Dale Carpenter is organizing a seminar on Friday, February 15, 2008 in Houston posing the question, “Is Gay Marriage Conservative?” Sponsored by the South Texas Law Review, the symposium will take place from 9:00 AM to 3:30 PM. The list of panelists reads like a who’s who of conservatives and libertarians who have offered thoughtful perspectives on social issues.

In addition to Dale, presentes include Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame Law School, Jesse H. Choper of the University of California Law School/Berkeley, Teresa Stanton Collett of the University of St. Thomas School of Law, David Frum of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Charles Murray also of AEI, Robert F. Nagel of the University of Colorado Law School, Jonathan Rauch of The Brookings Institution (author of Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America) and John Yoo of University of California Law School/Berkeley.

With such a great group of speakers, I wish I could make it to Houston for the event!

It all takes place at the South Texas College of Law, 1303 San Jacinto. The event is free. If you can make it that day, please register online. You can read more about the speakers here. And read their abstracts here.

In the ongoing battle of ‘Experience vs. Change’, it’s interesting to note: Mrs. Clinton claims more experience than a Madame in a whorehouse, while Mr. Obama is offering more change than a Vegas slot machine.

Apparently, Mrs. Clinton’s willing to change anything except her wardrobe – and Mr. Obama’s experience consists mostly of looking good in Versace suits and sounding smart in sound bites – it’s hard for beige pantsuits and blonde highlights to compete with that. This ongoing catfight between the two of them is reminiscent of the Iran – Iraq War from the 1980’s – my response then as now was: “Pity they can’t both lose”.

However, my bet is still on Hillary getting the nomination: Let’s face it – this Norma Desmond of politics – (“I am BIG! — It’s the party that got small!”) – is finally ready for her close up.  If C.B. DeMille were alive today, he’d cast Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger as ‘the wax works’ in the New Year’s Eve scene in ‘Sunset Blvd’.  Hillary would be smart to keep Bill on the ‘seen, not heard’ list.

Coming up behind Clinton and Obama was Mr. Edwards, who had become the piñata for progressives – so full of government goodies and socialized sweets, you’re just dying to smack him with a sharp stick and see what tumbles out.  Thankfully, he has tumbled out of the race altogether.

On the Republican side, apparently the writers’ strike was more damaging to Fred Thompson’s campaign than anyone would have thought. He was forced to go in front of the public without a script – obviously something he avoided at all cost.  So although he won’t be the nominee, I’m sure he’ll be nominated for an Emmy in the ‘laziest performance by a candidate’ category – competing against Chris Dodd.

As for the Reverend Huckabee, the man who puts the ‘fun’ in ‘fundamentalist’- he’d do well to remember that piety, like pie, is best served in small slices.  The Lord may work in mysterious ways, but apparently He doesn’t vote in primaries.

The ‘Amber Alert’ for Rudy Giuliani has been cancelled – he was finally located in Florida. Just what he’s been doing down there these past couple of months remains to be seen, but I’m guessing it’s either the senior citizen version of spring break or a remake of ‘Weekend at Bernie’s’ with Rudy’s campaign as Bernie.  It sure wasn’t winning the nomination.

John McCain’s Straight Talk Express is still rolling along, pushed lovingly by the MSM – and conservatives with amnesia.  I guess the Independents who keep voting for him are anxious to see if he and Lieberman can do a political revival of the ‘Odd Couple’ – or the geriatric version of ‘Brokeback Mountain’ – “I wish I could quit youuuuu…”, indeed.

Which brings us to Mitt – the man with more delegates (well, before Florida), more money and more sons than any other Republican candidates. Unfortunately, what he does lack is a record: being the Republican governor of liberal Massachusetts is like being Brittney’s pharmacist: you can’t cure the addiction – you’re just hoping she doesn’t find the keys to the medicine chest and overdose.

The Olympics? I’m still not impressed. The Olympics are the Oscars for athletes with better looking bodies squeezed into uglier looking outfits.  Still, Mitt did run against Ted Kennedy for the Senate and lived to tell the tale.  It would be fun to watch him run against Hillary: it would be like the Boy Scouts against the Taliban. I’ll let you decide who’s who in that one…

Cheers!

