken over by FDR; it lent money to distressed companies in an effort to jump start the economy. He proposed the creation of a federal Department of Education; he was willing to countenance significant budget deficits and supported important public works projects (like Boulder Dam) as a way of stimulating employment and rebuilding confidence in the economy. . . .

With great intelligence and serious goodwill, both men set about to address the most important issues facing the country and the world — only to find that their chosen remedies failed one by one. . . . (more…)

No Tom DeLays in House GOP leadership

Shortly after last month’s elections when Republicans recaptured Congress, I had planned a post, urging Republicans not to repeat the mistake they made just after the 1994 elections when, in the race for House Majority Whip, they rejected the principled Bob Walker for the opportunistic Tom DeLay.  That one-time Republican leader was back in the news as I prepared to travel to San Francisco to celebrate Thanksgiving with the most important person in the state (my now 2-year-old nephew); the Texan “was convicted [last] Wednesday on charges he illegally funneled corporate money to Texas candidates in 2002“.

While I believe it’s likely the conviction will be overturned on appeal, I did not shed a tear for DeLay.  More than any other Republican leader in the House, he was responsible for abandoning “The Spirit of ’94″ and focusing on building a permanent Republican majority, not on conservative principles, but on lobbyist connections (and financing).  Had he not led the Republicans away from the small-government principles which secured their election in 1994, they may well have had a more lasting majority.

For Tom Delay Republicans, politics was about power not principles.  And in a republic, you can’t hold onto power very long unless you stand for something beyond its maintenance.

Fortunately, the incoming majority party’s slate lacked any Tom DeLays, with its leadership representing a diverse array of conservative opinion.  While incoming Speaker John Boehner supported the TARP bailouts, incoming House Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling,  in the words of former House Majority Leader Dick Armey,  having “the best voice in opposition” to TARP.

There will be no Tom DeLays in the Republican leadership of the 112th Congress.  And that’s a good thing for the GOP.

FROM THE COMMENTS: DaveP reminds us, “The other thing to remember about Tom DeLay is what an abject failure his ‘K-Street’ program actually turned out to be in practice. Never forget that.” Good point.

“Only Out For Herself”

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:28 pm - September 17, 2010.
Filed under: 2010 Elections,Republican Embarrassments

So, writes our regular reader V the K, as Lisa Murkowski gives Democrats a bit of good news, “urging people to come out tonight for what’s being called a ‘campaign kick off,’” as she launches a write-in bid in vain attempt to keep her Senate seat despite losing the Republican primary last month to Joe Miller.

Even with her entering the race, Miller still leads:

Murkowski’s decision will set up a 3-way battle between the incumbent, Miller and Sitka Mayor Scott McAdams (D), potentially turning the race on its head. Private 3-way polling has shown Miller leading, but by a narrow margin.

Why is it that certain politicians just can’t admit defeat, as if their seat is their sinecure.  She claims she’s doing this because of the concerns of her constituents:

“Believe you me, the easier path would be to pack it all up and go do something different,” she said. “If I had not heard this call from Alaskans, I would not be deliberating as I am.”

Um, Lisa didn’t you hear that call of Alaskans in last month’s primary?  They preferred Miller.

This seat doesn’t belong to you.  It’s not yours by right, as perhaps you assumed when your father appointed you to serve.

What is it, I wonder, asking again and again and yet again, that gives a politician such a sense of entitlement?

UPDATE:  R.S.  McCain finds Murkowski’s counterpart on the silver screen and offers:

“Professional Republicans” whose partisanship is a function of career interest. Perhaps they’ve been in the game so long they can no longer distinguish between political principle and personal ambition, but they certainly never let the former get in the way of the latter.


UP-UPDATEThe downside for Republicans:

The primary effect of Murkowski’s temper tantrum will be to force Republicans to spend more resources in Alaska than would otherwise be necessary, and effectively end any chance she may have had for a political future. (more…)

The second end of J.D. Hayworth’s political career

In a few short hours, Arizona Republican voters will do voters in Arizona’s Fifth Congressional District did four years ago, end the career of one of the biggest buffoons in American politics:  J.D. Hayworth.  This man comes straight from liberal central casting of what a conservative is like.  He may have the right (in our opinion) views on certain issues, but he expresses them in ways which invite ridicule.

And he just looks stupid, like the football player who took a few too many hits which impaired his cognitive abilities.

He’s like Foghorn Leghorn, but without the cunning.

That said, the folks at CNN were bending over backwards to portray in a favorable light the man who is attempting to deprive John McCain of the Republican nomination for the Arizona Senate seat.  Ol’ Jessica Yellin lamented how the Republican incumbent had described the former Congressman as a “huckster”, hinting a nasty campaign by the 2008 GOP standard bearer.  She didn’t mention how the once and future talk show host recorded infomercials where he advised people how they could get “free money” from the government.

Nor did she note how he was a champion of pork-barrel politics.  Now, I know there are many reasons for conservatives to be upset with John McCain, but, in this of all years, to have a former politician with a record to the four-term incumbent’s left on spending issues try to run as the conservative choice is really rich.  I mean, on earmarks at least, McCain has held true to conservative principles, in both rhetoric — and practice.

Well, Hayworth did get the Republican incumbent to spend $20 million to hold the seat.  Interesting.  No wonder Yellin was flacking for the right-wing buffoon.  That’s $20 million that could have helped Republicans defeat entrenched Democratic incumbents.

NB:  Tweaked the post to correct a typo and improve the flow.

GOProud Calls for Steele To Resign

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 1:57 pm - July 5, 2010.
Filed under: GOProud,Integrity,Republican Embarrassments

I can’t speak for Dan, but I happen to agree.  The only way the Republicans don’t gain control of Congress this year is through collective stupidity.  This would take one problem out of the collective, at least.

For Immediate Release                                           July 3, 2010
GOProud Calls on RNC Chairman Michael Steele to Resign  

Christopher R. Barron, Chairman of the Board – “Michael Steele’s comments regarding the war in Afghanistan are inexcusable.  These comments are not just another gaffe that can be explained away, they represent a fundamental failure to understand the importance of winning the war on global extremism.”  

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, GOProud, the only national organization of gay conservatives and their allies, called on Michael Steele to resign as Chairman of the Republican National Committee after he made comments critical of the U.S. war in Afghanistan.   Christopher R. Barron, Chairman of the Board:    “Michael Steele’s comments regarding the war in Afghanistan are inexcusable.  These comments are not just another gaffe that can be explained away, they represent a fundamental failure to understand the importance of winning the war on global extremism.   “Chairman Steele shouldn’t need to be reminded that the war in Afghanistan was not a ‘war of Obama’s choosing.’  The Chairman of the RNC shouldn’t need to be reminded that it was terrorists operating from bases in Afghanistan who started this war on September 11, 2001.  

“Michael Steele is dead wrong; the war in Afghanistan is not lost.  What is lost, however, is any shred of confidence that conservatives can have in his leadership at the RNC.  This election cycle is simply too important to the future of the conservative movement and to the future of this country to be trusted to someone like Michael Steele.”

GOProud is a non-partisan registered 527.  GOProud represents gay conservatives and their allies.  GOProud is committed to a traditional conservative agenda that emphasizes limited government, individual liberty, free markets and a confident foreign policy.  GOProud promotes our traditional conservative agenda by influencing politics and policy at the federal level.  PO Box 15861, Washington, DC 20003.  For more information visit our website

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

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.


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:

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.


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.