Today marks the 132nd anniversary of the birth of the greatest man of the last century, Sir Winston Churchill, who, in the 1930s, was a lone voice in the wilderness warning his fellow Britons of the dangers of the rise of Nazism in Germany. While some have compared our era to that desolate decade, I should note that those warning today about the threat of Islamofascism are not nearly so isolated as Churchill once was.

Let us hope that people today heed their warnings. While the Britons of the 1930s did not heed those of Churchill, they did make him Prime Minister in 1940, allowing him to lead the free world against the evil he had understood while others were complacent. He rallied his people — and the free world — to victory against that menace, but at great cost.

On this his birthday, let us be inspired by Sir Winston, cognizant of the threats to our freedom and of the power of a great man to lead and inspire a nation with an understanding of his nation’s history (indeed of world history) and a commitment to its traditions, values and freedom, a recognition of the enduring legacy of Western Civilization.

In honor of that great man, I bought Stephen F. Hayward’s Greatness: Reagan, Churchill, and the Making of Extraordinary Leaders while I was in Barnes and Noble yesterday. And encourage y’all to read Victor Davis Hanson’s piece from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, remarks he delivered last year at the Claremont Institute’s dinner in honor of the greatest man of the last century.

I offered this tribute to Churchill last year.

I had hoped to blog during my Thanksgiving vacation in Cincinnati where I spent time with my family who had returned (or remained) home for the holiday, but realized I needed a bit of a break from writing. And anyway, much as I enjoy blogging (and writing in general), I much preferred taking the second eldest PatriotNieceWest out for lunch and to spend time with her shopping and browsing for books. I even enjoyed helping her Dad (the youngest PatriotBrotherWest) rake leaves and clean out his garage. And bonding with her little brother who was fascinated by his Uncle’s shoelaces which, though he is just shy of eleven months, he manage to untie on his own.

I returned to a hectic schedule in LA, including a Log Cabin meeting with Marc Cherry, the openly Republican producer of Desperate Housewives who happens to be gay. I got the chance to talk to him and found him to not only be very nice and very interesting, but also quite funny as well. And I’ve been busy finalizing the details for the Holiday Luncheon for the LA chapter of my college alumni association (of which I serve as president) and trying to get caught up in reading for class.

As soon as I get back to blogging (hopefully as soon as tomorrow), I hope to comment a bit on something Marc said — about how the 2006 loss can be good for the GOP as it seemed to correspond to something I had considered as a possible blog topic — on Republican overconfidence and arrogance in the wake of our 2004 victory. I may also have something to say about Michael Richards’ who seems to have turned his hateful remarks into a publicity stunt as he attempts to secure a few more minutes in the limelight. I would say that his offensive outburst killed his career, but you can’t kill something that is already dead.

I apologize to those who have e-mailed me for not replying in a timely manner (as has been my wont), but will get to your missives as soon as things settle down a bit.

Imagine if you will that the entire US of A is actually a jetliner with the markings of “US Airways”.  And in a post-9/11 world, the following situation happens:

Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted “Allah” when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix. 

“I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud,” the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department. 

Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks — two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.

“That would alarm me,” said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. “They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane.” 

A pilot from another airline said: “That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry.”

We know now, based on evidence, that a Republican President will err on the side of security and preemptive action if there is a perceived terrorist threat.  We also know, based on repeated statements by their leaders that the Democrats favor a post-attack posture.  For Democrats, Terror = Law Enforcement Response.

So I ask my fellow Americans…. if you were on this US Airways flight and this suspicious behavior by the Imams began, who would you want as your pilot and flight attendants?   George Bush, Condi Rice and Dick Cheney?   Or Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel and Alcee Hastings?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

No one really knows who will be the Republican or Democrat Presidential nominee in two years.  Well, maybe Hiro knows.

But I am going to make the following two predictions.

First, while he may not be the nominee, Newt Gingrich will define the issues and focus of the GOP campaign and has already begun to do so. 

MANCHESTER, N.H. –Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Monday that First Amendment rights need to be expanded and cited the elimination of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms as one solution.