Vera Charles (sipping a Mojito in Little Havana)

This pretty much says it all.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I found this comment from Andrew Sullivan completely hilarious and totally projectionist:

Something has gone seriously wrong with the right when John McCain is not regarded as a conservative.

Coming from the person who forgot what conservative principles are all about because of his mad tizzies over gay marriage, Andrew is the LAST person who should be a litmus test of an American conservative.  He is the gay version of a one-issue voter (ie - pro-lifer or pro-choicer).  He is certainly no conservative.

Any news organization who still refers to Andrew Sullivan as a “gay conservative” should be sued for fraudalent reporting.

PS –DONATE TO GAY PATRIOT:  The TRUE home for American gay conservatives.

Comments (12)

When y’all get a chance…. check out “Right Up Front“… a relatively new group blog.  I have been sitting on an email from Russ, the top guy at RUF, since November!   (tsk, tsk on me!)

I’ve checked it out and definitely like “Right Up Front“…. add it to your daily reading list!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Should John McCain win the Republican presidential nomination, I will vote for him this fall. While we conservatives may grumble that he has betrayed us on any number of issues, Dick Morris put it best when he wrote, “if a failure to win means the election of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the stakes are too high to ignore the issue of political practicality in making a choice.“

Last week, when I was working my endorsement of then-presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, I went back over my posts on the 2008 presidential election and noted how the further back I went, the more my animosity against John McCain grew. In the most recent posts, I found myself warming to the man whose candidacy I had written off in this post. He stood up to the media (particularly CNN) and refused to apologize for a supporter using the b-word to define Ms. Hillary. And I noted how he looked good in Republican candidates’ debate at the Reagan library in May.

He has been solid in the War on Terror, great on earmarks and outspoken in taking on our party for betraying fiscal conservatism, faulting the Republican Congress in 2003 for “spending money like a drunken sailor.”

And yet, like Mona Charen, “every time I take a step in his direction, I’m reminded of some other apostasy (taxes!) and I recoil.”

Sometimes, as I wrote in my post-mortem on the Florida primary, McCain seems to buck his party, “merely . . . . to prove that he['s] a maverick.” Or, as ThatGayConservative asked in the comments section, “was it to pander to the MSM?“

What I find about John McCain (to borrow a metaphor from baseball) is that when he connects with the ball, he hits it of the ballpark (as he did in his comments on the war in the Reagan Library debate), but when he misses, he seems to swing wildly, looking like a rank amateur.

(more…)

Oh, wonderful…

The $146 billion stimulus package intended to jolt the economy by giving taxpayers rebates up to $1,200 includes cash returns for illegal immigrants who pay taxes.

Under the plan passed by the House, illegal immigrants who qualify as “resident aliens” and earned a minimum of $3,000 would be eligible for rebates of between $300-$600, FOX News has learned.

Only those illegals who have been assigned an Individual Tax Identification Number that allows them to file income taxes would be eligible. Resident aliens are defined as people who spend a “substantial” amount of time in the U.S. and have not been deported.

The provision has irked illegal immigration opponents, who say the assigning of TINs and collection of taxes from illegals sanctions their presence in the country.

Luckily, Senator John Ensign (R-NV) is making a stink about this horrible new incentive to cross the US-Mexico border.  

CALL YOUR SENATORS NOW AND DEMAND THE SENATE REMOVE THIS PROVISION.

I wonder what GOP Frontrunner John McAmnesty thinks about this provision.   Do I have any confidence that CNN will even ask the question at tonight’s debate?

PS — Yours truly, a legal-natural born resident of the USA for 39 years, will be getting no “rebate” with my own tax dollars.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): This is McCain’s chance to show that he has heard from conservatives concerned about his immigration stance. Let’s hope he supports Ensign on this.

