You’d think that with George W. Bush’s departure from the political stage, those on the left who spent the better part of the past eight years seething with contempt for the man while he was chief executive of these United States would be delighted to see the end of his political career.

Yet, they’re obsessed with the man in a manner reminiscent of a man spurned by a lover who rejected him.  Years after the break-up, he continues to rant on and on (and on and on) about his ex’s faults.

I mean, if the guy were so bad, shouldn’t he be grateful the relationship is over?

Not only did the immediate past president provided exemplary cooperation with his successor in the transition (the then-President-elect said he “provided invaluable assistance” to his team), but he has refrained from criticizing his successor.  He has done more than make himself scarce, he’s become silent on matters of state.  Classy that, both the smoothness of the transition and the silence of his early retirement.

He’s gone now, yet all too many of his critics can’t won’t let go of their resentment.  In a line in a recent comment, one of our readers revealed the depth of that resentment.  He has decided that since I have called the former president “decent,” I can’t possibly have criticized him.  (That should cheer my Dad ’cause that makes him a perfect father; none of his children ever faulted him.  While my siblings and I all consider my Dad is a great man, remarkably decent and good-hearted, we have criticized him at various times in our lives, especially during our adolescence.)

In response to my post on how W was classier and less divisive than his successor, this reader wrote, “If you really were critical, and we both know that you weren’t, you’d be able to recognize that Bush is neither good nor decent.” It’s not enough to criticize the guy, you have to believe he was a bad man.

Well, by Levi’s standard, then, Obama has never criticized Bush.  Just before the inauguration, the then-president-elect said that he thought Bush was a “good man.”

What is it about such people that they can’t find a single thing to praise about W?  Even his Democratic successor has praised him (even as recently as last night).  Why can’t they let go of their resentment?  Why do they insist that your criticism is legitimate only if you hate the guy?

No wonder they can’t stand Ann Althouse.  She isn’t sufficiently anti-Bush for their taste.

Astounded. That’s the only word I can use to describe the latest bit of treason (yes, I did use that word, and I meant it) coming from the Old-School Media (I refuse to refer to them as “mainstream” anymore).

ABC News has a lengthy expose on two psychologists who helped develop the interrogation TTPs for the CIA. In doing so, they have put up these patriots’ names and faces for all America’s enemies to see, and their lives at risk.

I can’t really put into words right now the rage I’m currently seeing. I imagine that’s probably for the best. I’ll leave it to you all in the comments section to discuss.

For my part, the best I can consider is taking a (another!) page from the left-wing-nut crowd and target their advertizers. Can we get a list of them? Who (if anybody) is still advertizing on ABC, and specifically their news?

- Nick (ColoradoPatriot) from HQ

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confronts a misinformed critic of the Bush Administration:

Wish more of her colleagues had challenge critics as directly as she did above and wish that the Bush White House had done more to promote such challenges.

Had W had Obama’s public relations commitment, he would likely have left office with much higher approval and the angry left would find less traction in the MSM for many of their allegations, nearly all of which are based on an incomplete knowledge of the facts.

(H/t:  Reader Leah.)

In his excellent piece on the appeal of the Tea Parties and the hysteria they generate on the left, Matt Kibbe writes:

Judging from the left’s hysterical reaction, something really big must have happened. But the only way to really understand the left’s misinformed and paranoid attacks is to realize that the protests represent tangible proof that basic libertarian values continue to resonate with the American electorate. That, apparently, is a difficult thing for some to accept.

Emphasis added. (H/t:  Glenn).  How fitting that I read that in the same week that I paid homage to the most successful President in the past sixty years, a man who said “the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”

What Kibbe say in Atlanta was similar to what I saw in Santa Monica:  a diverse array of protesters:

This was not a typical conservative Republican rally, with local GOP activists, Ron Paul enthusiasts, and single-issue obsessives. . . .  The difference was the new people: Young hipsters, families, angry moms, and retirees alike left their normal routines and work obligations to show up in protest of government policies that they passionately believe will ruin what is unique about America.