Gingrich, a Republican, suggested allowing people to give any amount to any candidate as long as the donation is reported online within 24 hours.

“Just as tax lawyers always succeed in out-thinking the (Internal Revenue Service) because they stay after five and the IRS goes home, the private-sector lawyers will always out-think the (Federal Election Commission) because they stay after five and the FEC goes home,” Gingrich told about 400 people at the Nackey Scripps Loeb First Amendment Awards Honors dinner.

“We are the only society to say power comes from God to you personally and you loan part to the state,” Gingrich said. “It doesn’t begin with the lawyers , with the bureaucrats… If there is no creator, where do your rights comes from?”

My personal preference at the moment is Rudy Giuliani, but I have my eye on Newt as I think he would make a fantastic American leader in a time of turmoil.  A Rudy-Newt ticket would be even better.

My second prediction:  Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will choose Jonathon “The Impaler” Sharkey as their Presidential nominee.

But I am going to have a fun time following the vampire’s campaign!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

GP Reader Calarato suggested posting this video.

GatewayPundit has more.

An estimated 100,000 Iranians have been executed under the mullahs of Iran…including 4,000 gays.

From Jerusalem Post column:  The Democratic Party’s victory in the November 7 Congressional elections convinced Iran and Syria that they are on the verge of a great victory against the US in Iraq. Iranian and Syrian jubilation is well founded in light of the Democratic leadership’s near unanimous calls for the US to withdraw its forces in Iraq; Bush’s firing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his appointment of his father’s CIA director Robert Gates to replace him; and Bush’s praise for the Congressionally mandated Iraq Study Group charged with revisiting US strategy in Iraq, which is being co-chaired by his father’s secretary of state James Baker III. …As far as Iran and Syria are concerned, the game has already been called.

And, this means that the hangings, stonings, and beatings of political prisoners, adulteresses, and gays will continue in Iran.

Yet the American Gay Left still believes the enemy is our fellow Americans who disagree with them on policy issues; not a world-wide movement looking to make gays extinct.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

2006 has been a really bad year if you are that evil foe of mankind — Global Warming.  (Someone should make a cartoon character!)

First, early snows in the Midwest.  And now the news that the 2006 Atlantic Hurricane Season was a total dud. (h/t – Cake Or Death?)

Zero: The number of storms that formed in October, the first time since 2002 that no storms formed that month. Also, no Category 4 or 5 storms formed this year for the first time since 1997.

So what happened? Lots.

Storms were starved for fuel after ingesting masses of dry Saharan dust and air over the Atlantic Ocean. Scientists say the storm-snuffing dust was more abundant than usual this year.

In the season’s peak, storms were curving right like errant field goals. High pressure that normally hunkers near Bermuda shifted far eastward, and five storms rode the clockwise winds away from Florida.

Finally, a rapidly growing El Nino, a warming of water over the tropical Pacific Ocean, shifted winds high in the atmosphere southward. The winds left developing storms disheveled and unable to become organized.

As they say about the stock market: Past results are no indication of future performance.

Unless you are Al Gore and his band of Loony Liberals who have a lot of money riding on scaring the American public about every cloud and breeze that comes by each year.

Here is my key question:  If the over-active 2005 Hurricane Season, featuring Katrina, was Bush’s Fault…. does he get credit for the lack of storms in 2006?  Or is that Nancy Pelosi’s success?

Global Warming (with his black cape flowing behind):  And I would have ruined the Gulf Coast this year too… if it weren’t for you pesky kids!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Sorry for the lack of blogging on my part this week.  We’ve been spending the holiday with PatriotMom in the Philadelphia suburbs.  For Thanksgiving itself we made the lovely journey up the NJ Turnpike (think: Parking Lot) to PatriotPartner’s Family.  It has been great to see everyone and spend a little R&R time away from the world.

Now today, Saturday, John and I are driving out to Lancaster County, PA to attend my 20th High School Reunion.  I’ve been helping organize it.. so I hope we have a good turnout.  I’ll let you know.

I’ll be back to regular blogging this coming week.

