Tuesday, October 12, 2010

This Sums It Up

A quick quote from the New York governor's race, where Republican Carl Paladino has criticized his opponent, Andrew Cuomo, for marching in the Gay Pride parade. He complained further that it is not right to teach children about homosexuality: "I don’t believe that gays should be discussed in the schools. I think that morality is a situation that should be discussed in the home."

FoxNY has his explanation:
"I am a Catholic first. There are 7.5 million Catholics in the state. I did what any father would do. Andrew Cuomo brought this issue out. He said that from his perspective gay marriage will be passed next year. That's wrong," Paladino told Good Day NY.

When asked how he could stand behind Catholicism when he admittedly fathered a child out of wedlock, Paladino answered:

"What does that have to do with it? Under who's standards? Are you going to drudge up all of Cuomo's gutter talk?" Paladino Defends Homosexuality Comments: "I'm Not Homophobic"

He doesn't see any inconsistency at all.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

he hasn't advocated that schools teach it's acceptable to father children out of wedlock

nor has he said that's acceptable

understand now?

TTF says it advocates a curriculum that reduces teen pregnancy but doesn't advocate a curriculum that reduces teen homosexual activity

they don't see any inconsistency at all

October 12, 2010 10:02 AM  
Anonymous that sums it up said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 12, 2010 10:03 AM  
Anonymous missed my calling said...

"Just as the Democrats misinterpreted their "mandate" after 2008, the Republicans had better take a deep breath the morning of Nov. 3 and remind themselves that they could suffer defeat again in two years if they think this is all about party politics.

The coming vote is a rejection of liberal policies, but not necessarily a rejection of everything people thought they were getting with this administration.

Americans don't want a massive new bureaucracy involved in their health care decisions, but that doesn't mean they still don't want some kind of tweaking of the health care system. They may not buy into the anti-capitalist ravings of the left, but that doesn't mean they don't have a certain lingering suspicion when it comes to some big businesses and financial institutions.

The electorate is so upset with the direction of the nation, they're willing to vote in members of the party they voted out just two years ago. And with that, they'll be sending a message to politicians of both parties: They're serious about this, and they've figured out how to make term limits work!

And both Democrats and Republicans could find out that when voters come to believe in neither party, they'll come up with a third.

The last two years was the Democrats' last chance.

The next two could be the GOP's last chance."

this insightful political analysis was written by Pat Sajak in the off hours when he and Vanna weren't quizzing each other on spelling

October 12, 2010 10:24 AM  
Anonymous Full, unedited text and URL said...

Last Chance for Republicans?
Pat Sajak · Oct. 11 at 4:01am
I’m one of those who believes the 2010 midterm election will be a blowout of historic proportions. Put me down for around a hundred seats in the House and at least ten in the Senate. I say this based on my political savvy, my close reading of the polls and trends, and, of course, the significance of the number 2010 in the Mayan calendar. But, like in the ‘50s science fiction films that put a question mark after “The End,” it’s not the election that will determine the course of the nation, it’s what happens afterwards.

Just as the Democrats misinterpreted their “mandate” after 2008, the Republicans had better take a deep breath the morning of November 3 and remind themselves that they could suffer defeat again in two years if they think this is all about party politics. The coming vote is a rejection of liberal policies, but not necessarily a rejection of everything people thought they were getting with this administration. Americans don’t want a massive new bureaucracy involved in their healthcare decisions, but that doesn’t mean they still don’t want some kind of tweaking of the healthcare system. They may not buy into the anti-capitalist ravings of the Left, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a certain lingering suspicion when it comes to some big businesses and financial institutions. Do they want a series of Congressional investigations? I’m not so sure. Do they want a dramatic turn to the right on social issues? Better make certain.

The electorate is so upset with the direction of the nation, they’re willing to vote in members of the party they voted out just two years ago. And with that, they’ll be sending a message to politicians of both parties: they’re serious about this, and they’ve figured out how to make term limits work! And both Democrats and Republicans could find out that when voters come to believe in neither party, they’ll come up with a third. This could be the GOP’s last chance.


October 12, 2010 2:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you ever notice how much fund elections are whenever Dems are in power?

They really don't wear well.

And, really, who doesn't enjoy wiping that liberal smirk off their faces?:

"Hope has turned to doubt and disenchantment for half of President Barack Obama’s supporters.

More than 4 of 10 likely voters who say they once considered themselves Obama backers now say they no longer support him at all, according to a Bloomberg National Poll conducted Oct. 7-10.

Three weeks before the Nov. 2 congressional elections that Republicans are trying to make a referendum on Obama, likely voters are more apt to say Obama’s policies have harmed rather than helped the economy. Among those who say they are most enthusiastic about voting this year, 6 of 10 say he has damaged the economy.

