And he gives it to us straight.

On the heels of yesterday’s news announcing Gov. Schwarzenegger’s veto of California’s proposed Gay Marriage Bill, GayPatriot reflects on the governor’s leadership to date and discusses the reasons for his continued support.

He’s definitely not towing the line.

According to the L.A. Times: “The bill, AB 849 by Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) was the first sanctioning same-sex marriage to clear a state legislature without a court order. It passed the Senate and Assembly earlier this month with no Republican votes and without a vote to spare after lengthy, debate.”

Leno accused Schwarzenegger of “hiding behind the fig leaf” of Proposition 22, which 61% of California voters approved in 2000. It says that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.“

Dismissing majority vote as a “fig leaf.” That’s an original spin, we’ll give him that.

“The governor has failed his test of leadership and has missed a history opportunity to stand up for the basic civil rights of all Californians,” said Leno. “He cannot claim to support fair and equal legal protections for same sex couples and veto the very bill that would have provided it to them.”

We disagree, and it’s nice to see that we’re not alone.

GayPatriot weighs in:

“While State Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-Castro Street) has called his veto of the same-sex marriage bill as a failure of leadership, the Governor has made clear that he vetoed the bill because he does “not believe the Legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California.” PrismWarden says that Governor did the responsible thing because the legislation is either “unconstitutional or presents. . .constitutional problems.” (Castro Street link added)

While most liberals and homosexual activists are up-in-arms, GayPatriot reasonably explains that his assessment of performance doesn’t depend upon one single gay rights agenda item. Perhaps that’s what makes him a conservative. And perhaps Leno can learn something from him. And it’s why we respect him.

Taking a broad view of the governor’s accomplishments, GayPatriot concludes:

“[D]espite the angry rhetoric of Democrats in Sacramento, a number of left-wing interest groups and public employee unions, my man Ahnuld has accomplished a good deal in his short term in office — and continues to put forward reforms to fix California’s dysfunctional political system. He has shown a great command of the issues and an understanding of the problems facing our state.
. . .

Arnold Schwarzenegger has shown tremendous energy and initiative as Govenor of the nation’s largest state. To be sure, he has, as George Will noted, made a “raft of rookie mistakes,” par for the course for a novice politician.

Despite these mistakes, like Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger has pressed on, more interested in serving the people who elected him than the special interests who have long dominated state politics. I may have to cut back a little to afford tonight’s fundraiser, but I am proud to support my Govenor and his agenda to reform my adopted home state.”

Well, we’re sure glad you’re here, Dan.

Just wondering why homegrowns can’t have your sensible attitude.

RELATED:
Governor Schwarzenegger Vetoes Gay Marriage Bill

Unbelievable, but true.

“O.J. Simpson Marks 10th Anniversary of His Killing of his Ex-Wife and Ron Goldman by Signing Autographs”

Only $95 per signature. Here’s the press release.

SoCalLawBlog has the story.

UPDATE: Welcome Michelle Malkin readers!

As is customary, we encourage you to look around our site.
See the latest posts listed on your left side. Or by clicking here.
(Click and scroll down)

You might also be interested in these categories:
ACLU
Arnold
Culture
Foreign Policy
Homeland Security
Immigration
Iraq
Liberals
Military
Terrorism

ATTENTION: Readers from California
Help us spread the word…

Only in Bill Clinton’s dreams.

That question is the byline to John Fund’s editorial this morning which examines CBS’ upcoming new series about a female U.S. president. It appears that Hollywood is starting to clear the runway for Hillary.

“The series pits Academy Award-winner Geena Davis against the patriarchal world of national politics until her “You Go, Girl!” attitude puts to rest the doubts of her many detractors. The creator of “Commander in Chief,” Rod Lurie, is apparently trying to broaden the show’s appeal by promising that he won’t be using it as a soapbox for his admittedly liberal views. He is quick to note that Ms. Davis isn’t playing a Democrat. Instead she is an independent who landed on a Republican ticket in order to offset a conservative candidate’s low approval rating among women.

Mr. Lurie insists that red-state viewers need not shun the show. He admits that he “can’t write to a belief system that I can’t swallow myself,” but he says that he has hired some conservative writers to make up for his deficit. Not that a balanced approach was evident at last week’s series-celebrating parties, in Washington and New York, hosted by the feminist White House Project.” (Emphasis ours)

Ben Johnson had the scoop on this story two days ago — and he calls Hollywood onto the carpet.

“THE HILLARY CLINTON ’08 CAMPAIGN AIRED ITS FIRST, HOUR-LONG COMMERCIAL last night. Unfortunately, it came masked as a primetime network TV series.