Do I see we are approaching the big One Million Mark? 

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In the movie Shadowlands, a student of Anthony Hopkins’s C.S. Lewis tells that wise don that “we read to know we are not alone.” Sometimes, I find that we return to certain authors, their words help us express our deepest thoughts and understand that we’re not alone in our longings, our passion and even our pain.

Today, on the forty-third anniversary of the passing of that great scholar and writer, I celebrate the anniversary of the birth 144 years previously of my favorite novelist, a woman whose words have so helped me understand myself, human emotion and even my sexuality. As I prepare to return home to celebrate Thanksgiving with my family, I want once again to use this blog to honor that great lady, Mary Anne Evans, known to the world by her nom de plume George Eliot.

In honor of her birth, I repost the tribute I wrote to her last year (with a few slight variations):

There are holidays we all celebrate. In a couple of days, most Americans will join their families for a festive Thanksgiving meal. And there are some holidays sacred to our religions — or our region. And then there are the personal days, the anniversary of a wedding, the day we first met our beloved, the birthday of a friend, special relative or favorite writer. November 22 is one of those days for me. Not only does it mark the anniversary of the birth of a very dear great Aunt, my Aunt Ruth, who would have been 110 today, it is also the 187th anniversary of birth of the greatest English novelist, George Eliot. Two years ago, I honored her with this post.

Born Mary Ann Evans in South Arbury, England on November 22, 1819, she was particularly close to her brother Isaac as a child. She describes that sweet relationship in her novel The Mill on the Floss. In her early adulthood, she wrote countless essays and translated several works German into English. She, however, did not become the great novelist we know today until after she met George Henry Lewes in 1851. Neither lover was particularly physically attractive, but both could dazzle their Victorian peers with their presence. When people met Miss Evans, they soon forget her looks, more entranced were they by her conversation, her intelligence and her insight, her wisdom.

Even though Lewes never divorced his wife, he and Evans lived together as husband and wife until his death in 1878. While their love produced no children, it did help her “give birth” to many great ideas which she turned into some of the greatest novels, including one which many consider to be the greatest novel in the English language. In creating her pen name, she took the name George from Lewes, the great love of her life.

Her greatest books include the aforementioned Mill on the Floss, Adam Bede, Felix Holt, Romola, the touching Silas Marner and Middlemarch that greatest of English novels. There is much, so much, I could say about this great woman such that I would take up our blog’s entire home page. She had a keen sense of values, understood human psychology, could peer into the human heart and show the positive sides of her villains. Indeed, none of her characters were completely evil and none purely good. Yet, they all performed acts of kindness, nobility, cruelty and/or stupidity.

After much hesitation, the selfish Bulstrode shows some kindness to his nephew Fred Vincy. And that well-meaning Fred had previously gambled away a loan that Caleb Garth, the father of Mary, his one true love, had guaranteed for him, draining that good man’s family of money they had saved to pay for their son’s education.

She spoke of compassion and of the importance of finding that one person who could “be all” to her heroines. She, who had lived so long alone, well understand the value and promise of romance and how true love sustains those of us who recognize its power and are willing to work hard to keep it alive. She exhorted us to understand our fellow man and showing sensitivity to his difficulties: “More helpful,” she wrote in The Mill on the Floss, “than all wisdom is one draught of simple human pity that will not forsake us.” “Fellow-feeling” was one of her treasured experessions.

To honor her birthday, I offer a few more quotes from the writings of this great lady so that you will may celebrate her life with nuggets of her wisdom. Then, as Glenn Reynolds might say, go read the “whole thing” — her collected works!

Happy Birthday, Mary Ann Evans, George Eliot. And thank you, thank you for the compassionate, the insightful, the profound, the wise work you left behind.

-B. Daniel Blatt (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

The quotations are all below: (more…)

Just two days after we announce the upcoming competition for next year’s Grande Conservative Blogress Diva, Captain Ed titles his post on Hillary’s falling fortunes, The Decline Of The Democrats’ Diva. Perhaps it’s diva week her on GayPatriot. Just four days ago, I noted that columnist Robert Novak described California Congresswoman Jane Harman and House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi’s “rival diva.”