Given that the Florida Republican primary was closed to registered Republicans, I had assumed that if John McCain won the contest, he would so so by the narrowest of margins. Instead, he won by a comfortable margin, besting Mitt Romney by five points. My man Rudy trailed significantly.

The maverick Arizona Senator showed that he could win in a GOP-only primary. No small feat.

With his poor showing in the Sunshine State, a number of news outlets are reporting that the former New York City Mayor will be quitting the race and endorsing “his friendliest rival, John McCain.” I guess that answers the question Bruce posed earlier this month about the wisdom of Giuliani’s strategy.

Now that Giuliani is no longer a candidate, I am officially undecided in the race.

While I admire Senator McCain’s strong commitment to winning the War on Terror and his distinguished service in the United States Navy and his courage, indeed, heroism as a Prisoner of War, I am concerned about the number of times he bucked the GOP, merely at times (it seemed) to prove that he was a maverick. And I think some of his attacks on Mitt Romney, his chief rival for the GOP nomination, have been unfair, particularly his claim that the former Bay State Governor favored a “secret timetable for U.S. soldiers to withdraw” from Iraq.

But, he has shown an ability to appeal to independents and would be a strong challenger to Mrs. Clinton in the fall.

While I appreciate Romney’s conservative record and thought he looked presidential in the one debate I watched for any length of time, he has so far been unable to gain the support among the GOP rank-and-file that he has enjoyable among conservative leaders and pundits. If, despite their backing and his bank account, he can’t make a strong showing in the GOP contests, I fear he will not fare well in the fall.

So, I’m undecided. On the one hand, I see a Republican who can reach out to Independents, but who has upset the party’s base. On the other, I see one who has appealed to that base, but hasn’t shown a great ability to generate a large turnout.

If John McCain win my enthusiastic support, he needs to reach out to conservatives, stop antagonizing the party’s base and show more grace in taking on his chief rival. And Mitt Romney needs show a little more passion on the campaign trail.

John McCain is now the frontrunner for the GOP nomination. But, if he wishes to united the party behind him, he’s going to have to reach out to conservatives, to try to appear on Rush Limbaugh’s and Hugh Hewitt’s talk shows and meet with the editors of the National Review.

UPDATE: Oh, and the good news it that even with Fred Thompson out of the race, Mike Huckabee came in fourth, behind even the former NYC Mayor — in a Southern state. Looks like his campaign is over, but there is a Senate seat in Arkansas that could use a Republican candidate. . . .

UP-UPDATE: Just reading the symposium on National Review about what McCain could “do to rally conservatives.” As usual, Victor Davis Hanson offers the soundest advice. Check it out! (Via Hugh Hewitt).

UP-UP-UPDATE: It’s official. Giuliani is backing McCain. Delighted both men recognize the importance of Ronald Reagan by making the announcement at his library.

Here we go folks….. feel free to comment as results come in.

As FOX News’ Special Report comes on the air, the exit poll trends are suggesting a very close race…. with McCain leading in some issue groups/demographics & Romney leading in others.   Most important, Romney appears to have won over conservative Republicans by 47%, according to FOX News exit poll data.

It is probably do or die for Rudy tonight…. and so far it looks grim.

In any case, I think this is going to be a nail-biter tonight between Romney and McCain.

-Bruce (GayPatriot…. actually IN Florida with a horrible sinus infection)

Bruce Bawer has a troubling piece today in Pajamas on the increasing amount gay bashing in Europe. One guess as to the religious background of the bashers.

As Bruce writes:

To suggest that the culprits, far from being fragile, sensitive flowers who’ve been pushed over the line by something we did, are in fact bullies driven by an overweening sense of superiority and a deep-seated malice – both of which they’ve been carefully taught at home, at school, and, yes, in the mosque – is verboten.

In Amsterdam, where gays could once walk freely, even holding hands, “The number of reported gay-bashings in Amsterdam now climbs steadily year by year.“And the culprit:

Europe is on its way down the road of Islamization, and it’s reached a point along that road at which gay people’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is being directly challenged, both by knife-wielding bullies on the street and by taxpayer-funded thugs whose organizations already enjoy quasi-governmental authority.