ABC’s “Commander-in-Chief” stars Geena Davis as the first female president. Recognizing obvious parallels with Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions, its creator, stars, and assistants – not a single Republican amongst them – carefully distanced themselves from the notion their new program would promote either Hillary proper or left-wing politics in general.
. . .

As usual, the Hollywood Left lied.”

Debbie Schlussel agrees, and gives us this perspective:

It’s not just that the show about the first female President is a weekly hour-long campaign commercial for Hillary Clinton. It’s not just that conservatives are mean and evil on this propaganda hour.

It’s that this is what a female President will be like as brought to you by Oprah and the women of “Desperate Housewives”–and the legions of female fans who love them. Do you want them picking the leader of the free world?

I don’t. Here’s why.

Michelle Malkin calls it another example of why she “rarely tunes in to network prime-time TV anymore”

For most of our readers, there’s little doubt that Hollywood would create yet another vehicle to advance a pro-Democrat agenda. Only this ride is custom made with an eye on ‘08.

But leave it to The S.F. Chronicle to look past the politics, as TV critic Tim Goodman concludes:

Will ‘Commander’ help Hillary? Who cares? It’s just a good show.

Who knows what “Commander in Chief” will mean to Hillary Clinton, but its quality certainly makes Tuesday nights a bigger quandary for viewers.

Goodman highlights:

What makes “Commander in Chief” work is its potential, just as “The West Wing” rose up and surprised everyone. In one scene here, Bridges’ widow surprisingly throws her support to Mackenzie, with a you-go-girl flourish: “Mac, you’re the first female president. If Moses had been a woman leading the Jews in the desert, she’d have stopped and asked for directions. They’d have been in Israel in a week.”

Well, with sassy lines like that, it’s not hard to see why this will be a big hit among liberals — especially women.

And maybe Hillary will use “You go, girl” for her campaign message. Depends on the ratings.

UPDATE: (11/16)
Brent Baker explores how ABC Gives Conservative GOP House Speaker a History of Advocating Segregation.

Somebody call Rod Lurie…

Don Surber rightly quips: “That does seem to run counter to the reality that MoveOn lefties now idolize the old Exalted Cyclops himself: Robert C. Byrd.”

Indeed.

Trackbacks:

As hurricane Katrina left behind a beaten New Orleans, Louisiana, underwater and her citizens desolate, the rumors and accounts of atrocities began. There were thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, dead. Theory had it that New Orleans could never recover. It would be impossible to rebuild the city because of the watery devastation and financial liability. There were rapes, murders, even cannibalism in the New Orleans Superdome. Mayor Ray Nagin spoke to Oprah in a public interview of people “in that frickin’ Superdome for five days watching dead bodies, watching hooligans killing people, raping people.” He continued that the crowd in the Superdome had descended into an “almost animalistic state.”

With these facts duly noted, time came to assess blame. At the top of the food chain, President Bush received scathing reviews from the usual suspects. Senate Democrats promptly began demanding a 9/11 Commission type investigation into the federal response to the natural disaster. Democrats accused Pres. Bush of underfunding the Army Corps of Engineers, sending all our troops to Iraq so none were available for Katrina rescue operations, exhausting the National Guard and Reserves forces in Iraq and, of course, of hating minorities, his real reason for the “slow response”. (”Word in the street” has it that Bush sent Rita to Texas to finish off those fleeing from New Orleans that Katrina missed).

Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel and Rev. Al Sharpton (among many others) are race-baiting to promote the false impression, using such language as: “Clearly Bush has become that, especially after Katrina. We’ve gone from fire hoses to levees.” “Bull Connor didn’t even pretend that he cared about African-Americans. You have to give it to George Bush for being even more diabolical.” “George Bush is our Bull Connor.” “If you’re black in this country, and you’re poor in this country, it’s not an inconvenience - it’s a death sentence.”

One month later, there are 841 dead, not tens of thousands. The stories of rape and murder once reported as fact are now repudiated and unsubstantiated. Schools and restaurants are reopening and some citizens are returning to their homes.

It wasn’t Pres. Bush who was negligent in the rescue efforts in New Orleans, but Mayor Ray Nagin (D) and Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D). Their incompetence and negligence caused the additional and unnecessary suffering of their own constituents.
(continue reading post »)

Nothing new in San Francisco.

AP reports: “Until recently, candidates did not put much energy into wooing Asians, but that is changing. Asians as a group are becoming an influential force, joining the established blocs of black and Hispanic voters already crucial to winning office in New York City.”

The critical question: What political party is most appealing to them?

