Gay Patriot

Just another WordPress site

With DeLay Indicted, will 2006 Resemble 1994 — or 1998?

by

In the wake of Tom DeLay’s indictment on one count of criminal conspiracy, Democrats are crowing. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sees a “culture of corruption” in the GOP while even some conservatives fear that the current Republican Congress resembles the Democratic Congress of 1993-94, the last one where Ms. Pelosi’s party had a majority in the House.
Some Democrats (and even a few Republicans) believe that they can use the corruption charge against the GOP and so regain the majority they had enjoyed for all but four of the sixty-two years prior to 1994. That year, Republicans ran against the Democrats’ liberal and spendthrift policies, their corruption and abuse of power and put forward a positive reform agenda, The Contract with America. They won a majority in the House (and the Senate) and have had uninterrupted control (of the House) ever since.
While I’m no fan of Tom DeLay, I believe the charges that Travis County (TX) District Attorney Ronnie Earle leveled against him are baseless, a political vendetta by a prosecutor who routinely indicts his political adversaries. Earle’s political indictments rarely result in conviction. But, the focus on DeLay should remind us how far House Republicans, under his leadership, have strayed from the conservative reform agenda which brought them to power just over a decade ago. Ankle Biting Pundits observes:

Clearly the Congressional GOP has lost much of its bearings, and is turning into the 1992-1993 version of the Congressional Democrats. And the question arises, what’s the point of having a majority if that majority doesn’t stand for anything useful? If the result is more of the same spending binges, nonchalance on the issue of illegal immigration, an expansion of the welfare state (i.e. Medicare Modernization Act), and the lack of backbone when it comes to cutting taxes permanently and reforming Social Security, then what have we really won?

(HT: Instapundit & Polipundit‘s Lorie Byrd.) Unlike that last Democratic Congress, however, there is already grumbling within the majority ranks. Under the leadership of Indiana Republican Mike Pence, the House Republican Study Committee [RSC] has “proposed “budget options” that would cut spending by as much as $102 billion in one year.”
[Read more…]

Peggy’s Wisdom on Katrina — and our Shifting Attitudes Toward Government

by

In her column today, Peggy Noonan once again shows the stuff that has made her my Athena. In a particularly wise piece, Peggy not only faults big media for its coverage of Katrina, but she also expresses concern about something which Katrina revealed “a change in the relation of the individual and those who would govern him.”
While Peggy finds American nature “in the story of Jeremiah Johnson,” the mountain man who “didn’t like authority [and] wanted to be left alone,” today it seems we “hunger for someone to take responsibility.” Emblematic of this shift in attitude is a story out of Galveston the day before Rita hit land. Peggy saw two cops arrest a “fat Texas guy” for swimming in the crashing waves. While acknowledging that this guy was probably crazy, Peggy laments that “in the America where I grew up, you were allowed to be crazy.”
Instead of government just maintaining the peace in times of disaster, it is taking more and more authority onto itself, often with little dissent from the people. Peggy fears that if we “lose the right to be crazy, we’ll lose the right to be sane.” Thus, we need to make clear that, even in disasters, government’s role should be limited:

It is the government’s job to warn and inform. That’s what we have the National Weather Service for. It is not government’s job to command and control and make microdecisions about the lives of people who want to do it their own way.

I have only begun to explore the ideas in this wise piece. Peggy also does a great job of evaluating “the media’s part in this.” While she finds that “[r]eporters on the ground in New Orleans deserve great credit,” she also noted that “media have trouble distinguishing between the helpful reporting of facts and the whipping up of fear.” Since I can’t do justice to this wise piece in my poor post, just read the whole thing!
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE: Just got an e-mail update from Barnes & Noble that Peggy’s next book, John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father, will be released on George Eliot’s birthday. I delight in that serendipity. Not only is Peggy like Athena, but she also has much in common with Eliot (whose real name was Mary Ann Evans).