As with anything by Bruce Bawer, just read the whole thing. And while you’re at it, get Bruce’s book, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, on the increasing Islamic bigotry in Europe–and not just against gays.

Both the article and the book should make it clear that the enemies of the West hold a particular animosity toward gay people. And the more you understand the nature of this enemy, the more you’ll understand why gay people should champion our side in this long struggle.

The LA Daily News published my case for Rudy Giuliani:

WHILE this presidential campaign features a number of strong Republican candidates, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, with his record of leadership and espousal of conservative principles, is best suited to unite the party and lead the nation.

In many ways, Giuliani is the Ronald Reagan of the 21st century. Just as the Gipper helped reform the Golden State, Giuliani brought the Big Apple back to life at a time when many talked about that city’s inevitable decline.

Even before the terrorist attacks of 9-11 tested his mettle, proving him able to keep his head in a crisis, Giuliani had shown his leadership qualities. As mayor, he held the line on city spending, stood up to the public-employee unions, reformed welfare and worked with police to develop tough anti-crime policies.

Click here to read the rest.

The remains of what DNA analysis showed to be a boy found in the Dutch Medieval village Eindhoven, could prove to be revolutionary for both archaeology and modern research on HIV/AIDS:

This chance discovery of ancient DNA has led to one of the most ambitious archaeological projects ever to come out of the Netherlands–a massive excavation in the St. Catherine’s Church cemetery and the establishment of a major ancient human DNA databank. With $3.4 million in funding, Arts and a team of archaeologists and physical anthropologists have now unearthed the skeletons of more than 750 Eindhoven citizens. And over the next two years, University of Leiden geneticist Peter de Knijff will attempt to recover DNA from these remains. “We expect that at least 75 percent of all individuals will have ancient DNA and proteins,” says [Eindhoven Municipal Archaeologist, Nico] Arts.

For researchers, the Eindhoven DNA bank could prove a major windfall, paving the way for a host of new studies. To unravel the mysteries of human disease, researchers are increasingly studying genetic variations in human populations that increase the risk of illnesses, such as diabetes, or boost resistance to infections such as malaria. By studying the variants over time, researchers hope to advance knowledge of these diseases and gather clues to produce vaccines or new drug treatments. And such medical research is where the Eindhoven DNA bank, which spans 600 years of history, could really shine.

The Dutch team hopes, for example, that their project will reveal the origin and prevalence of a genetic variant that increases resistance to one of the world’s most lethal viruses–HIV. Today, nearly 10 percent of people of northern European descent possess this variant, known as the CCR5D32 allele, and the discovery is sparking the development of a new class of AIDS-fighting drugs. Evidence suggests that this mutation first arose 3,100 to 7,800 years ago, but how did it become so prevalent across Europe in an age before the AIDS epidemic? Could this mutation also have boosted resistance to an earlier epidemic, such as smallpox or the Black Death? In search of new data, Knijff and his team will search for this variant in the DNA of Eindhoven’s citizens. “There is no doubt that these studies are valuable,” says Susan Scott, a University of Liverpool historian who has written extensively on the Black Death and its possible connection to the HIV-resistance variant. “Whilst I don’t think [ancient DNA] studies will yield a vaccine for AIDS, they may assist molecular geneticists to develop some gene therapy.” (Archaeology magazine)

Investigations into “why so many residents of Eyam, England, survived the black death when it hit the remote village in 1665″, produced similar evidence for this genetic resistance. All in all, a fascinating blending of archaeology and modern medicine which has the potential of not only providing us more understanding of our ancestors, but possibly could assist in research for diseases like HIV/AIDS today.

For more on the excavation at Eindhoven, click here.

h/t Per Omnia Saecula

– John (Average Gay Joe)

If this weren’t the Clintons, I wouldn’t be asking.

Over the past couple of days as I’ve been driving around LA (where we Angelenos do a lot of our thinking), I was wondering whether or not the (Hillary) Clinton campaign was picking up all of her husband’s campaign tab. I mean, it would seem that his campaign appearances (which may draw more people than hers) cost as much to stage as those of a presidential candidate. And that would put a pretty serious dent into her kitty.