But, the “left-of-center reporters” didn’t pay them much heed, instead “most simply regurgitated the talking points supplied by partisans in the blogosphere.”  Kibbe find evidence of their success in the reaction they drew:  ”One reasonable measure of progress may be the sheer volume of vitriol produced by their critics.“

The Tea Parties have given the left something to demonize since they don’t have W to kick around any more–though they still try.

(more…)

Recall how many Democrats, left-wing bloggers and their allies in the MSM dismissed former President George W. Bush as “divisive.”  He engaged in name-calling, a friendly acquaintance of mine alleged recently.  It was refreshing, he said, to have someone in the White House whose rhetoric is more uplifting, less acrimonious.

He later acknowledged that he has grown tired of watching the news, so hadn’t heard much of Obama’s presidential rhetoric.  Methinks that with Obama’s increasing ubiquity on the airwaves, that may be a good thing for the Democrat’s standing among Americans.

But, my acquaintance’s words notwithstanding, the president has been more critical of his fellow Americans than have perhaps any of his predecessors at least since Nixon.  As to his immediate predecessor, can anyone recall when George W. Bush mocked ant-war rallies, using a descriptor cooked up by the most extreme conservative blogs?  Did he try to dismiss the various organs of the news media which criticized him on a regular basis (e.g., New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, MSNBC) as outlets where he’s “not very popular”?

Commenting on the President’s recent statement, “Those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I’m not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around,” Moe Lane observes;  ”He’s not really all that gracious when it comes to dealing with people that don’t already love him, is he? Kind of smirky, with a faint flavor of exasperation.”  As Glenn opines in linking the post, “Say what you will about George W. Bush, he had a skin whose thickness wasn’t measured in Planck lengths.“

I believe one reason Barack Obama tapped Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State in large part to buy her husband’s silence.

As the most popular Democrat in the country until Obama came along, Bill Clinton could give “blue dog” Democrats cover should he ever even hint that he opposed one of the President’s initiatives, particularly those undermining his own legacy (like the provisions in the “stimulus” weakening the landmark welfare reform he signed in 1996).  But, with Bill’s wife in the cabinet, Obama effectively tied that Democrat’s tongue.  Not an easy task.  And a politically shrewd move.

Somewhere deep down, Clinton may well resent Obama.  The incumbent, unlike his Democratic predecessor, actually won a majority of the popular vote.  Not just that, Obama deprived him of his position as de facto head of their party, a position he “held” from April 7, 1992 (when he easily won the New York Democratic primary) until January 3, 2008 when Obama won the Iowa caucuses, a run of nearly sixteen years.

Few outgoing presidents succeed in getting their man elected a Chair of their party, but Clinton helped his friend and fundraiser Terry McAuliffe win election as head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) right after he left office.  While Clinton’s power was beginning to wane soon after Bush’s reelection in 2004, his standing helped ensure his wife’s status as frontrunner for their party’s nomination.

That began to fade with the emergence of Obama.  Now, Jennifer Rubin wonders if the 42nd President no longer a crowd magnet. (more…)

The news media is in  a tizzy over President Obama’s first one hundred days in office.  They seem to see more significance in “milestone” than they did in President Bush’s reelection just over four years ago.  It’s as if it were some landmark event that wouldn’t have happened were Obama just not so gosh darn wonderful.

Well, the news media may think he’s wonderful, but, well, the American people, while generally liking the guy, don’t think he’s any more wonderful than his predecessors at this point in their presidencies:

According to Gallup’s April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton, who got off to a notoriously bad start after trying to force homosexuals on the military and a federal raid in Waco, Texas, that killed 86. Mr. Obama’s current approval rating of 56 percent is only one tick higher than the 55-percent approval Mr. Clinton had during those crises.

Yet, this middling approval rating for a new president hasn’t stopped the media from gushing over his popularity.  The president’s approval is not just middling, it has also slid more rapidly than his predecessors, given how much higher he started.