In his post, Captain Ed disputes the notion of Hillary’s inevitably by referencing a New York Times piece showing that she has “dissipated” most of the “massive war chest” she accumulated for his recent Senate campaign in the Empire State. Not only that. The Captain notes that while spending twice what her colleague Charles Schumer did two years previously, she did not equal her fellow Democrat’s margin of victory.

While I wouldn’t yet count Hillary out of the contest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, I agree that she is going to have a much tougher path that many assume. While she has been heralded as the frontrunner for as long as people have talked about that race, she has never in a poll (of a multi-candidate Democratic field) climbed over 50%, indeed never getting over 40%. Indeed, a recent poll showed her only at 33%. I had thought this showed a steady drift downward from her previous position, but a review of the polls at PollingReport.com shows that over the past four years, in a multi-candidate field, she has polled between 25 and 40%.

While she always leads the field, given her high name ID, her largely favorable press and the popularity of her husband in Democratic circles, these numbers surely indicate that Democrats are not yet sold on the notion of Hillary as their 2008 nominee.

A few years back, a Democratic friend of mine dismissed the notion that Hillary would ever be his party’s nominee, suggestion her nomination would be a “Republican Wet Dream.” Mrs. Clinton continues to have high negatives, with one January poll showing that “51 percent of Americans said they would definitely vote against her if she ran for president. The same poll showed that only “16 percent of Americans pledged to definitely support a Clinton presidential run, while another 32 percent said they would consider it.“

I think that Hillary’s greatest problem is that she is an incredibly polarizing figure and that after sixteen years of polarizing presidents, the American people might look to a candidate better able to bring the nation together.

In subsequent posts, I expect to address her shortcomings (as well as her strengths) at greater length, but for now (below the “jump”), let me summarize the problems I think she faces in a presidential contest.

(more…)

One of the reasons I call drag potentially poisonous is that drag queens often act out the worst qualities of the women they impersonate. We see the vindictive, cruel Bette Davis of What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? rather than the strong, but sensitive character she portrayed in The Virgin Queen. To be sure, I think most gay men who do drag recognize that they are portraying a caricature of the feminine rather than probing the real meaning of that quality.

The potential for drag to be poisonous is that we might see these caricatures as embodying the essence of the feminine and lose sight of that quality’s appeal, particularly to men who seek romantic relationships with our own gender.

Nancy Pelosi seems to be providing another opportunity for us to see the worst aspects of the feminine embodied in a real woman. She seems determined to prevent Jane Harman, the only woman in line for a major committee chair, from taking charge of the House Intelligence Committee. (If Pelosi has her way, it seems New York’s Nydia Velazquez will be the only female chair of any House committee when she takes over Small Business.)

It seems with Pelosi that “everything is personal.” Incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (whose candidacy Pelosi opposed) “acknowledged yesterday that he was seeking assurances from presumptive Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she would not retaliate against his supporters after he won the No. 2 House leadership post.” (Via Powerline.)

It says a lot that members of her own caucus fear Mrs. Pelosi might retaliate against Democrats who bucked her choice for Majority Leader. It’s striking that not only does she oppose making Harman chair of the Intelligence panel, but that she has also told her California colleague that “she will not be reappointed to the committee.” What incredible and “Petty Vindictiveness.”

Given the way Mrs. Pelosi has behaved since the Democrats won control of Congress, it seems that she is seeking to become a new model for her Castro Street constituents to caricature. Perhaps, like Bette Davis, she has qualities beyond her campy, over-the-top roles. But, in recent days, those more responsible qualities have not been readily apparent.

As long as we see drag merely as caricature and not reality, it does not become particularly poisonous. It shows in exaggerated form the darker aspects of the feminine. It’s important that we also recognize the other aspects of the feminine, qualities that we should strive to integrate inyo our own lives. Perhaps, Mrs. Pelosi will learn from her recent mistakes and provide the type of leadership that will make those qualities more manifest. And so show how a woman can lead and be a role model for men as well as women.

