To follow real-time updates from Iran, go to Twitter #iranelection

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Poll after poll indicates that Americans are wary of big government:

But a source of the shift [away from Obama] appears to be independent voters, who seem to be responding to Republican complaints of excessive spending and government control.

“This is a huge sea change that is playing itself out in American politics,” said Democratic pollster Doug Schoen. “Independents who had become effectively operational Democrats in 2006 and 2008 are now up for grabs and are trending Republican.

“They’re saying, ‘Costing too much, no results, see the downside, not sure of the upside,’” he said.

No longer hamstrung by an ostensibly conservative Republican Administration adopting objectively non-conservative fiscal policies, the Republican Party can once again become a vehicle for small government.  Or so we hope.

It is now up to the elected Republican leadership to take heed to the latest polling data and the sentimentat the grassroots.  If the Republicans stand for freedom and smaller government, they can win back the disaffected independents we lost in recent years.

It’s a question of principle, something, on domestic issues at least, my party lost sight of in recent years.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 30% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –8. The President’s Approval Index rating has fallen six points since release of a disappointing jobs report last week (see trends).

Thirty-nine percent (39%) now give the President good or excellent marks for handling the economy while 43% say he is doing a poor job. Those are by far his lowest ratings yet on the economy.

The Obamessiah has hit Planet Earth.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Their criticism of this head of a major gay organization reminded me (yet again) that many gay activists and just regular gay folks who follow gay politics have offered similar opinions of the man I recently dubbed hypocrite of the week, HRC’s Joe Solmonese.

As I pondered their criticism, I recalled a conversation I had about twelve years ago with a friend in Washington, DC.  He wondered then how quick all too many capital area gays were to smear anyone who criticized the DC-based gay leadership, as if such criticism were tantamount to treason.  One of us cited the hits Andrew Sullivan received in the gay media for taking on HRC and even Bill Clinton.

Gay people just weren’t supposed to attack our “leaders.”

For all the grief (much of it merited) Andrew gets today from those of us to the right of the political center, we need recall that he was a pioneer in challenging the gay orthodoxy, the first openly gay person with a significant presence in the media to challenge the gay orthodoxy.  Then, he was a lone voice, showing considerable courage, given the nasty responses, the name-calling he endured for speaking his mind.

His example made it easier for all of us to speak our minds.

So, today, when we see how commonplace it has become for gay people, of all political stripes, to criticize the heads of the various gay organizations, let’s not forget Andrew’s example.  In the 1990s, at great cost to him personally, Andrew spoke his mind.  And made us all realize that we don’t need follow in lockstep with the unelected “leadership” of the various gay organizations.  And that we are not betraying our community when we challenge their orthodoxy.

I was there at the Republican National Convention when she accepted our party’s nomination. As soon as rose to the podium, she commanded our attention; she captivated us. inspired us. We all left the convention, feeling we had witnessed something significant.

I wonder if it was her success in St. Paul which caused so many heads to explode on the left, making so many Democrats and their allies in the MSM so bound and determined to destroy this good woman. Was it that they, just as we did, also felt her power and were moved by her presence, yet, unlike us, found themselves threatened by her lifestyle and political views.  An attractive, happily married, strong and charismatic conservative woman seemd to upset their view of what a successful woman should be.

Palin’s critics obsession with this good woman indicates that they find her as compelling as do her strongest supporters. Perhaps, they choose to define her as a whack job to try to explain away her appeal.  They can’t accept that such a woman might move them.

Just a thought.

Although the “stimulus” passed, it has not worked as advertised, job losses continue to mount to levels far higher than those the Administration had forecast.  While the economic picture remains bleak, at least we can take some satisfaction in being proven right.

But, despite his best efforts (with the media covering for him), the unhappy Barney Frank cannot say the same thing about Republican efforts reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  You see, slthough then-President Bush repeatedly called for reform of the two government-sponsored mortgage giants, Democrats succeeded blocking Republican reforms.

And now with a report fingering Frank and others who thwarted such reforms, the mean-spirited man from Massachusetts continues to dodge responsibility and do what he always does when criticized, blame Republicans:

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who comes under some criticism in the GOP report, has said more foreclosures were caused by unregulated entities rather than Fannie and Freddie. He has also noted that Republicans were in control of Congress from 1995 to 2007, when the housing bubble was created.