I mean, has any other campaign for a party’s presidential nomination had to pay for appearances by two candidates one candidate and a spouse drawing as much attention as he?

Normally, I’d assume the campaign would pay for such appearance, but this being the Clintons, ya’ never know. I mean, given his reluctance to disclose the donors to his presidential library, maybe he’s asked that institution to pick up his tab. This all being part of legacy building.

Just wonderin’.

A few days ago, when I opened the latest issue of The Advocate, I was delighted to see a letter from Editor-in-Chief Anne Stockwell, headlined, “Our New Hero . . . Arnold?” I had assumed it would be a balanced piece, noting that despite Governor Schwarenegger’s veto of gay marriage, he had compiled a pretty decent record on issues, signing a number of bills (many endorsed by the left-leaning gay advocacy group, Equality California) designed to benefit gay people.

In her piece, however, Ms. Stockwell mentions none of those bills, nor even references the Governor’s strong support for the state’s landmark domestic partnership program.

Instead, seething with contempt for the President of the United States, she faults the Bush Administration for holding that the new federal energy law prevents states from enacting their own fuel-efficiency regulations. And she commends the Golden State’s Republican governor for daring to defy this order. Commending him not for his record on gay issues, but for standing up to the Bush Administration. On a non-gay issue.

For this, Stockwell writes, “On this issue, at this moment, it behooves us to kiss and make up with Arnold.” Making up with Arnold because he’s defying George W. Bush.

I guess we know what’s really important to this magazine which styles itself as a voice of the gay and lesbian community.

And it’s not just conservatives taking note of the Advocate’s agenda. A liberal reader wrote in*:

All these years of reading The Advocate, I assumed it was a magazine devoted to gay and lesbian issues. Now you seem to indicate that the main focus is to be the environment?? Get real!!!

Actually, the main focus (at least of the opinion writers)for the past few years, has been criticizing the Bush Administration and Republicans while heralding those in the entertain industry who also engage in Bush-bashing. I mean, Bill Maher as their 2006 Man of the Year, a year when unheralded activists in Arizona actually accomplished something to benefit gay people (defeating a state initiative banning gay marriage and civil unions). George Clooney as their cover boy?

Both men are known for their vitriolic anti-Bush comments, rhetoric similar to the language of Ms. Stockwell’s post.
(more…)

For as long as I’ve been blogging, I have faulted gay marriage advocates for demanding the benefits of marriage while not not talking about the meaning of this ancient and honorable institution (e.g., this post)

That is one reason I was eager to attend a meeting last night at the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center announcing a new initiative, LetCaliforniaRing, to promote same-sex marriage in the Golden State. Present at this event were the heads of the major national gay & lesbian organizations, including Matt Foreman of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, Jody Huckaby of PFLAG, Geoff Kors of Equality California, Patrick Sammon of Log Cabin and Joe Solomnese of the Human Rights Campaign. (Another reason I was eager to attend is that I wanted to meet some of these men).

It was the first time I met Solomnese and may comment on our brief conversation at a later date (not to worry it was cordial).

Echoing a point I’ve been making for over three years, Kors observed that the messaging of the movement for what he calls “marriage equality” wasn’t working. He and others who spoke tonight were spot on when they acknowledged the need of a new strategy designed to change minds. Indeed, the organization defines its mission:

Let California Ring is a public education campaign to open hearts and minds about the freedom to marry and the respect, support, protections, and responsibilities that come with marriage. 

It’s a good sign that they recognize “responsibilities” as one of the aspects of marriage.

Unfortunately, the video they showed last night, will do little to change minds. It does not show that they see marriage as do most Americans. Instead it includes too many brief soundbytes from a broad array of people, seemingly designed to appeal more to the producers of the film than those skeptical or opposed to gay marriage. Politically correct gay audiences and others in our nation’s blue enclaves will love this film. But, it won’t have much effect on more socially conservative Americans who need to be convinced that advocates of gay people are serious about marriage.