But, given her behavior these past few weeks, I wouldn’t count on it.

You know the MSM’s coverage of the Iraq war is biased when they fail to question war critics, like incoming House Ways and Means Committee chairman Charles Rangel who accuse the president of leading us to war on “flimsy evidence.” It has now become practically a mantra of the Left (repeated uncritically by the media) that the President misled us into war.

Yet, too often when these critics offer up their accusations, they fail to offer any specifics — that is, they provide no evidence the president knowingly deceived us — and misrepresent the actual reasons he outlined when, about four years ago, he made the case for liberating Iraq. He did not, as many on the left claim, focus entirely on Iraq’s WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) program. While that was a large part of his case, he also mentioned Iraq’s repeated violations of international law and, before the first troops crossed into Iraq, made the case for building democracy in that troubled land.

One of the great good things about a free society is that we can criticize our leaders. And I’m not discouraging those opposed to the president for taking issue with his policies. What is troubling, however, is that they are not faulting his record as it is — but as they wish it were. And in age when the president’s speeches and public comments from his entire term of office are easily accessible to any individual (with a computer and modem), it’s reprehensible that his adversaries continually misrepresent his record.

If Mr. Rangel believes the president’s rationale was flimsy, he should show why he believes that to be the case. If others claim the president “misled us into war,” then they need show that, as he made the case for war, he relied upon evidence that he knew to be false or otherwise inaccurate.

It’s important that we debate the president’s decision (approved by Congress) to liberate Iraq, especially as we consider how to complete the mission and how future military endeavors could advance our national security. But, let’s do so based on the record. It’s a sad commentary on the president’s critics that, in many cases, instead of making serious arguments against policies, they repeat tired mantras which they refuse to substantiate.

And it’s sadder still that the media doesn’t challenge those critics as they would were they conservative critics of a liberal Administration.

UPDATE: While at the gym, I watched Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and, thanks to the closed captioning, could read his rant. He accused the President of lying us into war, yet failed to specify a single lie the president made. Such angry rhetoric is the leftist mantra. And someone needs to call these people out on their harangues and demand their provide evidence to substantiate their attacks.

As the year draws to a close, it’s time to pick the Grande Conservative Blogress Diva for 2007. After a heated campaign among many talented candidates, Sondra K won the honor for 2006. This year, we’re again looking for nominees. As you may know, we define a “diva” as a strong, successful woman who commands the respect of men.”

Last year’s nominees included: Ann Althouse, Tammy Bruce, Wizbang’s Lorie Byrd, Jane Galt ( Asymmetrical Information), Bridget Johnson (GOP Vixen), Sondra K (Knowledge is Power), Carol Platt Liebau, National Review Online’s K-Lo (Kathryn Jean Lopez), Michelle Malkin, Betsy Newmark (Betsy’s Page), Pamela of Atlas Shrugs, Debbie Schlussel, Cathy Seipp and Cathy Young.

Three other potential nominees include Juliette of Baldilocks, Little Miss Attila and The Anchoress.

As Bruce and I determine the nominees for the 2007 competition, we’re eager to learn about other first-rate conservative (and libertarian) blogresses. We’re going to keep nominations open until December 15 at which point we’ll announce the nominees and began voting to conclude on New Year’s Eve.

If you nominate a candidate — or second one of those named above, please make sure to specify why you believe that blogress is deserving of the honor — or provide an example of how she commands the respect of men.

So, please make your suggestions in the comment section below or in an e-mail to me.

Like Roger Simon, I am happy that former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has set up a Presidential Exploratory Committee allowing him to raise money for a White House bid. (Now, I’m trying to figure out if I can donate both to the Exploratory Committee and later to his presidential campaign when that good man makes his candidacy official.) Roger likes Rudy “because he appears able to lead . . . [and] seems not particularly bound by party and ideological cant.”