He took office with a 68% approval rating which, according to Gallup, is “on the high end of the range of initial job approval ratings Gallup has recorded for the previous eight presidents who were elected to their first term.”  Only Eisenhower, enjoying at 72% approval rating at the beginning of his first term, had a higher rating.  Kennedy had an identical rating to that of his Democratic successor.

Perhaps, the President has seen his ratings drop so precipitously because he has strayed so far from the rhetoric of his campaign and the tone of his transition.  Running for office, he promised a “net spending cut.”  Once in office, he pushed through a near-trillion dollar “stimulus” and pushed a budget with a deficit even higher than that through Congress.

(more…)

With the House passing H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (by a 249-175 vote), gay groups are cheering.  I guess the White House is too; the President had urrged Congress to pass this bill.

While I don’t share the view of social conservatives that such legislation could target churches, I do share the concern of libertarians, particularly legal scholars, who don’t like this bill because it targets thought. It enhances penalties for violent crimes not on their degree of violence, but on the thoughts of the attacker.

If someone beats you up because he hates your sexuality, gender, religion or ethnicity, his punishment is greater than if he beats you up because he doesn’t like you personally, hates your hair color, social standing, appearance or outfit.

While gay groups cheer today a bill that will make little difference in anyone’s life (I have yet to see any research showing that such laws deter violent crime), they should be working harder (as at least one gay group is doing) to repeal a law which has an adverse impact every day gay men and women eager and willing to serve and protect our nation.

The Democratic Congress has delayed consideration of legislation repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT).  The passage of Hate Crimes legislation and the delay of DADT repeal is just a sign of the Democrats’ attitudes toward gays.  A lot of symbolism, very little substance.

Repeal of DADT could make a real difference in the lives of a good number of gay Americans while increasing the pool from which our armed forces can draw recruits.  Hate Crimes laws do little more than make people feel good that Congress cares about them.

We should all be very suspicions of legislation whose primary goal is to make people feel good.

UPDATE:  This legislation is more problematic than initially indicated:

HOUSE APPROVES FEDERAL HATE-CRIME EXPANSION BILL. Jacob Sullum comments: Aside from the usual problems with hate crime laws, which punish people for their ideas by making sentences more severe when the offender harbors politically disfavored antipathies, this bill federalizes another huge swath of crimes that ought to be handled under state law, creating myriad opportunities for double jeopardy by another name.

Just look at how he describes the Tea Parties:  ”Those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I’m not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around . . . .“

Emphasis added.  Guess he doesn’t know that we called them Tea Parties in honor of a certain pivotal event in American history.  Wonder why that is.

UPDATE:  Why is the President getting so defensive?  Thin-skinned is he?

Commenting on social conservatives gloating over Arlen Specter’s decision to switch parties, moderate Republican blogger Dennis Sanders suggests that “they probably have resigned the GOP to a rump status,” warning “you can be an ideologically pure party or you can be a majority party, but you can’t be both.”  He’s onto something here.

Yes, Republican needs moderates to reach a majority, but those who see Specter’s departure as a sign of the GOP abandoning moderates ignore the peculiarities of the Pennsylvania Senator’s persona and career.  He has never been much of a party loyalist, using the Republican Party as a platform to get elected, but doing little to help build the party in the Keystone State.  As Bruce put it, except in the years he was running for reelection, “he would just melt into the Washington Elite.“

The GOP did its utmost to keep Specter.  In 2004, then-President Bush and his then-fellow Republican Senator Rick Santorum campaigned for him in the Republican primary.  After the 2004 elections, despite attempts from conservatives to remove him as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, his Senate GOP colleagues kept him in place, with a number of conservatives (including notably Hugh Hewitt) supporting the move.  Just last month, Texas Senator John Cornyn chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) “sent a fund-raising plea on behalf of” his Pennsylvania colleague.  This was after Specter had voted for the spendthrift “stimulus.”