“The numbers of Asian-Americans on the voter rolls are increasing by leaps and bounds, and the actual turnout rates are increasing correspondingly, so ignore this group at your own peril,” said John Liu, the only Asian on the 51-member City Council.

New York’s Asians account for 11 percent of the city’s 8 million people, compared with blacks’ 26 percent and Hispanics’ 28 percent. Asians are one of the city’s fastest-growing minority groups: At nearly 900,000, their numbers have more than tripled since 1980, because of both immigration and a high birth rate.

Fortunately, since Asians care deeply about family values, entrepreneurship, keeping kids in school and self-reliance, the Republican platform should be more appealing.

But that Howard Dean, he’s a charmer…

RELATED:
GOP Outreach Is Working

DNC Chairman Howard Dean’s slips of the tongue in the past have been well documented. A few examples before I proceed to the latest are:

“I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization,” the failed presidential hopeful told the crowd at the Roosevelt Hotel, where he and six other candidates spoke at the final DNC forum before the Feb. 12 vote for chairman. -January 30, 2005
——————————————-

“We’re going to use Terri Schiavo later on … This is going to be an issue in 2006, and it’s going to be an issue in 2008 because we’re going to have an ad with a picture of Tom DeLay saying, ‘Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?’” -April 15, 2005 at a gay rights group’s breakfast in West Hollywood.
———————————-

But he did draw howls of laughter by mimicking a drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh. “I’m not very dignified,” he said. “But I’m not running for president anymore.” In fact, as part of his commitment to lead the party for the next four years, he has sworn not to seek any office until after 2008. I’m not running for president anymore.” -April 20, 2005 (Star Tribune link no longer works, so I’m providing an alternate source) at a benefit for the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota
——————————————

Dean’s 25-minute speech to the Campaign for America’s Future annual gathering was interrupted frequently by applause, but his line about Republican work habits also produced an undertow of ‘’oohs’’ and ‘’aahs.’’ Asserting that some Florida voters stood in line for eight hours in November, Dean said that was a hardship for people who ‘’work all day and then pick up their kids at child care.’’ But, he said, Republicans could stand in eight-hour lines ‘’because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.’’ -June 2, 2005, in a 25-minute speech to the Campaign for America’s Future in Washington, DC

Well, the Dean of Disology is at it again. This time, in comments about Bill Bennett:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 /U.S. Newswire/ — Former Republican Secretary of Education William Bennett remarked yesterday on his radio show that, “I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.”

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement:

“Bill Bennett’s hateful, inflammatory remarks regarding African Americans are simply inexcusable. They are particularly unacceptable from a leader in the conservative movement and former Secretary of Education, once charged with the well being of every American school child. He should apologize immediately. This kind of statement is hardly compassionate conservatism; rather, Bennett’s comments demonstrate a reprehensible racial insensitivity and ignorance. Are these the values of the Republican Party and its conservative allies? If not, President Bush, Ken Mehlman and the Republican Leadership should denounce them immediately as hateful, divisive and worthy only of scorn.

“As Americans, we should focus on the virtues that bring us together, not hatred that tears us apart and unjustly scapegoats fellow Americans.”

But what did Bennett actually SAY? Read on:

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don’t know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don’t know. I mean, it cuts both — you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well –

CALLER: Well, I don’t think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don’t think it is either, I don’t think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don’t know. But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

As John Cole - who has made clear in the past and in this post what he thinks of Bennett - points out (bolded emphasis his):

There is nothing for him to apologize for regarding this statement. It is a statement of fact, he was not advocating it, and, in fact, he noted that it would be an “impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do.”

Yep.

Howard Dean is being a demagogue. As usual.

Will the media call him on this? I won’t hold my breath.

MORE: The WH has officially condemned Bennett’s remarks. Sigh. Jeff Goldstein writes:

And the White House, increasingly incapable of taking a principled stand, provides these disingenuous race baiters with cover—presumably still realing from the last round of disingenuous race baiting, which came in guise of Hurricane outrage.

I don’t disagree with that at all.

Cross-posted at SisterToldjah

UPDATE:
Unalienable Right says Bennett told the “truth”
NewsBusters reports, “Bennett is taken out of context”
(Compares reactions to Air America’s Randi Roades)
Jeff Goldstein argues the misunderstanding is intentional
ModerateVoice says, “Bill Bennett stepped in it”

RELATED:
Howard Dean: Revealing The “New” 2008 DNC Strategy
DNC Action Plan: Diversify The “Diversity”

A Federal Judge has sided with the ACLU and numerous news organizations and ordered the release of additional photos of prisoner abuse at the Abu Graib prison.