He has solid record as Mayor of the nation’s largest city which preceded 9/11. That crisis may have tested his mettle, but he had already proved his stuff long before the terrorist attack. He held the line on city spending, stood up to the public employee unions and lowered the crime rate, making New York a more livable city than it was in 1993 when he took over. In the early nineties, people speculated that the city’s decline was irreversible. Mayor Rudy Giuliani proved them wrong.

As a conservative mayor of a liberal city, Giuliani has the stuff to unite our nation. And to lead. Yet, given his stands on social issues, including abortion and gay rights as well as his support of gun control, some conservatives are telling Rudy to “Forget It,” claiming he has “no chance of winning the Republican nomination” (Via Powerline).

Other conservatives disagree. The American Spectator’s Philip Klein writes that “a Giuliani victory would be difficult, not impossible.” I think Rudy’s going to prove his conservative naysayers wrong just as he proved wrong those who said the Big Apple’s decline was inevitable. To do that, Klein believes the former Mayor needs “to find a way to make conservatives comfortable with his candidacy.” He outlines how Rudy can do that, by emphasizing economic issues and “promising to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.”

By stumping the country for conservative candidates, while Giuliani showed his commitment to helping Republicans to his right, he also showed that many voters to his right have great respect for his leadership abilities — and support him despite their policy differences. As I noted in a recent post, “In the heartland, GOP faithful seem more interested in his stand on national security than his positions of social issues.“

In order to build on the respect he already enjoys and to make conservatives, as Klein puts it, “more comfortable with his candidacy,” Giuliani needs to continue to reach out to conservatives, particularly social conservatives, to make clear they agree more than they disagree. His judicial background would be a great place to show his conservative record. When Giuliani was just 37, Ronald Reagan tapped him as Associate Attorney General, the third highest position in the Department of Justice. Two years later, in 1983, he began his tenure as US Attorney for the Southern District of New York where he convicted mob bosses as well as corrupt politicians, earning a record for being tough on crime.

In the next six months, before Giuliani officially announces his candidacy for president, he can do a number of things to reassure the base that he is a conservative and to make clear that he may differ with some on certain issues, his door will be open to all those groups who form the GOP base.

(more…)

While I, like many conservatives, am disappointed by the GOP House Leadership elections, I am at least heartened that current Majority Leader — and future Minority Leader — John Boehner recognizes that the GOP needs “to get back to our core principles and rededicate ourselves to the reform mindset that put us in the majority 12 years ago.“

In her column on the elections, the columnist I’ve called “my Athena,” agrees, saying Republicans “must develop a conservatism that speaks for and to the times. And stop being pigs–i.e., earmarking careerists who started with belief and wound up with hunger.” And Boehner has been anything but an “earmarking careerist,” having kept a promise he made in his 1990 bid for Congress not to bring back pork to his district.

And despite his distaste for pork, he easily won that election as well as his eight subsequent reelections — in presidential years, always running ahead of our party’s nominee for Chief Executive. A sign that if one represents his constituents well, he doesn’t need bring back the bacon to keep his seat.

While I would have preferred Boehner’s rival, Indiana conservative Mike Pence, I note with some comfort that, in his first term in Congress, Boehner worked with then-Minority Whip Newt Gingrich to develop a strategy to help the GOP become the nation’s majority party. They did so by committing the party to the small-government ideas of Ronald Reagan. Let us hope that, as Minority Leader, Boehner returns to those ideas — and to the lessons he learned in the early 1990s.

Today’s election may seem a setback to conservatives, but it need not be. If Boehner recalls the energy and idealism of his first years in Congress, he should succeed. That he has held to his initial campaign promise not to bring pork back to his district is a good sign of a man committed to principle. Now, if he could only extend that practice to the rest of his colleagues, the GOP could become more principled and responsible in the minority than it was in its most recent years in the majority.

UPDATE: Over at Hugh Hewitt, Dean Barnett seems cautiously optimistic about Boehner. After talking with the Cincinnati native, Dean writes:

I found Boehner to be impressive when we spoke, and he seems like a natural leader. The fact that he mid-wifed the horrific No Child Left Behind monstrosity isn’t a mark in his favor, but the voters definitely gave the Republican Party a “come to Jesus” moment last week and I think Boehner got the message. At least I hope he did.