Judiciary Committee vote on Roberts Shows (Once Again) why Republicans are Better than Democrats

by

With the Senate Judiciary Committee vote to approve the nomination of John Roberts as the next Chief Justice, we once again have proof that Republicans show more respect for their ideological adversaries than do Democrats. Only three of the Committee’s eight Democrats (Vermont’s Patrick Leahy and the two Senators from Wisconsin, Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold) joined all ten Republicans in voting to confirm this good man. Five voted against. This contrasts with the same committee’s unanimous vote twelve years ago to confirm a one-time American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) activist to the Supreme Court.
Yep, all the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993 voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg even though her appointment would shift the court to the left. President Clinton tapped her to replace Byron White who, while appointed by President Kennedy, usually voted with the court’s conservative bloc; he wrote the dissenting opinion in Roe. v. Wade.
Even though conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer thinks a Chief Justice Roberts would “move the court only mildly, but most assuredly, to the left,” a majority of Judiciary Committee Democrats voted against this good man. My state’s normally sensible senior Senator, Dianne Feinstein, said “her vote was decided after Roberts refused to fully answer questions from her and other Democrats in his confirmation hearing last week.” Twelve years ago, she didn’t express similar qualms about Ms. Ginsburg’s failure to fully answer questions from Democrats — or Republicans.
Let’s face it, while Democrats and others on the left repeatedly accuse conservatives of intolerance and narrow-mindedness, they, by and large, are far more ideologically hardheaded than are most Republicans and conservatives. Bill Clinton won only 43% of the popular vote in 1992, yet Republican Senators respected his constitutional role in appointing judges — even if his first Supreme Court appointment shifted the court to the left. Today’s Senate Democrats are a much different sort, more concerned with answering to left-wing interest groups than in respecting constitutional principles.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE: Powerline‘s Paul writes, “The Democratic “no” vote on the 18 member Committee exceeds the number of Republican votes, Senate-wide, against Justice Ginsburg.”
UPDATE FROM GP: I noted with interest the point that Rush Limbaugh made today. DiFi was voting no on Roberts partially because she wasn’t sure how Roberts was as a husband and a father. Really. So feminism is now decided on whether you are a GOOD husband and father? I thought it was irrelevant to them. Plus, imagine the screams from the LibDems had someone asked Ginsberg if she were a good mother or wife!!! Double-standards never end among our friends from the Anti-Religious Left.

Gay Groups Oppose Roberts Nomination

by

I know Dan (GPW) covered this already….. so I only have one comment. GayCowboyBob owes me $100.
Gay Groups Oppose Roberts Nomination – Washington Blade

“For his entire adult life, John Roberts has been a disciple of and promoted a political and legal ideology that is antithetical to an America that embraces all, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the Task Force.

It hasn’t been confirmed, but I understand Foreman is in negotiations with the Sci-Fi Channel to be the next host of “Scare Tactics.”
-Bruce (GayPatriot) – gaypatriot2004@aol.com

Being a Republican….in Hollywood

by

I think those of us who are gay conservatives can certainly relate to the “coming out” process that a conservative in Hollywood must have to go through.
Robert Averch, a screenwriter in the film industry, has a must read column on being a conservative in Hollywood. Seriously…. this is a must read. (Hat tip – Jason at Libertas)
Help! I’m a Hollywood Republican – FrontPage Magazine

I’m a Republican. A heretofore secret Hollywood Republican. I know men and women who are heavy drug addicts and they have no problem finding employment in Hollywood. I know men and women who are gambling addicts and they work pretty regularly. There’s even a director who was arrested for child molestation and yet was hired by Disney – yes, Disney – to helm a picture, and people defended this decision by saying even child molesters have a right to work. I would bet my bottom dollar that all these people are on the correct side of the political spectrum. They are liberal democrats.
Me, I’m a Republican. A conservative Republican. I believe passionately in free market capitalism. I believe in the Second Amendment, i.e., the right to bear arms (I even own several guns and go to the shooting range with friends from shul several times a month). I despise communism and fascism, and I believe there is a special place in hell for Islamic totalitarians and their Western apologists – probably 99.9 percent of Hollywood people.