Yup, the unhappy man is right.  Republicans were in control, but he did everything in his power to prevent them from using that control to pass legislation he didn’t like.  His obstructionism served a double purpose (1) preventiing Republicans from implementing policies Barney didn’t like and (2) blaming Republicans for their failure if things went south.

Barney just didn’t want to risk having Republican policies succeed.

I’m sure Barney would be singing a different tune if Republicans had blocked the “stimulus.”

Most have treated it as an opportunity to opine on her chances and what her exit may mean to the party and/or it’s/her chances for 2012. I think, however, my disappointment is in my own lack of clarity.

Perhaps I could put a finer point on it and hopefully spark a conversation on the idea I’m looking to develop:

How can we, as conservatives, help promote and develop within our Ameican society a sense of self-sufficiency and self-reliance that will further the ideals of our Nation’s founding?

We’ve seen over the past decade or so how Republicans as well as Democrats have escalated the size, cost, and intrusion of the Federal government. Yet far too often we trouble ourselves with the details and tactics of politics and getting people elected or ousted. Secondarily only do we concern ourselves with the anti-liberty policies these people pass (and by then, far too late).

In the end (frankly, in the beginning), it really comes down to promoting these ideals that will move the proper agenda forward. Believe me, with the right thinking again in America, the question of who is elected will hardly be a matter of concern.

So the question becomes: What sort of work can we do to develop a new sense of self-sufficiency and self-reliance in our Nation? What can we do to promote the concept that the answers to our problems lie within the individual rather than in the government?

How can we begin A New Independence Movement in America?

Thoughts?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot), from HQ

GayPatriot:  Admittedly, many liberal gays probably would prefer to surround themselves with others who love the idea of universal health care and roar loudly for hate-crimes legislation.  But Bruce Carroll and Dan Blatt at GayPatriot challenge all LGBT folks to question their leaders — political and not — and the issues that identify them. Though we might not agree with everything said there, GayPatriot provokes conversation, which all good political blogs should do. Besides, the greater GOP is not exactly in high regard right now, and the party’s gays and their allies may be the ones who whip out the defibrillators to revive the compassionate heart of the Right.  Technorati rank: 5,340

I’m encouraged that perhaps the gay media (or at least one outlet) has finally started to come around and recognize the place that a gay conservative voice has in the world of political discourse.

It also does my heart a lot of good to see our Technorati rank at 5,340.  While Michael Rogers’ Blogactive sits way down at a Technorati rank of 40,107.   Bwa-ha-ha-ha. Sorry, had to do it.

Thanks again to the folks at The Advocate for talkin’ us up!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Of course, her decision has drawn criticism from all sides. Those who have believed in her find it a disappointment that she’s left politics. Many who supported her are scratching their heads, wondering if the ‘ploy’ will pay off for 2012 (or maybe 2016). Of course, many of her detractors are filled with glee that they’ve sent her running for the North Shore (among them, few who could fathom that she is being sincere–after all, who in her right mind wouldn’t want to run for high office? Here’s a hint: There are people who don’t think like you.)

Anyway, this kind of hit me when a friend mentioned to me today that he wished we could find a “hero” in politics these days, lamenting the feet of clay even the vaunted seem to have. This got me to thinking…

I wish more people would find themselves to be heroes rather than hoping for one (least of all from the government) in somebody else. Perhaps that’s what the problem is these days: Instead of being fully-functional and independent individuals, we’ve become accustomed to expecting someone else to help lift us up, whether literally with our lot in life or simply lifting our spirits.

Bailouts, take-overs, ‘universal healthcare’, etc. These are symptoms of a society wherein too few take responsibility for themselves.

Frankly, I’d be satisfied with a leader who says, “Enough is enough! Start taking care of yourselves and your families!”