Now that I’ve whet you appetite, just read the whole thing!

It has been a very long week for the humans in the house.  I’ve been traveling for work since last Saturday.   And most of yesterday, I had the honor to spend the entire day in BWI Airport due to the nasty East Coast weather.So I’m turning over the reins of the blog to the PatriotPooches:  Saxby (the big guy) and Shadow (the little one).

 

With the defeat earlier this morning of her choice for House Majority Leader in the 110th Congress, House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi suffered her first setback since Democrats won congressional majorities in last week’s election. Not only did Pelosi publicly back John Murtha, she lobbied on behalf of her septuagenarian Pennsylvania colleague and even nominated him in today’s balloting. Despite her efforts, the current House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer defeated Nancy’s man by a comfortable margin, 149-86.

While Hoyer’s victory is good for the Democrats, it’s not all that great for their leader in the House. We now know that she does not have all that much control over her caucus. Jim Moran’s words notwithstanding, this is not an era where “when the Speaker instructs you what to do, you do it.” House Democrats will know that they can defy Pelosi and not only get away with it, but possibly also bring a majority of their fellow Democrats along with them. And they will know that there won’t be a great cost to reaching out to compromise with Republicans.

The next question for Pelosi is whether she will continue her catfight with her California colleague Jane Harman, in line to serve as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, but whom the incoming Speaker wants to sideline for Florida Representative Alcee Hastings, impeached and removed from office as a federal judge for taking bribes. Editors of the New Republic as well as the New York Times have taken Pelosi to task for preferring as disgraced former judge over a widely respected liberal Congresswoman for this important position. As Captain Ed puts it, she opposes Harman not because of her qualities of leadership but “strictly for personal reasons.”

Tammy Bruce thinks Pelosi’s behavior is “typical of what I witnessed within the Democrat Feminist establishment for so long“:

petty personal animus dictating policy with extraordinary effort put into projects to destroy other women who did not confirm or pay allegiance to the status quo.

This cannibalistic approach to politics and society has doomed the feminist establishment, far too often keeping remarkable women from being able to make a difference. Jealousy, envy, and projected anger drive women in power on the left. All the talk of empowerment, fairness and justice, is just that–talk. Dems and the average American feminist are going to see the ugly underbelly of leftist women who see other women as competition and nothing more than something to move out of the way.

No wonder columnist Robert Novak described Harman as Pelosi’s “rival diva.”

Perhaps, Murtha’s defeat will persuade Pelosi to move beyond the petty politics of personal animus as she prepares to take the Speaker’s chair. Thus Murtha’s defeat, while a temporary setback for Pelosi, could end up benefiting both her — and her caucus. The real test will be to see how she handles the House Intelligence Committee. If she overcomes her animosity and taps Harman, she could become one of those rare politicians who learns from experience. Time will only tell.

But, now we do know that Nancy Pelosi is a politician who often lets personal considerations shape her policy choices. Hardly the mark of a leader capable of cleaning up Congress and providing a “new direction.”

You may recall that after the 2000 Election, where the rule of law was followed despite Al Gore’s request for a selective recall, those on the Left immediately began protesting the legitimacy of President Bush’s election.

“Not My President” became the rallying cry of the Loony Left.

Well, since Nancy Pelosi and her team ran a deceitful campaign of “moderation” and now show their liberal stripes….. (below is from email column by Dick Morris)

The results of the ‘06 election are in. The left wing of the Democratic Party has taken over Congress. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is the Speaker. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) is the new chairman of the Ways and Means panel. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is majority leader, and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) runs the Environment Committee. The left is empowered.

But how did it achieve these majorities? It did so lifted by the wings of moderate, centrist Democrats who mastered their GOP opponents throughout the country.  

The irony is that the expressed will of the American people has been so radically ignored in the shaping of the 110th Congress. The fact is that the elevation of Nancy Pelosi to the speakership is no more a legitimate expression of the voters’ will than would be the retention of Dennis Hastert. The seniority system, rigidly applied by Pelosi in violation of the spirit of the Gingrich reforms of 1994, has ordained that a liberal establishment will run Congress, whatever the voters say.