For Mr. Averch, this column is an extraordinary act of courage. It is not hyperbole to suggest that his career may be threatened, and perhaps even his personal safety.
We need more conservatives in our film and TV industry so that the one-track liberal/anti-American political thought machine can have their ideas challenged in the “marketplace of ideas.”
Please, if you have a moment today, drop by Robert’s blog — Seraphic Secret— and drop him a supportive email (link here).
-Bruce (GayPatriot) – gaypatriot2004@aol.com

A black cop in the ’70s, Cindy Sheehan & America’s greatness

by

One day in the late 1970s, when I was growing up in Cincinnati, my Dad took me downtown to see American Nazis’ rallying on Fountain Square, the center of the city. In a corner of the plaza just northeast of the fountain, a group of maybe ten unimpressive, mostly unkempt, white guys were rallying for white supremacy and against Jews and blacks. There were more spectators than there were protesters. Indeed, there may have been more cops, standing shoulder to shoulder in a cordon around the protesters, protecting them from the crowd.
My Dad, an amateur photographer, took a few pictures of the event. One of them showed the stern face of a black policeman, probably in his early 30s or so, with an angry-looking white guy behind him, holding up a sign which read “White Power.” My Dad mounted the picture and titled it “First Amendment.”
Later, as I learned more about Cincinnati’s history, I realized in his childhood, that man probably didn’t think he could be a cop when he grew up. At the time, there were very few black policemen. And there he was protecting the freedom of some kook to rally for white power. Some kook who would surely want to deny that man his freedom to choose a career in law enforcement.
Every time I think of that day–and my Dad’s photograph–I have this wonderful feeling about our great nation; his picture said so much about one of the many things which makes us great. As I studied history and current events in the years following that rally, I learned how, in many countries, even regrettably sometimes in our own, the police did not protect the right of citizens to protest, but rather arrested those who spoke out against the government.
[Read more…]

Barone on the ‘04 elections

by

The Washington Times posts an excellent synopsis of Michael Barone’s reflections on the 2004 elections, culled from the introduction to his latest Almanac of American Politics.
Among his observations:

In the safe Bush states (213 electoral votes) and the safe Kerry states (179 electoral votes), a similar pattern prevailed. In both sets of states, Mr. Bush increased his vote share by more than Mr. Kerry did, prompting Mr. Barone to observe: “The 2004 results showed the red states getting redder and the blue states getting less blue.”

And he noted that Bush won although anti-Bush forces spent “more than $55 million above what the pro-Bush forces spent.”
Now, that I’ve whet your appetite, read the whole thing and get the book!
Hat tip: Polipundit.

July job growth stronger than expected

by

The Bush Economy continues at fulll steam. “U.S. employers accelerated the pace of job creation last month and dispensed the biggest wage increases in a year.” In addition, “the Labor Department revised its estimates of non-farm job growth for May and June, saying employers added 126,000 in May and 166,000 in June. Previous estimates indicated a 104,000 increase in May and a 146,000 increase in June.
And thanks to the diligence of my readers, I learned that even the The New York Times took notice seeing that the job growth confirms the economy’s strength.

Dems more involved in voter intimidation than GOP

by

While lately the Democrats’ latest major mantra is “Bush Lied,” this post (Hat tip: Roger Simon) reminded me that a past Democratic mantra was, “Bush Cheated.” Kerry would have won in 2004 had Bush and his cronies, led by the evil genius Karl Rove, not suppressed the Democratic vote in the Buckeye State and rigged electronic voting machines there and in the Sunshine State.
Well, the American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund found that while “neither party has a clean record” on voter intimidation and suppression, “paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression activities than were their Republican counterparts during the 2004 presidential election.” Emphasis added.
The report found that paid Democratic operatives slashed the tires of GOP get-out-the vote vans in Milwaukee while Democratic operatives in Ohio were “calling voters telling them the wrong date for the election and faulty polling place information.” There was also “clear evidence of fraud in the Nov. 2 election in Milwaukee,” where “thousands more ballots [were] cast than voters recorded as having voted in the city.” Maybe W did win the Badger State after all.
Just look what happens when you follow Barbara Boxer’s advice and “focus the light of truth on these terrible problems in the electoral system.” You find that Democrats are far more responsible for these problems than Republicans. Mrs. Boxer could not be reached for comment at press time.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE: Captain Ed has more on this, including an update where he suggests that it’s “worth maintaining some skepticism on this report until more is known about the organization.”
UPDATE #2: Well, while I was busy running errands and getting stuck in LA traffic, then attending to some volunteer responsibilities back here, Cap’n Ed was busy learning more about the American Center for Voting Rights. (Click here, then scroll down to UPDATE II.) He finds that while Mark F. “Thor” Hearne, one of the signatories of the aforementioned report, did indeed work on the Bush/Cheney campaign in ’04, the other signatory to the report, Brian Lunde, worked for Jimmy Carter’s 1976 presidential campaign and has since served as executive director of both the Kentucky Democratic party and the Democratic National Committee. So, as the good captain puts it, the report does indeed have “some bipartisan credentials.”