Not that I’m foreswearing all heroes, and certainly I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t look up to those who have done great things. But perhaps Sarah Palin can (if this is what she chooses to do) serve as an example of someone who shows Americans that they can be the ones to make the “Changes” that they want to see, and that they can do so without being (or depending on) a member of the government. In turn, those “Hoping” for “Change” won’t feel the need to elect those who will bring it about (and thus subject us all to their whims), but can do it themselves.

Kind of like a “community organizer” without delusions of grandeur.

What do y’all think?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot), From Southern Command.

Attorney General Martha Coakley will announce the details of a lawsuit that her office has filed challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as it relates to Massachusetts.  Currently, 16,000 married same-sex Massachusetts couples are unfairly denied federal benefits under this act.

More to follow, of course….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who has had an eventful couple of weeks to say the least, believes House Republican opposition to climate change legislation and the stimulus indicates they’re cheering against the good ol’ US of A.

“It appears that the Republican Party leadership in the Congress has made a decision that they want to deny President Obama success, which means, in my mind, they are rooting against the country, as well,” the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman told WAMU radio host Diane Rehm on Tuesday morning, promoting his new book, “The Waxman Report.”

(Emphasis added.)

By Waxman’s own standard then, those who attempted to deny President Bush success were rooting against the country.  Looks like both he and his mean-spirited colleague from Massachusetts, the unhappy Barney Frank, spent a lot of time these past eight years rooting against the country.

Who will hold them to account?

Sometimes, when I do turn such ideas into blog posts, they generate more interest than pieces I have thought out–or otherwise worked on–for some time. Other times, no one pays them much attention.

I had such a thought yesterday as I was leaving San Francisco, an idea which I tacked onto the end of my last post so I could incorporate the notion into the title, but now, with the idea returning again–even though I haven’t scribbled it down, I’m thinking it deserves a post of its own.  Maybe I’m onto something.  Or maybe not.

Anyone who has spent any time in gay circles has met the man-hating lesbian, a subspecies of lesbian who seem to love women only because they hate men.  Most lesbians I’ve met have no problem with men as long as they don’t have to sleep with us.  Over the years, I’ve only occasionally met a gay man who didn’t like women.  Oh, I’ve heard stories about a few, but off hand, can only think of two.  Most of us not only like women, but seem to particularly delight in the company of strong women.

As I left San Francisco, it struck me how certain gay male bloggers who have led the attacks on Sarah Palin were equally shrill in their denunciations of Hillary Clinton when she was still running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Back then, now over a year ago, I dismissed accusations against Hillary’s foes of misogyny as just sour groups. I mean, I opposed her because she was so far to the left. Couldn’t others also have principled objections to a female politician?

And yet with the intensity of attacks on Sarah Palin, I began to reconsider my past dismissal of the Clinton supporters’ complaint.   It wasn’t just Hillary Clinton–or Sarah Palin–they hated, but instead the very idea of a strong successful woman who commands the attention of men.

With the vicious attacks on Sarah Palin continuing (and perhaps even increasing in intensity) after she lost her bid for the Vice Presidency, we see the rhetorical equivalent of sour groups coming from the winning side.  In a good number of circles where I’ve traveled since the election, I’ve encountered gay men as nasty about Sarah Palin as Democrats and MSM were during the campaign.

I’m just wondering if those gay men so obsessed with Sarah Palin are like the man-hating lesbians, unhappy women who don’t just like members of the opposite sex, but have to remind us constantly about the object of their animus.  Not only do they hate men, but they can’t shut up about it.  And since it’s not PC to vent against women in general (as it is PC for feminists to vent against men), they focus their scorn on a particular un-PC woman.  She’s like a godsend to their neurosis.

And so we see certain gay men and Sarah Palin–as if they need her to vent whatever it is they have to vent about the female sex.

So, readers, is this just one of those random thougths that strikes me, but lacks substance. Or, is there something more to this notion than just a random thought?

“Attacks inside Alaska and largely invisible to the national media had paralyzed her administration,” someone close to the governor told me. “She was fully aware she would be branded a ‘quitter.’ She did not want to disappoint her constituents, but she was no longer able to do the job she had been elected to do. Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah to go to work every day and defend herself.”

This situation developed because Alaska’s transparency laws allow anyone to file Freedom of Information Act requests. While normally useful, in the hands of political opponents FOIA requests can become a means to bog down a target in a bureaucratic quagmire, thanks to the need to comb through records and respond by a strict timetable.