“He’s made compromises that have hurt the middle class,” says Alan Graham, 55, a surgeon in London, Kentucky, who supported Obama in 2008. “I think the lobbyists for the big businesses are having their way with him.”

A year after the end of the recession, growth has slowed again without big gains in employment. Joblessness has barely budged since reaching a 26-year high of 10 per cent. GDP has slowed from a 5.0 percent rate in last year’s final quarter to 1.7 percent during the second quarter.

The poll shows that almost two-thirds of voters believe unemployment is the top concern. The budget deficit, ranks as the second most pressing issue.

While some prominent corporate leaders have complained Obama is too anti-business, more than half of voters believe Obama is too pro-business.

On Obama’s main foreign-policy initiative, 6 of 10 voters say Afghanistan is now a lost cause.

“It’s worse than a dead end, and he doesn’t seem to recognize that,” says Nick Ruffin, 66, an asset manager in McLean, Virginia.

The erosion of backing for Obama among onetime supporters has been most notable among two groups of voters who were central to his election: women and independents.

“I understand it’s an uphill battle, but I don’t think things are that much better than when he was elected,” says Daphne Feeney, 28, an Army wife and stay-at-home mother in Seaside, California, who voted for Obama.

“I hear people talk about this all the time,” she says. “The excitement they once felt is gone and they are left wondering if they were sold a bag of goods.”

Disaffected Obama supporters give him low marks on his performance in office with 39 percent job approval, compared with 47 percent among all voters."

October 12, 2010 2:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And, really, who doesn't enjoy wiping that liberal smirk off their faces?"

Is that analogous to stomping out the hubris and pitying the collective 54 I.Q. of the so-called "conservatives"?

October 12, 2010 2:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WASHINGTON (Oct. 12) --The Obama administration on Tuesday lifted the six-month moratorium on deep water oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico that was imposed after the BP oil spill.

The administration has been under heavy pressure from the industry and others in the region to lift the ban on grounds it has cost jobs and damaged the economy. A federal report said the moratorium likely caused a loss of 8,000 to 12,000 jobs in the Gulf region.

October 12, 2010 3:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"SAN DIEGO (Oct. 12) -- A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the ban on openly gay troops.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling was cheered by gay lunatic fringe groups.

"This is an historic and courageous step, a step that Congress has been slow in taking," said Alexander Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, a plaintiff along with the Log Cabin Republicans.

Servicemembers United is the nation's largest bunch of gay troops and veterans.

Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say the department is under no legal obligation to do so and could let the ruling stand.

Phillips declared the law unconstitutional after a NONJURY trial in California. She said the Log Cabin Republicans "established at trial that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act irreparably injures servicemembers by infringing their fundamental rights."

She said the policy violates due process rights, freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

"Furthermore, there is no adequate remedy at law to prevent the continued violation of servicemembers' rights or to compensate them for violation of their rights," Phillips said.

Government attorneys objected, saying such an abrupt change might harm military operations in a time of war.

The Department of Justice also said Congress should decide the issue.

Phillips disagreed, saying the law doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services by hurting recruiting during wartime and requiring the discharge of service members with critical skills and training.

Legal experts say the Obama administration could choose to not appeal her - but Department of Justice attorneys are not likely to stay mum since Obama has made it clear he wants Congress to repeal the policy.

The Department of Justice said the government was reviewing Phillips' ruling.

Woods said the administration should be seizing the opportunity to let a judge do what politics has been unable to do.

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but bans those who are openly gay. Under the 1993 policy, service men and women who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base, are subject to discharge."

October 12, 2010 4:35 PM  
Anonymous Not so foxy said...

Acclaimed Fox 5 reporter Charles Leaf was suspended Friday after he was accused of molesting a 4-year-girl inside his New Jersey home.

The 40-year-old Leaf was arrested Thursday at his Wyckoff home on charges of aggravated sexual assault on a minor and endangering the welfare of children, authorities said.

"Fox 5 management is aware of the matter and that Charles Leaf has been suspended pending further investigation," said a station spokeswoman.

The married father of two is being held at the Bergen County Jail on $250,000 bail. His arraignment is slated for Nov. 4.

Bergen County Prosecutor John Molinelli said Leaf's victim is an "acquaintance" of his, but her exact relationship to him is unclear.

Sources said Leaf called into the station Thursday, asking for a day off to deal with family issues. He gave no indication that he was in trouble with the law, sources said.

The disturbing accusations against Leaf stunned his friends and colleagues.

On his quiet tree-lined block, Leaf is often seen throwing a football around with his two young kids, a boy and a girl.