… and on November 7, 2006, all throughout the day, there were repeated reports in the media of voter fraud in many states.  But mysteriously all of those reports vanished when the Democrats won.

So I say that the election of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House will be completely illegitimate.  Not every vote has been counted, there were reports of fraud, and there was a campaign of “bait and switch” on the American public.

This is what the Radical Left has brought on us with their anti-American crusade during much of this decade.  Only true moderates can check the political climate we have lived in since 2000.

Nancy Pelosi – Not MY House Speaker

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Hey gang… there’s lots going on here at GayPatriot this week.

The coolest news is that this week we’ve been featured as “The Blog of The Week” at Powerline.  So a hearty welcome from Dan, Nick, John and I to all of our new readers this week.  And a huge thanks to the guys at Powerline for choosing us.

At nearly the same time we were linked by Powerline on Sunday, we had a massive spam attack which brought the site down.   The bottom line is — all is fixed, but we had to switch “Spam Killer” programs.

As the result, we are back to basics with commenting on the posts.   Please bear with me as it may take a few hours for comments to be approved.  But the more you comment, the less likely it will be blocked.   It may just take a while to “get there.”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Now when this happens to a Republican Congressman, he does the right thing and resigns.  And if he hadn’t he would have been kicked out by the GOP Leadership for his actions. 

But not state Senator Dan Sutton, Democrat of South Dakota, who has a similar “page problem.”  Nope, he decides to run for re-election…..and wins. (h/t – VtheK)

South Dakota state senator who’s under investigation has resigned his current term, but plans to show up for the new session that starts in January.

Democratic state Senator Dan Sutton of Flandreau has been accused of acting improperly with a high-school student who served as a page during last winter’s legislative session. One of Sutton’s lawyers has said Sutton did nothing wrong.

In a letter dated today to Governor Rounds, Sutton resigned for the rest of this term but did not step down from the 2007 session.

Sutton was re-elected last week with 57 percent of the vote.

I guess that’s because it is okay to be a child predator in the Democratic Party (*cough* Gerry Studds *cough*).

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Sometimes it’s uncanny how Bruce and I have similar thoughts on the issues of the day. Last night, before bed, I was collecting links and typing up my notes on Nancy Pelosi’s endorsement of Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha for House Majority Leader over Maryland Democrat Steny Hoyer, the House’s current #2 Democrat, only to wake this morning to see that Bruce had already posted on the topic.

I see her very public endorsement — and her wilingness to lobby Democratic Members on his behalf — as a win-win situation for Republicans. Should Democrats elect Murtha, this gaffe-prone septuagenarian with a scandal-tainted past and an appetite for pork becomes the new face of their party. Hardly a new direction for Congress, rather a return to the policies which helped end the forty-year Democratic majority in 1994.

Should Democrats elect his rival, current Minority Whip, Steny Hoyer, it will be a sign that Mrs. Pelosi does not have complete control over her caucus. And members will be more willing to defy her on key issues.

As Betsy (at Betsy’s Page) puts it (via Instapundit):

It will be interesting to see if Pelosi is going to go to the mattresses to get her guy elected Majority Leader. She has made her support so public that it will be taken as a defeat for her if Steny Hoyer defeats Murtha. But a Murtha victory will immediately taint the new Democratic majority with a very strong whiff of corruption plus being tied to a guy who is a past master of pork and earmarks. Is that their new image for disposing of the “culture of corruption?”

Captain Ed agrees, saying that if Pelosi loses this one, “she’s damaged goods right from the start.” He also sees this move as more personal than ideological. She “owes” Murtha for helping him in the past and is “merely repaying the debt.” A similar attitude among Republicans helped ensure their defeat last week.

In the words of Washington Post reporter Jonathan Weisman, the move signals “the sizable value Pelosi gives to personal loyalty and personality preferences.” Perhaps she still harbors animus against Hoyer for challenging her in 2001 for House minority whip.

(more…)