Similarly, ethics investigations are easily triggered and can drag on for months even if the initial complaint is flimsy. Since Ms. Palin returned to Alaska after the 2008 campaign, some 150 FOIA requests have been filed and her office has been targeted for investigation by everyone from the FBI to the Alaska legislature. Most have centered on Ms. Palin’s use of government resources, and to date have turned up little save for a few state trips that she agreed to reimburse the state for because her children had accompanied her. In the process, though, she accumulated $500,000 in legal fees in just the last nine months, and knew the bill would grow ever larger in the future.

Just a few days before this good woman announced her impending resignation as Governorof the great state of Alaska, Jim Geraghty, noting Todd Purdum’s mentioning those ethics complaints in his Vanity Fair hit piece on the Republican, broughtd up something Mr. Purdum appeared to have neglected:

The fact that Palin is now 15 for 15 in having those “formal ethics complaints” dismissed as groundless would seem to be somewhat relevant. Come on, man. You can think Sarah Palin is a terrible governor, and should never have been McCain’s running mate, etc., and still think these frivolous complaints are an expensive waste of everyone’s time.

The mere fact that these complaints were filed–even if they lacked merit (as has each one that has been filed) allows journalists with an agenda to suggest that the good Governor (as the politically correct might put it) is ethically challenged.

These people in filing these complaints are out destroy Palin at all costs, no matter what the means.  As a result, as Glenn puts it, she has been “been subjected — along with her family — to more abuse than any other non-national-officeholder I can think of.”

Once again, their obsession with this good woman says more about them than it does about her.   I’m now beginning to wonder at the misogyny of certain gay men obsessed with Sarah Palin, particularly those who attacked Hillary with similar venom when she vying for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

$50 says Jacko is still alive and will burst out of his casket with Bubbles and Macaulay Culkin and burst into song while fireworks explode.

I half-expect it to happen.  Only MJ could get away with it too.  Mostly.

In the meantime, real heroes are dying in ever increasing numbers in Afghanistan — Obama’s War.

“Mr. Jackson received days of wall-to-wall coverage in the media,” Martha Gillis wrote to the Washington Post. “Where was the coverage of my nephew or the other soldiers who died that week?”

Gillis’ nephew, Lt. Brian Bradshaw, 24, died in Kheyl, Afganistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. Bradshaw, of Steilacoom, Wash., was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Airborne Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division in Fort Richardson, Alaska. He was one of at least 13 U.S. soldiers to die in Afghanistan since Jackson’s death on June 25.

Since January 20, 2009, over 70 American servicemen have died in Afghanistan.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Obama, as Wehner puts it, portrays

. . . himself as America’s philosopher-king, the person standing not only above country but above politics itself [who is] uniquely able to transcend old, tired, and rutted debates, to think anew, and to bring a fresh, creative approach to the problems of our time.

Yet, the Democrat repeatedly dismisses Republicans as offering only “tired,” “worn” and “old” ideas, often misrepresenting those ideas by reducing the range of GOP proposals to tax cuts:

You got a problem with health care: tax cuts. You got problem with education: tax cuts. You got a problem with the economy: tax cuts. Poverty: tax cuts. That’s not a policy, it’s a dogma, a tired and cynical philosophy.

At the same time, he offers ideas which are little more than the recycled liberalism of the past three-quarters of a century or so–increase government spending and federal regulation.  So, we could paraphrase Obama to criticize his own record in office:

You got a problem with health care: more government spending & increased regulation. You got problem with education: more government spending & increased regulation. You got a problem with the economy: more government spending & increased regulation. Poverty:  more government spending & increased regulation.  That’s not a policy, it’s a dogma, a tired and cynical philosophy.

And in each case where he proposes a solution, he’s adopting a policy which has been tried before, either here or abroad–and has failed.

Yes, his predecessor did propose tax cuts without corresponding cuts in federal domestic expenditures, but other Republicans, including his 2008 rival for the White House, have proposed far more comprehensive policies.