"I'm shocked, just devastated," said neighbor Judy Millane, 64. "I hope it's not true. He's a great family man. But predators, you never know who they are."

One of Leaf's pals said he was struggling to comprehend the charges.

"I've gone over this repeatedly in my head, and I can't think of anything that would have ever caused me to believe this was possible," said a friend, who asked not to be named.

A woman who answered the door at Leaf's two-story home told a reporter to "go take a hike."

Known for his aggressive style, Leaf, an ex-Marine, began working for Fox 5 in 2006 and has won two Emmy awards, according to his profile on myfoxny.com.

Leaf previously worked as a TV reporter in several cities, including Denver, Detroit and Mobile, Ala.

It's not the first time Leaf's conduct has become the subject of unsavory headlines.

In November 1999, Leaf, then a reporter in Mobile, Ala., was sued by a local councilwoman who alleged that the newsman attacked her while trying to interview her for a story.

Frela Wojciechowski said in the suit that Leaf pursued her to her car after a meeting and slammed the door on her arms and legs when she refused to talk.

Leaf abruptly left the station, WPMI. The suit was later settled, and no criminal charges were filed.


October 12, 2010 5:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

a local TV reporter in NYC arrested for child molestation

any particular reason for posting this unsavory tale?

October 12, 2010 5:42 PM  
Anonymous don't go there said...

"Gay rights groups warned gay troops not to make their sexual orientation public just yet.

Aaron Tax, the legal director for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he expects the Justice Department to appeal. If that happens, the case would be brought to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, where the decision could be reversed.

"Service members must proceed safely and should not come out at this time," Tax said in a statement.

Supporters of the ban said Phillips overstepped her bounds.

"The judge ignored the evidence to impose her ill-informed and biased opinion on our military, endangering morale, health and security of our military at a time of war," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, a women's group on public policy. "She did not do what Congress did when it passed the law and investigate the far-reaching effects of how this will detrimentally impact the men and women who risk their lives to defend us."

The case put the Obama administration in the awkward position of defending a policy it wants Congress to repeal.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, the military's top uniformed officer, have both said they would prefer to move slowly.

Gates has ordered a sweeping study, due Dec. 1, that includes a survey of troops and their families.

President Obama agreed to the Pentagon study with a Defense Department review and certification from the military that troop morale wouldn't suffer.

Gates has said the purpose of his study is to determine if the ban can be lifted without causing serious disruption.

"The president has taken a very consistent position here, and that is: 'Look, I will not use my discretion in any way that will step on Congress' ability to be the sole decider about this policy here,' " said Diane H. Mazur, legal co-director of the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara."

October 12, 2010 7:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday immediately stopping enforcement of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, suspending the 17-year-old ban on openly gay U.S. troops.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling also ordered the government to suspend and discontinue all pending discharge proceedings and investigations under the policy.

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Pentagon and Department of Justice officials said they are reviewing the case and had no immediate comment.

The injunction goes into effect immediately, said Dan Woods, the attorney who represented the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay rights group that filed the lawsuit in 2004 to stop the ban's enforcement.

"Don't ask, don't tell, as of today at least, is done, and the government is going to have to do something now to resurrect it," Woods said. "This is an extremely significant, historic decision. Once and for all, this failed policy is stopped. Fortunately now we hope all Americans who wish to serve their country can."

Anon must be so proud of those Log Cabin Republicans.

October 12, 2010 10:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

glad we have GLAAD to tell us all how to support the gay agenda correctly:

Is Anderson Cooper being two-faced by slamming the "gay" slur by Vince Vaughn in 'The Dilemma,' but at the same time seemingly letting Eminem breeze through an interview last week for '60 Minutes'?

Sources at Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) think so.

"It was very bad timing for Anderson to sit down with Eminem," a TV insider tells me. "You can't have it both ways. To inject yourself into the debate about celebrities using the word 'gay' and then to be neutral about a performer who has rapped about hate is just hypocritical."

Earlier in the week, Anderson objected to what he perceived as a gay slur being used in a trailer for the film 'The Dilemma,'.

Universal agreed to pull the anti-gay joke from the trailer but is reportedly still on the fence about including it in the film.

Later that same week, the newsman sat down with Eminem, and although he did question the performer about his oft-homophobic lyrics, he never took a personal stand during his discussion with Eminem.

"I didn't just invent saying offensive things," Eminem said in the chat, which aired on Sunday. "The scene I came up in that word was thrown around so much. 'Faggot' was thrown around to each other in battle."

But that was the end of the aired discussion -- no follow-up or piercing and personal observation from Anderson. A member of the GLAAD, who asked not to be named, took a hard line against Anderson for not going harder on Eminem in the interview.