To be sure, it represents a step in the right direction. As Kors noted, when they take about love as the key aspect of marriage, people start to “move” toward gay marriage. But, love is only one aspect of marriage.

In they want to change people’s minds on marriage, they need do more than talk about love, they need also talk about those aforementioned responsibilities and address the meaning of marriage, particularly its transformative power.

For one moment while watching the video, I thought they were going to do just that. A lesbian talked about her ceremony as “a ritual of transformation.” I wanted to hear more about what she meant by that. But, instead of letting that woman expand on this remark, the film moved onto another person offering another soundbyte.

As a result, the film becomes little more than a series of such soundbytes. To make a more effective presentation, the filmmakers should have focused on two or three couples, including the woman mentioned above, to offer a more in-depth discussion of their relationships, about the transformative aspect of their ceremonies and the responsibilities of their relationships.

(more…)

I received an e-mail today from Log Cabin announcing that “former UN Ambassador John Bolton will be speaking at the 2008 Log Cabin Republicans National Convention in San Diego.” I am delighted to see that this ostensibly Republican organization is inviting one of the most articulate defenders of a conservative approach to the War on Terror. Not only that, a man who has been unfairly attacked by the left.

By featuring this good man at their convention, Log Cabin is demonstrating a clear commitment to conservative ideas on the War on Terror, the most important issue facing our party — and our nation — at the present time.

Kudos to Log Cabin for getting this man to speak at their convention. His presence there increases the likelihood that I’ll be attending the organization’s April convention.

Now, let’s hope that they include more such conservative speakers at their colloquium as well as Republican partisans, men and women interesting in building our party, defeating Democrats and electing Republicans.

Bolton’s presence at their convention is a sign that, despite recent ad campaigns, of a change in the direction of Log Cabin, an increased commitment to conservative ideas, especially by inviting a man so reviled on the left. It shows that the organization may not be as eager to appease the gay left as it was under previous leadership. Indeed, this invitation risks arousing the wrath of the gay media and national gay organizations who seem more beholden to liberal ideology than concerned with the welfare of gay Americans.*

Once again, kudos Log Cabin! This announcement in the second release in just one week (the first being its criticism of Bill Clinton for attempting to rewrite the history of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell) showing the organization adopting a more Republican stance, taking on dishonest Democrats and honoring noble Republicans.

Let’s hope this is a sign of things to come!

—–
*I hope to expand on this notion when I address a recent essay in the Advocate seeing Governor Schwarzenegger as an unlikely ally, not because of his stance on gay issues, but on the environment. Done. Click here to read it.

I can’t believe we haven’t heard about this dishonorable distinction — Earmarker-In-Chief – before now!  (h/t – Drudge)

A group that lobbies for needle exchanges, for allowing more immigrants with HIV/AIDS to legally enter the country, and for condom distribution in prisons received a $303,000 federal earmark pushed by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).
That was one of 261 earmarks Clinton personally helped usher through Congress. That’s more earmarks than any other member of Congress seeking the presidency, according to an analysis by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW).

Most of the 261 earmarks with Clinton’s name on them went to New York counties and municipalities, universities and colleges, and charitable organizations.

For the candidates still in the primary race, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) had 46 earmarks, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) had 10 earmarks, Kucinich had 9 earmarks and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had no earmarks, according to the CAGW.

And SHE is supposed to be a candidate running on fiscal responsibility?   HA!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I apologize for not being able to blog today even though I have much on my mind. I had wanted to comment on yesterday’s Oscar nominations and what they say about Hollywood. My thoughts are not much different from those of Roger Simon who blogged about this yesterday, noting that the nominations were “met with a yawn.”

And there’s much to be said about the nastiness of Ms. Hillary and her husband and how they may well have succeeded in their attempts to bait Obama. Perhaps the left will realize that all things they ascribe to Rove are based on their assumptions that that man utilized Clintonian tactics.