It’s not so much that the party was moving too far to the right, but that Specter sought political salvation in the party that’s moving even further to the left.

While some say Republicans have been taken over by social conservatives, Glenn Reynolds, himself a libertarian, just doesn’t see the GOP’s shift to the right on social issues.  Perhaps, people see such a shift because the party, until recently, had abandoned its small government ways, allowing social issues to appear as the issue which distinguished Republicans from Democrats.

(more…)

While the manner in which the New Hampshire Senate passed a bill recognizing same-sex marriages left much to be desired (perhaps all lawmaking leaves much to be desired), there is much to cheer about this process.

Just like the legislation in neighboring Vermont, the New Hampshire bill preserves religious freedom:

But undecided Democratic Senators secured concessions in the form of amendments in return for their commitments to vote in favor the bill during private meetings on Tuesday night. The key amendment would allow churches to refuse to conduct a same-sex marriage.

While many gay marriage advocates assure us that state recognition of gay marriage will preserve religious freedom, given the eagerness of courts to mandate “equality,” many social conservatives are understandably wary.  That’s why it’s important to include a provision protecting the rights of religious institutions to refuse to conduct marriage ceremonies that do not conform with their particular creed.

It would be nice as well if as Vermont, this bill barred “civil lawsuits against religious groups that refuse to provide goods or services to same-sex weddings.“

That said, inclusion of that religious-freedom amendment shows the merits of going through elected legislatures.

It’s entirely likely Perez Hilton attacked Carrie Prejean because he knew his tirade would increase his media profile.  And he probably realized he could get away with it.  In our contemporary media culture, there’s no cost to insulting someone who holds socially conservative views.

It’s not just that there’s no cost.  It’s that it’s practically become standard practice.

Even when gay marriage advocates do not use the harsh language that he did, when many appear on TV or on the radio, or are otherwise quoted in the MSM, they will invariably attack their adversaries, oftentimes in personal terms.

And that’s why Carrie Prejean triumphed last week.  She didn’t respond to Perez Hilton in kind, merely stated her views.  She thus offers a lesson for those who disagree with her.  Do, as she does, say what you believe, clearly, concisely and with conviction.

And don’t attack your adversaries. Just make a better case than they do.  Respect them as individuals.  Don’t mock (or otherwise belittle) their motives.  Appreciate that they express their convictions with sincerity.  Take the time to understand their arguments and then carefully, rationally refute them.

As I spent the better part of Tuesday away from the web and from any source of news, I did not read or hear what others have been saying about Arlen Specter’s sudden decision to switch parties.

My sense is that anything I might have to say has already been said.  I’ve only read one post on the matter, that of my co-blogger; I pretty much agree with Bruce that Specter’s “only principle has always been self-preservation.”  Though I might change tbe word “only” to “primarily.”

It’s clear he made the decision he did today not out of principle (as he claims) but out of concern for his political survival. He stands a better chance of winning the Democratic primary than the Republican one, though I daresay it won’t be smooth sailing for him next year in the Democratic contest.

Interesting that in the one news article I did see on the switch, Specter did cite “public opinion polls.”  Even he acknowledged he was making the switch so as to better stay in to power.  I’d read that he’d only registered as a Republican because that party affiliation would have made it easier for him to run for Philadelphia District Attorney back in the 1960s.*

Finally, it seems that the Democrats were bound and determined to get to 60 votes in the Senate.  My sense is that they began working on this as soon as New Hampshire’s Judd Gregg withdrew from consideration as Commerce Secretary.

Interesting that no news of this leaked out until today.

In short, this is all about Democrats increasing their political power and Arlen Specter’s trying to assure his political survival.

*UPDATE:  We can always count on Michael Barone to be able to answer such questions for us:  ”Party-switching is something Specter is adept at. He switched from the Democratic to the Republican party to run for District Attorney of Philadelphia County in 1965“.

I grew up in Pennsylvania and as a Republican voter and activist in the state during my yoot, we would always grumble that Arlen Specter only cared about Pennsylvania every 6 years.  The other 5 years, he would just melt into the Washington Elite.