"If Anderson really wanted to stand up and defend the gay community," the GLAAD member tells me, "he would have told '60 Minutes' that he would only interview Eminem if he could tell him exactly what he personally thought about his disgusting lyrics.""

Of course, maybe Anderson doesn't want to stand up and defend the gay community.

Who would?

October 13, 2010 12:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Of course, maybe Anderson doesn't want to stand up and defend the gay community.

Who would?"

I think Anderson Cooper himself may have a vested interest in defending that community.

October 13, 2010 6:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am Carl Paladino, a father, a husband, a builder and a business owner. I am neither perfect, nor a career politician. I have made mistakes in this campaign - I have made mistakes all my life - as we all have. I am what I am - a simple man who works hard, trusts others, and loves his family and fears for the future of our State.

Yesterday I was handed a script. I redacted some contents that were unacceptable. I did also say some things for which I should have chosen better words. I said other things that the press misinterpreted and misstated. I sincerely apologize for any comment that may have offended the Gay and Lesbian Community or their family members. Any reference to branding an entire community based on a small representation of them is wrong.

My personal beliefs are:

1) I am a live and let live person.

2) I am 100% against discrimination of any group. I oppose discrimination of any kind in housing, credit, insurance benefits or visitation.

3) I am 100% against hate crimes in any form.

4) I am in support of civil agreements and equal rights for all citizens.

5) My position on marriage is based on my personal views. I have the same position on this issue as President Barrack (sic) Obama. I have previously stated I would support a referendum by New York voters. I have proposed Initiative and Referendum so New Yorkers can decide important issues like this.

6) The portrayal of me as anti-gay is inconsistent with my lifelong beliefs and actions and my prior history as an (sic) father, employer and friend to many in the gay and lesbian community.

I am concerned with the future for all our citizens, gay, straight, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim and Agnostic. Although I am not perfect I do admit my mistakes. I will reach out to leaders of the gay community to educate me on how to better represent my support for the rights of all citizens. If elected as your governor I will stand and fight for all gay New Yorkers rights. I ask you for forgiveness on my poorly chosen words and the publication by others not involved with our campaign of unredacted script that did not reflect my oral statement or match my personal feelings. Please go to my website www.paladinoforthepeople.com to learn more detail about the issues including my staunch support for civil rights for all New Yorkers.

Carl Paladino

October 13, 2010 7:58 AM  
Anonymous the landslide brought me down said...

"In yet another demoralizing statement for Democrats, liberal billionaire George Soros told The New York Times on that he was in no position to stop the Republican “avalanche” on Nov. 2.

When asked if he was concerned about a potential GOP takeover, he said:

“I’m not in a position to stop it. I don’t believe in standing in the way of an avalanche.”

Claiming he made an exception in recent years by supporting liberal political groups, the 80-year-old activist said he will instead now give money to charitable causes – including domestic and global health care and environmental initiatives:

“Since I didn’t succeed in 2004, I remained engaged in 2006 and 2008. But I’m basically not a party man. I’d just been forced into that situation.”

Soros actions appear to contradict his actions. The billionaire is said to have donated $48 million to “alter the composition of America’s state courts,” federal and state liberal candidates, as well as a targeted campaign to discredit the Tea Party movement."

oh, well

nothing can be done

time to get a new hobby

October 13, 2010 9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paladino comes from upstate New York, growing up in the hard winters of the lakes region, and fed on family-centered conservative values and traditions, and on prejudices. In such a closed-in environment, politicians might hold biases that bubble up in back rooms, at private gatherings and family dinners. But they rarely pop up in public.

Paladino pops up in public. He does so bluntly, proudly, rashly. Then, when his remarks are rebuffed, he apologizes, as he did Tuesday for his anti-gay comments. Calling himself a "simple man" who makes mistakes, he said he should have chosen "better words."

Most people running for office try to rein in their prejudices and intemperate bouts. Not Paladino. Even before his remarks denigrating gays had ignited a political storm, Paladino had picked a fight with a New York Post columnist after the candidate accused him and the newspaper of harassing the 10-year-old daughter he fathered during an extramarital affair with a former employee 10 years ago. Earlier, he had admitted forwarding pornographic and racially degrading e-mails to friends.

But none of that comes close to the incendiary remarks he made at a meeting of Orthodox Jewish leaders in Brooklyn. He said he didn't want children "brainwashed" into thinking that homosexuality was acceptable and tongue-lashed his Democratic opponent, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, for taking his teenage daughters to a gay pride parade, where, Paladino said, men wear "little Speedos and grind against each other.''

