David’s blog is The Unreligious Right:  The Opinions of a Highly Opinionated Right-Wing Atheist, and I found it today through a comment he left at Professor Jacobson’s. Obviously, he and I don’t see eye-to-eye on the existence of God. But here’s part of what David (who blogs as UNRR) had to say about recent criticism from right-wing bloggers of President Obama going out for ice cream with his kids while Iran is in turmoil:

There are so many substantive points on which to criticize Obama’s performance as president, that I find this sort of ridiculous attack completely idiotic. First of all, Obama is President of the United States, not Iran. It isn’t his job to project “concern” for Iranians, let alone 24 hours a day. He has a family, and sometimes he is going to do things with them. Maybe he should stop eating entirely, sit in a room and cry about people in Iran. Would that make these critics happy?

“Idiotic” is a strong word — stronger than I would use — but his substantive point is correct. This “scandal” should be noted as nothing more than a “what if Bush had done it?” moment — point out that Bush would have been crucified by the press for doing the same thing, that this president will receive no such criticism, then move on. As David notes:

Why should those of us on the right act like BDS-infected morons? Attack Obama for things he deserves to be called on, not for non-issues like going out to eat ice cream.

In fact, Obama is probably less deserving of criticism for his ice cream outing than Bush would be under the same circumstances. If Bush had done it, it would have been inconsistent with his outspoken concern for spreading liberty to others. When spreading liberty is not one of your chief values — indeed, when it is antithetical to one’s values, which I believe to be the case with President Obama — going out for ice cream during these events is meaningless. But I’d cut the guy a break even if I believed for one second that he cared about liberty.

UPDATE: I need to make a distinction here, in case it isn’t clear from my post. Do I think Obama’s virtual silence on Iran has been appalling? Yes. Do I think that a CBS reporter giving continuous updates on an ice cream outing via Twitter is a disgrace to journalism. Yes. But I think the guy has a right to take his kids for an ice cream cone, too.

She said that the Republican National Committee had come “out of a coma” and improved to a “mostly vegetative state” to elect Michael Steele as its new chairman.  Pretty apt, I thought.  And, she gave a contrarian viewpoint on the opening of Steele’s acceptance speech, which lots of conservative blogs have been featuring. She criticized Steele’s description of the RNC members as “proud.”"  In her opinion, anyone on the RNC who is proud of the party’s performance should be fired.

I don’t have a transcript, so I’m paraphrasing above, but it was a nice, skeptical take on the self-congratulatory atmosphere surrounding Steele’s election.

To fully appreciate her comments, you probably need to know more about Tammy’s background.  Back in the early ’90s, when I lived in L.A. and heard her on the weekends on KFI, she was my favorite gun-toting lesbian talk radio personality.  Really.  Even though she seemed thrilled that Clinton won, and I agreed with her on very little, she was interesting to listen to.  Now, the first sentence on her biography page describes her as an “openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush authentic feminist.” She’s also a tiger in the war on Islamic terror.  Check out her bio.

In short, I think it’s fair to say that most conservatives have considered her one of “the good guys” since 9/11.  She’s no Republican, but her commentary on Steele’s election might as well have been from a member of the party, earning her this month’s Honorary Skepticrat honor.