So while his announcement today shocked me, I can’t say I’m surprised.  The man’s only principle has always been self-preservation.  I can’t name one thing that Arlen Specter has ever stood for …. except Arlen Specter.

His own statement is quite telling and reinforces what I’ve always thought about him:

“I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.”

Yeah, it is just TERRIBLE to have the VOTERS decide on your future in office or your past (stupid) record.  UGH!  Such an arrogant sense of political entitlement.  It drives me crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!

GOProud reacts to the turncoat’s decision:
“The decision by Arlen Specter (PA) to leave the Republican Party to become a Democrat is an example of Washington politics at its worst. In order to save protect his political future; Senator Specter was willing to trade away complete and unchecked control over federal policy to Congressional liberals.

“We echo the sentiments of Chairman Michael Steele, who earlier stated: ‘Let’s be honest-Senator Specter didn’t the leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.’

“We are hopeful that the voters of Pennsylvania will see through this cynical political smoke screen.”

Let’s hope.  I’d be willing to donate to a DEMOCRAT to challenge Arlen in the DEMOCRAT primary!  How about it, Ed Rendell?  Pleeeeeeeeeeeeze?

Good riddance, Senator Specter.  I always figured you were a Democrat anyway.  It is about time

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I have to say that when I first heard of the “FAA-sanctioned photo shoot using Air Force One flying around the Statue of Liberty” — I thought, good God, what is the big deal?

Then I saw the video:

I have to admit that I froze when I saw that plane flying so close to the buildings of Lower Manhattan. And then I choked up. Our mainstream media have been so determined to force the memories of 9/11 from us, that it was a shock to see something so similar apparently happening again.

And why did NBC only show still photos of 9/11/2001 in this report? More desensitizing, I assume.

Robert Gibbs = moron.

Gestapo Janet = clueless.

President Obama = has moved on and is now talking to his teleprompter to prepare for his 100 day victory lap.

Obama will rue the day he rolled back the post-9/11 terror fighting capabilities of this nation. This stunt above NYC is just a reminder.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

When Pajamas asked me to write on the Perez Hilton-Carrie Prejean kerfuffle, I thought to put his name-calling in a larger context.  After all, that blogger was not the first to slime someone who supported the traditional definition of marriage.

To whet your appetite, here are the first three paragraphs:

Had I known gay marriage advocates would react with vitriol and venom to the passage of California’s Proposition 8 (amending the state constitution to limit the definition of marriage to its traditional meaning, one man and one woman), I might have left my ballot blank on that issue and not voted, “No,” as I had.  No sooner did it become clear the a majority of voters in the Golden State approved the initiative than angry activists, mostly in Los Angeles, took to the streets to protest the popular result.

More than just blowing off the steam, their understandable frustration at the loss, the protesters vilified those on the winning side of the issue.  They demonized Mormons, marching from West Hollywood to their Temple in Westwood, carrying placards slandering the Church and hurling slogans demeaning its members, labeling them “scum” and calling them “vile.”  All because Mormons were among the most generous supporters of the campaign to pass Prop 8.

Bill Rosendall, an openly gay LA City Councilman, called the faith a “perversion of Christianity.”  The name-calling didn’t stop there.  The disappointed opponents of Proposition 8 referred to the successful initiatives as “Prop H8″ or Prop Hate.

To read the rest of the piece, just head on over Pajamas.

What better way to honor Ronald Reagan than with a man honored by Margaret Thatcher.  E-mail me if you’d like to join us for dinner tonight in Santa Monica.

Here’s Dr. Ashford standing in front of the front porch that the Gipper built himself. He even laid the stone floor.