"Mr. Paladino's statement displays a stunning homophobia and a glaring disregard for basic equality,'' said Cuomo's spokesman, John Vlasto. Cuomo said he didn't need Paladino giving him any lessons on child-rearing. Though Paladino's campaign manager, Michael R. Caputo, said that most New Yorkers agree with his candidate, polls have shown 58 percent of New Yorkers favor gay marriage, which Paladino opposes.

Not only is Paladino out of step with New Yorkers' gay rights views, but his timing could not have been worse, coming after a series of incidents in which young gay men committed suicide in the past few weeks and after members of a gang in the Bronx were arrested on charges of sodomy and torture of three gay men.

Paladino now risks becoming persona non grata in the city. He was heckled at the Columbus Day Parade (though he did receive a cordial greeting from the archbishop of New York, Timothy F. Dolan). The city's top officials and gay leaders denounced his remarks, and conservative and moderate Republicans like former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani scurried as quickly and as far as they could away from him.

October 13, 2010 10:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Though Paladino's campaign manager, Michael R. Caputo, said that most New Yorkers agree with his candidate, polls have shown 58 percent of New Yorkers favor gay marriage, which Paladino opposes."

they may favor allowing it but most agree with Paladino that kids shouldn't be brainwashed into thinking it equally valid as real marriage and that gay pride parades are disgusting

he's also right about Cuomo's parental judgment having his kids participate in such an event

October 13, 2010 10:35 AM  
Anonymous tic toc said...

Dana Beyer's trial is Friday:

"Dana Beyer, former assistant to Duchy Trachtenberg, is facing a trial on ethics violations charges with the Ethics Commission, alleging that Beyer harassed citizens who were collecting signatures for petitions to put the County's controversial "gender identity bill" to referendum.

The charges against Beyer and Trachtenberg details the active harassment and interference by Beyer against Montgomery County residents.

The charges are filed under Montgomery County Ethics Law Sec. 19A-14, which states that "a public employee must not intentionally use the prestige of office for private gain" and "a public employee must not intimidate, threaten, coerce or discriminate against any person for the purpose of interfering with that person's freedom to engage in political activity."

As a transgender formerly known as Wayne Bernard Beyer, Dana Beyer assisted Trachtenberg in sponsoring the gender identity special rights bill which became law despite the request for a referendum by Montgomery County residents who wanted to vote on the proposed law. That "gender identity" law is now being used by Beyer in a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the County.

After the Ethics Commission found 'reasonable cause' to proceed with the charges, Beyer claimed to be protected by legislative privilege, held a press conference attacking the Ethics Commission's process, and filed the $5 million lawsuit against the County, citing emotional distress and gender identity discrimination.

Beyer is the first person to sue the County based on the special rights "gender identity" law. Beyer has been quoted as stating, "I helped craft the bill, and I'm the first person to use it...That's a delicious irony." (Gazette, Nov. 18, 2009)

"MCRG opposed the 'Gender Identity Special Rights' bill because that law gives special rights to certain people while ignoring the rights of others," said Dr. Ruth Jacobs of MCRG. "The County Council should rescind this flawed 'gender identity' law and prevent Montgomery County taxpayers from facing millions of dollars in lawsuits."

The ethics hearing is open to the public and will begin at 9:30 AM at the Council Office Building, 100 Maryland Avenue , Rockville , Maryland, 7th floor hearing room."

Isn't it odd that TTF attacked CRC for wasting the taxpayer's money but this former TTF officer is suing the county for millions?

October 13, 2010 10:47 AM  
Anonymous warmonger said...

Brian Williams at University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth is the author of a work, out this month, that argues that the civilians in Pakistan's tribal regions favor the drone attacks by the U.S..

"I went into this study with an open mind. I didn't know where the data would take me," Williams said. "And what I found is that the people in those regions are rooting for the drones."

Since terrorist groups took over the largely autonomous northwest regions of Pakistan, they've imposed a strict, fundamentalist law, closed all-girls schools and executed those who dared to voice their opposition. "The Taliban and al-Qaida have turned their back on the Pakistani people," Williams says. So he went to work with a Pakistani colleague, devising a survey that asked hundreds of these civilians what they thought of their lives and the CIA drone attacks.

The study concludes that 52 percent of respondents felt the strikes were accurate; 58 percent thought they did not cause anti-American sentiment; 60 percent felt militants were "damaged" by the strikes; and 70 percent thought the Pakistani military should also carry out its own strikes against the terrorists. The civilians in the tribal regions "see the drones as their liberator," the study says.

October 13, 2010 1:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you guys planning to vote Republican this year, like most other Americans?

maybe you should if you want to advance the gay agenda


"WASHINGTON (Oct. 13) -- A federal judge's order to stop the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy was hailed by gay activists as a landmark ruling in their struggle.