If he were truly the transcendent politician he claims to be, he would regularly  do (as he has done on occasion) and acknowledge that conservatives have put forward such policies and criticize their proposals on the merits.  He also should address the failures of past policies similar to his own and demonstrate how he has adapted these ideas to contemporary circumstances, so as to guarantee their success this time around.

Right now, all we see is the same tired, old statist solutions.

It would be nice if the president based his proposals on policies which actually succeeded.

His briefly celebrated speech on race followed the revelations of the racism and conspiracy theories of his pastor (for twenty years) has long since been forgotten save by the most zealous of his acolytes.  His platform was little more than warmed over liberalism (as one of his most fervent admirers described his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention).  He hadn’t really accomplished anything before his election as President.  His rhetoric about being a “new kind” of politician who transcended partisan divisions stood in stark contrast to his record.

So, to those who so love the man, please tell me what is it about him which so inspires you?  Why do you have such confidence in his ability to lead?  Too often though when I ask this question of his supporters, they’re recite campaign boilerplate to contrast him to his predecessor.

So, make the case for Obama without attacking George W. Bush or any Republican for that matter.  I’m curious to hear why so many are so enthusiastic about a man with so little in the way of substantial accomplishments.

How does resigning as governor strengthen her as a presidential candidate?

He wonders why she doesn’t serve out her term, but notes that “the volume of hate and vitriol directed at her has been stunning.”

Whatever the real reason for her resignation, it has kept her in the news over the Fourth of July weekend, no small feat, given all the competing stories.  It does seem to be news-heavy summer.

 Right now, I find myself somewhat sympathetic to Russ Douthat’s view:

A Sarah Palin who stepped down for the sake of her family and her media-swarmed state deserves sympathy even from the millions of Americans who despise her. A Sarah Palin who resigned in the delusional belief that it would give her a better shot at the presidency in 2012 warrants no such kindness.

(It’s a good piece and I highly recommend it.)

Perhaps, it’s because I’ve been spending time these past few days with my sister and watching her delight in her maternity,* I “sense” that Governor Palin wants to spend more time with her children–and grandchild.   After all, her youngest daughter is just eight years old and her baby Trig is just fourteen months.

Kids that young require lots of attention.

Sarah Palin is relatively young (politically speaking).   She can wait until 2016 or 2020 to run for President.  She can put off her political career, but she can’t put off her maternal one.

*Or perhaps it’s a combination of observing my sister, just a few days after reading this on CampaignSpot:

On the theory that the scrutiny of her children was the straw that broke the camel’s back, the consultant said, “From the interaction I’ve had with her, that would make some sense.” He noted that Palin had been “really down” at one point after the 2008 convention, largely from being separated from Todd and her children for days at a time; the campaign leadership was nudged to have the family traveling with her as much as possible, having a major impact on her morale. “They finally let her be a mom,” the consultant said.

Michelle linked a new Gallup survey confirming something which polling data over the past few months has been making manifest, Americans are moving to the right:

Despite the results of the 2008 presidential election, Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal, 39% to 18%, with 42% saying they have not changed. While independents and Democrats most often say their views haven’t changed, more members of all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted to the right rather than to the left.

Guess people needed to see liberalism in action.  Or maybe now that there is no longer an ostensibly conservative party in power not adhering to conservative ideals, it becomes easier for the Americans to reassert their natural conservative instincts.

So, once again in an era of big government, conservative ideas are becoming ascendant.    Thus, it behooves the GOP to reassert Reaganite ideas and stand true to our core principles.

Should we do that, we may well win back our majorities in Congress — and state legislatures.

UPDATE:  Commenting on this poll, John Hinderaker offers:

. . . .voters tend to turn to the “outs” when they become fed up with the “ins.” It appears that not too many voters were fed up with the Republicans because the party was too conservative. Nevertheless, there was enough dissatisfaction with Republican governance that the other guys got a shot. It seems reasonable to expect that the Democrats might wear out their welcome sooner than the Republicans did, since, in addition to the usual grievances that accumulate and erode support for the party in power, the Democrats are taking the country in a direction where the voters don’t particularly want it to go.

Emphasis added. Read the whole thing!

Guess that settles the question about getting a refill.