The story which broke last year generated a firestorm of anger here and in the Arab world, when pictures of American Soldiers committing sexual abuse on terrorists being held at the facility were released.

U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein rejected the Government’s arguments that releasing the photos would incite violence.

he said the terrorists ‘’do not need pretexts for their barbarism'’ and that suppressing the pictures would amount to submitting to blackmail.

‘’Our nation does not surrender to blackmail, and fear of blackmail is not a legally sufficient argument to prevent us from performing a statutory command. Indeed, the freedoms that we champion are as important to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the guns and missiles with which our troops are armed,'’ he said.

Releasing these photos is akin to yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

The public’s right to know the Government’s actions was satisfied when the original story and photos were made public. There is no secret being kept.

The compelling interest should not be the public’s curiosity, or the ACLU’s twisted agenda, but to protect the lives of Americans on the ground in the middle east.

The Government should appeal this ruling.

RELATED:
Federal Judge Orders Release of Abu Ghraib Photos

The Sacramento Bee is reporting that the House Resources Committee approved, by a 27-16 margin, a bill that would allow “to end long-standing moratoriums that have prevented opening new areas off the coast of California & other states to natural gas development.”

“This legislation will lead to increased & more diverse U.S. energy supplies to prevent disruptions and to bring future price relief,” said committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Tracy. But Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, blasted the legislation as an exploitation of the Katrina disaster “that fails to make any headway in the desperately needed area of energy efficiency.”

Representative Miller is simply wrong about this issue.

The energy bill that the president signed into law last month had strong conservation measures in it. To codify those measures into this bill would simply be repetitive. This also points out the different perspectives bewteen Republicans & Democrats on this issue. Republicans agree that conservation is a useful tool in this situation, but that conservation alone won’t get us out of the situation that we’re in.

In my opinion, this is an “all of the above” type situation, not a “this, not that” situation.

“We believe there is not going to be any undermining of the environment,” Abercrombie added. But Speer said the process of finding natural gas is no different than for oil. Both involve seismic exploration with underwater explosions that are disruptive & dangerous to whales & other sea life. In addition, she said, drilling produces mud spoils & other rock cuttings that often are dumped untreated into surrounding waters.

Quite frankly, it’s very possible to extract natural gas from underneath the ocean’s floor in a way that doesn’t endager the ocean’s ecosystems. Secondly, if it’s a matter of putting a higher priority on “whales and other sea life” or on increasing natural gas production, I’ll vote for increasing natural gas production.

Cross-posted at BoxerWatch

And thus upholds the will of the voters.

Reuters reports: “California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a widely expected move vetoed a bill on Thursday that would have allowed gay couples to marry.”

But at least he’s wearing a pink necktie.

“The Republican governor had earlier this month indicated he would veto the bill passed by California’s Democrat-led legislature. The bill was the first of its kind approved by a state legislature.

Schwarzenegger said he would leave the contentious issue of same-sex marriage to voters and the courts. “I do not believe the legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California,” he said in a written statement.

“This bill simply adds confusion to a constitutional issue,” Schwarzenegger wrote. “If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not necessary. If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective.”

Nothing more needs to be added. But, alas, liberal Democrats are quick to pounce.

California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez sharply criticized Schwarzenegger’s veto.

“History will show that Gov. Schwarzenegger had a chance to end the last vestige of legal discrimination in our state,” Nunez said in a statement. “Instead of choosing the way of the future the governor has aligned himself with the enemies of equal rights for all.”

Guess Nunez is referring to the majority of California voters.

California voters approved a ballot measure five years ago defining marriage as between a man and woman, a law San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom defied in 2004 by issuing city marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Newsom’s move sparked a national firestorm and has forced a showdown in state court over California’s voter-approved ban on gay marriage.

Thanks, Gavin.

Predictable liberal strategy: If you can’t persuade the voters, leverage the courts.

UPDATE:
Say Anything agrees with Arnold
OutsideTheBeltway points to problems in Connecticut

RELATED:
California State Politics: Who Says
There’s A “Gay Agenda”?
Governor Scharzenegger: Standing Strong
In Defense of Marriage
Homosexuals Pushing Marriage In California
“Conan” of California: It Takes Great Strength
To Manage The State’s Liberal Democrats

Just a reminder to visit our original Porkbusters post.

As of now, it appears that California still has almost $2 billion in pork spending that could be trimmed.

Check out all the latest stats and learn more about this important initiative.

UPDATE: (10/31)
One month later…
Michelle Malkin has the latest.

RELATED:
Porkbusters’ Public Grilling 2005:
California Has Plenty of Fat To Cut