The group that filed the lawsuit was the Log Cabin REPUBLICANS.

And the policy Judge Phillips ruled unconstitutional? It was the brainchild of the DEMOCRAT president, Bill Clinton.

Could REPUBLICANS take credit for allowing gays to serve openly?

The Grand Old Party as crusaders for gay liberation?


•In July, a judge who was appointed by REPUBLICAN Richard Nixon ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act -- a law signed by DEMOCRAT Bill Clinton -- is unconstitutional. On Tuesday, the Justice Department of DEMOCRAT Barack Obama announced it would appeal.

•In August, a judge appointed by REPUBLICAN Ronald Reagan, struck down California's Proposition 8. The plaintiffs' co-counsel was REPUBLICAN lawyer Ted Olson.

*Former REPUBLICAN VP Dick Cheney recently said it is time to reconsider the military's policy on gays.

•The wife and daughter of REPUBLICAN Sen. John McCain have taken stands on gay rights.

•Former REPUBLICAN first lady Laura Bush says committed same-sex couples "ought to have, I think, the same sort of rights that everyone has."

•Former REPUBLICAN Party chairman Ken Mehlman now spends his time as an activist for gay marriage.

•Pro-REPUBLICAN political analyst Glenn Beck has said gay marriage is not a threat to the America.

*Pro-REPUBLICAN commentator Ann Coulter recently appeared at an event to mark the one-year anniversary of a new gay conservative group, GOProud.

•In her new book, former REPUBLICAN Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice includes a photo of herself with her best friend, Chip Blacker, and his "long-term partner" Louis Olave.

"It is inherently a conservative principle to believe in individual liberties," said Jimmy LaSalvia, GOProud's director. "If hold a limited government philosophy then you believe the government should stay out of your personal life and allow you to do your job professionally" in the military and elsewhere.

Said Alex Nicholson, executive director of the gay group Servicemembers United: "There's definitely a pro-equality segment of the Republican Party and the conservative movement that is underappreciated by most.""

get out and vote, TTF

October 13, 2010 7:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's right homophobic Anon who thinks gay rights are "special" rights -

Even a few unelected mouthpieces for your own beloved political party like Glenn Beck are saying that civil rights like marriage should be EQUAL for all Americans. They are beginning to speak out in favor of what you label the big-bad-scare-quoted "gay agenda" that gays deserve the same rights as everyone else. Some of them are even starting to turn away from folks who make remarks like Paladino did.

Some but not all.

It looks like perpetutally single Ann Coulter has flipped again from supporting the use of anti-gay slurs - like when she called John Edwards the "f-word" - to attending GOProud's Homocon 2010 to defending Paladino's anti-gay remarks on FOX News.


And here's a little history lesson about DADT for those who prefer rewriting history to learning from it.

"In Congress, Democratic Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia led the contingent that favored maintaining the absolute ban on gays. Reformers were led by Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who favored modification (but ultimately voted for the defense authorization bill with the gay ban language), and retired Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, who argued on behalf of full repeal. After Congressional phone lines were flooded by organized anti-gay opposition, President Clinton backed off on his campaign promise to repeal the ban in favor of the DADT "compromise.""

October 14, 2010 8:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that's right, REPUBLICAN Barry Goldwater favored allowing gays in the military and DEMOCRAT Bill Clinton, after promising in the campaign to allow gays in the military, came up with DADT

again, you guys should vote Republican if you want to further the gay agenda

"gay rights are "special" rights"

that's right

any time you say "gay" rights, that's "special" rights

gays are entitled to the same rights as everyone else

no more, no less

"a few unelected mouthpieces for your own beloved political party like Glenn Beck"

I'm not a Republican, I'm a moderate libertarian

Glenn Beck seems to speak for the Tea Party, rather than the GOP, although I don't watch him so my knowledge is second-hand

btw, media stars are elected by a more pure democracy than politicians

if viewers don't vote for them by watching them, they are taken off the air

"she called John Edwards the "f-word""

what word is that?

George Carlin is spinning in his grave

"to attending GOProud's Homocon 2010"

they have common cause on some issues

so what?

"to defending Paladino's anti-gay remarks on FOX News"

Paladino's remarks were fine

TTF and the Republican Party: a match made in heaven

October 14, 2010 8:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

more good news

those who spend a lot of time thinking, don't think much of Obama:

"Barack Obamais no longer the big man on campus.

College students' support for the President is waning -- a worrying sign for Democrats who are trying to reenergize young voters before the midterm elections, which are just three weeks away.

Just 44% approve of the job Obama is doing, according to a new Associated Press-mtvU poll.

That's a significant dip from the 62% who gave the president high marks in a May 2009 poll.