Take a look at the poster behind the Gipper’s saddles.  Dame Thatcher had the same poster framed in her house:

The Gipper built this dock himself; he considered it one of his greatest accomplishments, ranking up there with restoring confidence in our country, winning the Cold War and breathing new life into the economy:

(more…)

I just returned from an afternoon at a place that many readers of the site, including (and especially?) its two principle bloggers consider practically sacred.  With Dr. Nigel Ashford, the distinguished British political scientist honored by Dame Margaret Thatcher, I had a tour of the Reagan Ranch.

Kudos to the folks of the Young America’s Foundation for taking such good care of this site and for treating us well on the tour.

While the ranch sits on a large and beautiful piece of land, the house itself is quite small, only 1,800 square feet.  The Gipper himself was not extravagant.  He built the fences around the property and even built the front porch.  He cleared brush and took care of the horses.  In short, when he was out there, he liked to work with his hands.

The house had a Western/Southwestern theme, with paintings of Western landscape and American memorabilia.  I particularly enjoyed a chair whose cushions were covered in a needlepoint image of a Minuteman with the year 1776.

Of the many stories our tour guide shared with us, this one best (in my mind at least) described Ronald Reagan the man.  Before going riding with his beloved Nancy, he always insisted on tacking her horse. He would never let the staff do it. When her horse was ready, he rang the bell below to signal that it was time for her to join him.  

Even as president, he insisted on performing this task himself.  As valuable as then was his time, he had to go out of his way for Nancy. No wonder he was such a great leader. He knew how to appreciate the things that really matter, knew how lucky he was to have found a woman who loved him the way she did.

UPDATE: As per Sonicfrog’s comment, I provide a picture of the Suburu Brat below the jump.  (more…)

In the court of public opinion, advocates of traditional marriage scored a huge victory over advocates of gay marriage last week, perhaps their biggest public relations victory since the adolescent temper tantrums following the passage last fall of California’s Proposition 8.

While many of our readers (and most of our critics) surely disagree with Carrie Prejean’s belief that “marriage should be between a man and a woman,” few will accuse her of engaging in ad hominem attacks on those putting forward a different point of view.  At that same time she was making her case with poise, the man who had asked the question which prompted her to state that belief before a national audience, was making his with rancor.

Immediately, after the pageant, Perez Hilton chose to slur her as a “bitch” in a video for his blog.  He continued this line of attack in various television appearances.  While she remained unapologetic in hers appearances, showing no bitterness than her answer had cost her the Miss USA crown, not attacking the judge whose vote cost her that crown.

She made her case calmly and with a smile.  He preferred innuendo to argument.  She came across better than he did.

In the future, those who promote gay marriage in the various visual media should take a page from Miss Prejean’s book and make their case clearly, calmly and without criticizing their adversaries.  In our current culture, looking good and sounding good matters as much as what you say.

If you don’t believe me, just ask President McCain about how his Administration plans to tackle the economic downturn and international crises.

If you want to know why Michael Barone belongs on the Olympus of punditry, read his latest, a column on the alacrity of many on the left, including leading Democrats, to prosecute Bush Admin officials:

It’s tough trying to please people who crave vengeance almost as much as Madame Defarge, the unsparing French revolutionary in Dickens’ “Tale of Two Cities.” That’s what Barack Obama found out last week — and will find out next week and for weeks to come unless he settles once and for all that he will follow the practice of all his predecessors and not prosecute decision-makers in the previous administration.

The Madame Defarges of the Democratic left want to see the guillotine flash down and heads roll. Specifically, they want to see the prosecution or impeachment of officials who approved enhanced interrogation techniques — torture, in their view.

That sage columnist goes on to outline the details of the past week, with the President releasing the Bush Administration memos considering using enhanced interrogation techniques against terrorists as a means to learning their targets and so preventing future attacks.

First, the President said he opposed prosecuting the officials who wrote these memoranda, then changed his mind and said maybe they would be, then he changed his mind again and said, no, they wouldn’t be.  Seems he realized he couldn’t appease some of his fellow Democrats out for blood, including the disremembering Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  She wants to see heads roll.

Barone wonders why Madame Pelosi and her colleagues are so angry: (more…)