President Seeks Democratic Senators’ Advice on Supreme Court vacancy

by

In a pretty silly column in the New York Daily News, New York’s other Senator, Charles Schumer, suggests that President Bush convene a summit with senators from both parties where participants “would roll up their sleeves, loosen their ties and have a serious discussion about potential nominees” for the Supreme Court. (Hat tip: Powerline.) Schumer notes that when he was president, Bill Clinton “consulted regularly with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the lead Republican on the Judiciary Committee at the time.” And he suggests that the current president “consult meaningfully with senators of both parties to arrive at a consensus nominee, not only because the Constitution contemplates it.”
I’m not sure where Mr. Schumer gets this notion that the Constitution “contemplates” a “consensus nominee.” To be sure, the federal constitution stipulates that when the president appoints “Judges of the Supreme Court” he shall do so with “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” And as this morning’s Los Angeles Times reports, he is indeed seeking the advice of the Senate, even that of the Senate’s minority party, Mr. Schumer’s party. The president and his chief counsel, Harriet Miers, have talked with a number of Senators. President Bush himself has a breakfast meeting yesterday “four Senate leaders: Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and the committee’s senior Democrat, Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.).”
Democrats and their allies in the MSM have worked themselves into a lather about the vacancy on the Supreme Court, demanding that the president pick a consensus nominee. Or, by suggesting (without any evidence from the authors of the Constitution or its advocates at the time of ratification) that our founding charter “contemplates” a process whereby the president can’t pick someone the minority party doesn’t like. Well, I will only take those Democrats (and their allies) seriously who can point to statements they made to the same effect the last two times we had vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court, back when we had a Democratic president (Bill Clinton) and a Democratic Senate (in 1993 and 1994).
[Read more…]

NBC News Thanks Secular God for Hurricane Dennis

by

(**Satirical Posting**…. aboard the Disney Magic….headed for Los Angeles)
Heard this morning at the morning meeting of NBC Nightly News editorial staff:
Brian Williams, managing editor (to staff): Let’s all bow our heads and say a little prayer to our Secular God who has blessed us today. Had Hurricane Dennis not gone to a Category Four storm…. this would have been a terrible news day for us.
First, we would have had to report about the amazing American economic turnaround taking place under President Bush (Unemployment drops to 5%….lowest since 9/11)
And second, we would have had to devote even more resources today to talk about the attacks on London and Western Civilization by Islamists who we all believe are Freedom Fighters, after all. But when we report on them, sympathy for the War On Terror grows. So we have to be balanced!
So thanks to our Secular God, Edward R. Murrow, for blessing us with a Hurricane today so we can continue our fine tradition of averting the eyes of the public away from stories we don’t want them to know more about. This may also give us a chance to talk about Global Warming….the biggest threat to mankind since the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.
-Bruce (GayPatriot) – gaypatriot2004@aol.com