And if 2008 is any indication, the Democrats need young voters. During that presidential race, nearly one in eight voters cast their ballots for the first time, and those young first-timers strongly supported the Democrats.

In 2008, Obama benefited from a flurry of endorsements from celebrities that young adults look up to such as Jay-Z, Chris Rock and Jennifer Aniston.

The President is making an effort to renew that campus enthusiasm. Obama will appear at a town hall that will be aired live on several youth-friendly networks including MTV and BET.

He'll also lead a rally Sunday at Ohio State University -- where the campus' 55,000 students are an important voting bloc in the battleground state.

Political scientists, campaign workers, and students said many young people are disenchanted with Obama's handling of the economy, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and failures to end the ban against gays serving openly in the military. There's also frustration of his inability to have delivered campaign promises to change Washington."

October 14, 2010 8:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Just 44% approve of the job Obama is doing, according to a new Associated Press-mtvU poll."

that's better than he's doing in the general voting population

a new Reuters poll says only 43% of voters approve of his performance

I think that changey is no longer just a hopey

October 14, 2010 8:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

President Obama now tells the New York Times “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.”

October 14, 2010 10:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

he musta forgot that's he's been digging his own political grave

that project's going very well

October 14, 2010 10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

President Obama said that he expected Republicans to offer him more cooperation after November’s elections, no matter the outcome.

In an hour-long interview with the Times’s White House correspondent, Peter Baker, Mr. Obama predicted that his political rivals would either be chastened by falling short of their electoral goals or burdened with the new responsibility that comes from achieving them.

“It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible, either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them,” Mr. Obama said. “Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”

The president’s comments are reported in an in-depth assessment of Mr. Obama’s first two years in office that appears in the Times Magazine this Sunday.

In the article, which is based on interviews with nearly two dozen of the president’s advisers in addition to the president himself, Mr. Baker offers a series of inside details about Mr. Obama’s time in the White House, including:

According to his wife, Michelle Obama, Mr. Obama is not particularly fond of the presidential retreat at Camp David. Mrs. Obama reports that her husband, a longtime resident of Chicago, is more at ease in an urban setting.
Pete Rouse, Mr. Obama’s new chief of staff, bet the deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, $400 that he would be gone from the White House by the end of this year. Mr. Messina predicted that Mr. Rouse would stay well beyond that date.
Mr. Obama — unlike most of his senior staff — does not have an iPad. Asked why, he said: “Because I have an iReggie,” a reference to his personal aide, Reggie Love.
In the magazine article, Mr. Obama reflects on his presidency, admitting that he let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat,” realized too late that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” and perhaps should have “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” in the stimulus.

He pushed back against what he called the “mythology” that his 2008 presidential campaign had been flawless and that his presidency suffers by comparison.

“The mythology has emerged somehow that we ran this flawless campaign, I never made a mistake, that we were master communicators, everything worked in lockstep. And somehow now, as president, things are messy and they don’t always work as planned and people are mad at us,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s not how I look at stuff, because I remember what the campaign was like. And it was just as messy and just as difficult. And there were all sorts of moments when our supporters lost hope, and it looked like we weren’t going to win. And we’re going through that same period here.”

He also predicted that in the next two years, his administration would focus less on trying to pass new legislation and more on implementing and consolidating what passed in the first two years.

“Even if I had the exact same Congress, even if we don’t lose a seat in the Senate and we don’t lose a seat in the House, I think the rhythms of the next two years would inevitably be different from the rhythms of the first two years,” he said. “There’s going to be a lot of work in this administration just doing things right and making sure that new laws are stood up in the ways they’re intended.”

October 14, 2010 11:41 AM  
Anonymous the squire said...

"President Obama said that he expected Republicans to offer him more cooperation after November’s elections, no matter the outcome."

this guy is unbelievable

Barry, you are the one he will finally learn to cooperate, if you want any chance in 2012

"Mr. Obama reflects on his presidency, admitting that he let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat,” realized too late that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” and perhaps should have “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” in the stimulus."


very good, Barry

that only took two years to figure out

don't feel bad, Hillary's husband took just as long

"He also predicted that in the next two years, his administration would focus less on trying to pass new legislation and more on implementing and consolidating what passed in the first two years."

you're right about that

that new stuff will be defunded or repealed and you will spend the next two years uselessly flopping around like a caught fish on a pier trying to stop it

October 14, 2010 12:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All things considered, Delaware GOP senate candidate Christine O'Donnell seems to have won Wednesday night's debate with Democrat Chris Coons.

The stakes were high (why was CNN nationally broadcasting a debate for a local, anyway?), and she easily held her own.

But if there was one moment when she stumbled, it was here:

NANCY KARIBJANIAN: What opinions, of late, that have come from our high court, do you most object to?