Anyway, a local paper has asked me to write an endorsement of my man Rudy. I just finished the first draft and am now editing it, hoping to get it in by the deadline. It’s funny how I initially struggled with the project when first assigned. I wanted to make my piece so good that it would convince skeptical Republican to vote for the former New York City Mayor. Perhaps overwhelmed by this ambition, I failed to make any headway.

Then, when I decided to write it, it pretty much fell into place. (I will link it when they post it.)

I guess the lesson is that when we often fail to accomplish when we exaggerate our own expectations, when we fear something will not be as good as we would like it to be.

Few presidents have fretted more about their legacy while in office than did Bill Clinton. Now, he seems determined to define that legacy by helping his wife win election to the White House. If she wins, he rationalizes, it’ll cement his role in U.S. history.

Yet, had this Democrat not focused as much on politics as he has, he may well have earned one of the best domestic policies legacies of any president in the twentieth century, a man who succeeded in reforming many of the programs his partisan predecessors had enacted.

Not just that. In his first, he signed two pieces of trade legislation the North American Free Trade (NAFTA) and the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which helped ensure the economic boom of the 1990s. Spurred on by a Republican Congress, he effected landmark welfare reform and helped balance the budget.

He might have secured his legacy as a reformer had he signed onto the recommendations of the Breaux Commission (National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare) to reform Medicare. Instead, for political purposes, he rejected the recommendations of this bipartisan commission, thus allowing the costs of that Great Society program to continue to spiral out of control, leaving it to future presidents to fix. Even as these proposals were consistent with positions he espoused through the Democratic Leadership Council and in his 1992 and 1996 campaigns.

Some say he backed away from these reforms (which his Administration had initially supported) because he feared angering liberals or because he wanted to to pay them back for standing by him during impeachment. Others say he turned away from this reform consistent because it would have deprived Al Gore of a campaign issue in 2000. And some might view a Gore victory in 2000 a vote for a third Clinton term.

Whatever the case, it’s clear that Clinton did not pursue reform as aggressively in the last two years of his tenure as he did in the middle four years for political reasons. Had he thought less of his legacy and focused more on the ideas of his successful national campaigns, he might have accomplished more and thus had a better legacy.

And now, he, more than any of his predecessors has plunged into electoral politics (on behalf of another candidate*) with a passion — and anger — unmatched by only the most zealous partisans. Should he continue, it will make that one part of his record, evident since his earliest forays into Arkansas politics, the defining aspect of his legacy, that of political attack dog, out to win at all costs.

He has attacked and misrepresented the record of Senator Barack Obama, his wife’s chief opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination. Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said Clinton’s attacks are not “presidential . . . not in keeping with the image of a former president.”

Columnist Eugene Robinson who thinks Clinton “was a good president, at times very good” finds that Democrat has become a “coldblooded political hit man:”

No, scratch the “coldblooded” part. At times, in his attempt to cut Barack Obama down to size, Bill Clinton has been red-faced with anger; his rhetoric about voter suppression and a great big “fairy tale” has been way over the top. This doesn’t look and sound like mere politics. It seems awfully personal.

That’s hardly statesmanlike.

So focused on electing his wife running on a platform far to the left of the centrist agenda which helped him win two elections, he seems to define his legacy by political success, not effective reform.

Thus, instead of building on the legacy of the compromises he helped effect together with the Republican Congress during the middle years of his tenure in the White House, Clinton seems determined to secure his legacy not only as a divisive figure in American politics, but also as a divider in his own party.

——-
*Former president Grover Cleveland, after losing in 1888, returned to active politics in campaigning for his own reelection (successfully) in 1892 while Teddy Roosevelt, in similar circumstances twenty years later, was not so successful.

As the updates for this keep growing, I’m putting them all beneath the jump. (more…)

**I’ve reposted this because I felt it got a little buried yesterday**

Please listen to our latest “GayPatriot’s America” podcast.  On Monday, I interviewed Jonah Goldberg, columnist for the Los Angeles Times and Contributing Editor for the National Review. Jonah and I discussed his new book, Liberal Fascism. — a MUST read.