How Democrats Should Have Responded to Rove

by

I commented last week that the Liberal Democrat Party of the US (used to be known as the Democrat Party) protested way too much at Karl Rove’s comments about how Republicans and liberals in general responded differently to the terror attacks on America. Republicans went to war mode, Liberals went into the “Blame America” first/therapy for terrorist mode.
Well, as usual, the leaders of our LibDem Party of the US did precisely what Rove knew they would do — they would attack him….attack the messenger.
I hate to give the hate-mongering LibDems any advice…but here it goes. They should have the conviction, courage and policy positions to attack THE MESSAGE.
Yep, why don’t they come out and prove Karl Rove’s statements were wrong by articulating to the American public their anti-Al Qaeda voting records and their anti-Al Qaeda, proactive agenda to fight the War on Terror?
Answer: They cannot because he was right. Why else are they attacking him instead of proving him wrong?
-Bruce (GayPatriot) — gaypatriot2004@aol.com

The apology Durbin should have offered

by

Blogger Law Jedi doesn’ think that Senator Durbin’s remarks earlier this week showed genuine contrition. As I noted previously, his office didn’t term his remarks an apology, but a “Statement of Regret.” Law Jedi offers an alternate version of what the Senate’s Assistant Democratic Leader “needed to say:”

I made an unbelievably indefensible statement last week, comparing our military to the genocidists of the Twentieth Century. The comparison was completely outrageous and I was completely in the wrong for making it. I apologize to the people of America for saying such an upsetting thing about their servicemen and women. We have a military that is trying to keep us safe, and while I am not happy with that FBI report I read and may not be comfortable with some of the treatment it described, the treatment is simply unpleasant, not illegal and not immoral, and is the kind of thing that intelligent people can debate. I apologize and ask the forgiveness of the American people for my truly wrong mischaracterization of our military.

(Hat tip: Patterico)

Reaction to Durbin’s remarks (and apology) shows why Republicans are better than Democrats

by

My guess is that, in the wake of Assistant Senate Democratic Leader Dick Durbin’s apology on Tuesday for his remarks comparing the alleged treatment of a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay to that of worst tyrannies of the last century, I expect the controversy to subside. The media will cover this less and less and only a few conservatives will continue to comment on it.
Two-and-a-half years ago, however, when another Senate leader made a similarly offensive comment, the controversy did not subside in the wake of his apology. At the one-hundredth birthday party of then-U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond, then-Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott said that our nation would have avoided “all these problems” had it followed the lead of his state (Mississippi) in voting for Thurmond for president in 1948. That year, the man from the Palmetto State had run as a segregationist on the Dixiecrat ticket. Mr. Lott’s comments thus suggested that desegregation had caused many of “these problems” in the ensuing years.
Eight days after making the remarks, Lott apologized. “A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past. . . . Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement.” Later, he said, his words were “terrible” and stated that he rejected segregationist “policies of the past.” Yet, many believed Mr. Lott’s contrition was not enough. The NAACP thought he should resign his leadership position.
And it wasn’t just liberal organizations calling for him to step down. Conservative columnists thought he should relinquish his leadership post as well (here, for example). Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s ethic entity, agreed. A few days later, Oklahoma Senator Don Nickles, the then-second-raking Republican in the Senate, suggested that Lott be ousted as party leader. As the chorus of criticism increased, encouraged in large part by conservative bloggers, pressure on the Mississippi Senator to relinquish his leadership post continued to build and a few days later, he stepped down as the GOP leader in the United States Senate.
[Read more…]

CT Gov to seek re-election

by

Just learned (via Polipundit) that a great Republican Governor, Jodi Rell, will seek re-election in Connecticut. This good woman became the first governor to sign into a law a bill recognizing same-sex civil unions without being coerced by the courts. It goes without saying that this blog enthusiastically endorses her re-election and hopes that the good citizens of the Nutmeg State will enjoy her leadership for four more years.

Poll shows Americans think Guantanamo detainees treated fairly

by

Powerline links a poll that shows more Americans believe that the suspected terrorists held at Gitmo are being treated better than they deserve than those who think prisoners are treated too harshly. According to a Rasmussen survey, 36% of American thought prisoners are being treated better than they deserve while just 20% thought they were treated unfairly. 34% thought they were treated about right.
I think this is because, unlike some Democratic senators and a few bloggers, Americans see the alleged abuses in the context of how well our military treats prisoners, even those caught on the field of battle bearing arms, but not wearing a military uniform, those cretins who frequently target civilians, including those of their own religion.