O'DONNELL: Oh, gosh. Um, give me a specific one. I'm sorry.

KARIBJANIAN: Actually, I can't, because I need you to tell me which ones you object to.

O'DONNELL: Um, I'm very sorry, right off the top of my head, I know that there are a lot, but I'll put it up on my website, I promise you.

WOLF BLITZER: We know that you disagree with Roe v. Wade.

O'DONNELL: Yeah, but she said a recent one.

Anyone who wants to criticize O'Donnell -- or her debate preparation -- should try being grilled on national television for 90 minutes.

It's simply very difficult for any person to master the number of issues that might come up during a debate. Throughout the debate, everyone was dazzled by O'Donnell's answers. She often approaches the brilliance of Sarah Palin. It's also worth noting that because the court currently leans conservative, it is not surprising that there are relatively few high-profile cases that a conservative, such as O'Donnell, would disagree with.

Still, it's fair to expect a U.S. senator to have a firm grasp on Supreme Court decisions. After all, they do vote to confirm Supreme Court justices, a very serious responsibility.

October 14, 2010 12:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

here's where we're going after November:

"(Oct. 14) -- School's out ... forever?

Tea Party candidate David Harmer, who is running as a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives in California's 11th District, thinks the nation's public education system should more closely resemble the way it looked in 1825. In other words, Harmer would abolish public schools altogether.

In an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2000, Harmer wrote the following:

To attain quantum leaps in educational quality and opportunity, however, we need to separate school and state entirely. Government should exit the business of running and funding schools.

This is no utopian ideal; it's the way things worked through the first century of American nationhood, when literacy levels among all classes matched or exceeded those prevailing now, and when public discourse and even tabloid content was pitched at what today would be considered a college-level audience.

Many tea party candidates would gut government by abolishing departments they consider unnecessary. Harmer's belief is that public schools represent "socialism in education."

This is Harmer's third attempt to win a seat in the House of Representatives, and he leads his challenger, Democratic incumbent Jerry McNerney, in the polls."

right now, voters will vote for any alternative to the Democrats

looks like Obama was their worst mistake- and that's sayin' somethin'

October 14, 2010 9:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Barry fights for DADT:

"The Obama Justice Department asked a federal judge in California Thursday to put on hold her worldwide injunction against enforcement of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward homosexual service members.

The dramatic moves came two days after U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips voided the policy as an unconstitutional infringement upon the rights of gay troops.

In Riverside, Calif., Obama sent his lawyers to ask Phillips to halt the effect of her own order until they can appeal the case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. "At a minimum," Justice Department officials wrote in their court filing Thursday afternoon, "this case raises serious legal questions, and without the entry of an order immediately staying the application of this Court's judgment, defendants will be irreparably harmed before they can appeal this decision.""

October 14, 2010 9:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anyone who wants to criticize O'Donnell -- or her debate preparation -- should try being grilled on national television for 90 minutes."

Anyone who wants to be voted into one of the 100 seats in the US Senate had better be able to handle a lot more than being grilled on national television for 90 minutes. Christine O'Donnell is a lightweight who is not ready for prime time.

Christine O'Donnell has been an evangelical activist for twenty years. During those decades, Ms. O'Donnell has told us "People are created in God's image. Homosexuality is an identity adopted through societal factors. It's an identity disorder," even though this belief puts her at odds with the American medical and psychological community and a majority of popular opinion. With extreme views like that, perhaps the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down Texas' anti-sodomy laws, might have been one relatively recent Supreme Court decision she could remember she disagreed with.

Christine O'Donnell has also told us she heard the "audible voice of God" encouraging her to run for office and that her reason to run for Senate in 2006 was to oppose embryonic stem cell research. With a background like that, this year's multiple appellate court rulings on embryonic stem cell research might have come to her mind as these rulings will most certainly be heard by the Supreme Court.

Here's the passage I think sums up Christine O'Donnell from last night's debate:

O'Donnell attacked Democratic economic policies, saying food stamps and welfare spending are higher than ever. "This is not a move towards real economic recovery. This is a move towards creating a culture of dependency," she said. To which Coons replied that "to simply denounce people as being dependent because they're applying for and receiving food stamps in the worst recession in modern times is frankly slandering people who are in incredibly difficult times." She called that "unfair."

What's "unfair" Ms. O'Donnell, is how this recession is changing American society. The middle class is disappearing as more formerly employed people than ever are trying to live near, at, or below the poverty level while mortgage lender "credit rating death squads" are blindly signing 100,000 eviction notices a month, raking in outrageous profits. How else can they afford to pay those bonuses they think they so richly deserve?

October 15, 2010 7:44 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home