Thursday, May 24, 2012
In the wake of the president's (very odd) announcement, gay rights groups and gay marriage advocates rallied around the newly annointed leader of the movement. This included the HRC, who endorsed Mr. Obama's reelection one year ago while he was still an opponent of gay marriage and was vigorously defending DOMA and DADT in federal court. What virtually no one has bothered to mention is that Mr. Obama's political maneuvering on this issue has hurt the homosexual community's efforts for equal protection at least as much as and arguably more than any anti-gay campaign.
North Carolina offers good evidence of the damage done by Mr. Obama's opportunism. On May 8, 2012, North Carolinians voted to ban gay marriage in that state. The very next day President Obama announced his support. Since that announcement, opposition to gay marriage in the black community has seen a sharp decline. After months of supporting gay marriage at a rate of only about 41%, the black community now supports it by nearly 60%. And nationwide the trend has been the same since his announcement according to the Washington Post. Is the black community turning into an important ally of gay rights after years of voting in opposition? You tell me. But all signs point to yes as, like night turns into day, the NAACP endorsed gay marriage just ten days after Obama's policy shift, calling it a "civil right" issue.
Here's the million dollar question: Would 29 states have banned gay marriage by now if President Obama had had the courage to tell the American people the truth more than two weeks ago? Would states like California, North Carolina and Maryland have banned gay marriage if the president weren't a weak, opportunistic grand stander who preferred to use gay Americans as pawns instead of standing by them as fellow citizens and decent human beings?
The answer is increasingly apparent. No, they wouldn't have. President Obama does not deserve our praise. As in every other instance of his presidency, Barack Obama has failed to lead on an important and divisive issue. And, as usual, the cost was paid by those Americans who trusted him to bring about hope and change.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Just weeks ago, the president was able to scrape together 60 percent of the vote against a convicted felon currently serving a prison sentence in Texas. Embarrassing, sure. But at least until yesterday this strange event might have been written off as an anomoly by the campaign's talking heads. Unfortunately for President Barry, red flags are popping up all over the south. In a two way race in Arkansas the president was still only able to earn 60 percent of the vote against his obscure opponent. For perspective, Mitt Romney won his four-way race in that primary with nearly 70 percent of the vote against three well known opponents.
But none of that is as pleasing than the results of the Kentucky primary where Mr. Obama again clawed his way to 60 percent of the vote, losing 4 in 10 voters to...nobody. In the blue grass state, Democrat primary voters preferred "uncommitted" 4 out of 10 times. Does the fact that these are southern states that would probably vote Republican in November anyway make the outcome any more comforting? They certainly shouldn't. While each of these three states did, in fact, vote Republican in 2008, there are three other southern states that Obama won in 2008 (Florida, Virginia and North Carolina) that could be in play if yeterday's primaries are signs of growing unrest among southern Democrats.
In Florida, where the president won by just 3 points in 2008, the latest poll now shows Mitt Romney leading by six points, due in no small part to the president's recent "evolution" on gay marriage. And in North Carolina, where Mr. Obama won with only 50 percent of the vote four years ago and the DNC plans to hold its nominating convention this year, the state party has been plagued by recent scandal, casting doubt on the president's hopes of building on his 2008 lead.
All of this should give hope to conservative voters who have convinced themselves that Barack Obama isn't beatable this year. The rumors are false. Mitt Romney can win. Indeed, in this political and economic environment, he has no excuse for losing.
The message this election cycle is simple, and it's borrowed from the left's very own Ragin' Cajun, James Carville: "It's the economy, stupid". Of course, it is. And with little hope that President Obama and his henchmen in the Democrat led Senate will do anything to improve the economy, there can be found little reason for Mr. Romney to talk about much of anything else.
Do not expect that to deter the talking heads from the other side of the aisle or their cheerleaders on the network evening news. Since the beginning of the primary season viewers have been subjected to stories on Mitt Romney's travel habits with his pets, his friends in Nascar, his work as a successful businessman, a mass murder committed 150 years ago and, most recently, his wife's hobby of riding horses. The media found the expenses incurred by that last bit to be newsworthy. Go figure. These, of course, are distractions meant to knock the governor off message. If they succeed, the president will ride the wave of these meaningless stories into a second term.
But that depends on the good governor, who, thus far has managed a campaign focused squarely on the economy and job creation. But one issue has resurfaced that may cause Romney to stumble. When the gaffe prone Vice President forced President Obama to admit he supports gay marriage, a contentios and contemporary issue was resurrected in the American electoral consciousness. Mr. Romney was thus forced to restate his position on gay marriage; a position growing less and less popular as the months and years roll by. And, as required, he restated his position and left it at that.
Wrong answer, Mr. Romney. Nevermind the conservative principles underlying anyone's support of gay marriage. The correct answer to that question was, "I still support marriage between one man and one woman. But the fact is gay people are living in this economy too. Gay people are standing in unemployment lines right next to straight people. I want to put all Americans back to work. That is my focus as president." Instead of making his economic message resonate with gay and lesbian Americans, Mr. Romney allowed himself to be dragged into a hotly debated social issue. While he cannot afford to not comment on the president's "evolution" on the issue, he also cannot afford to allow himself to be blown off message because of the Vice President's big mouth.
You're doing fine, Mitt. Just stay the course.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Unfortunately, the former is winning out in our party. Practicality and electability have taken a back seat to an ideological predictability that is so bold and disconnected with the American people as to virtually guarantee electoral defeat in November. In their one way tunnel of thought, the answers of our party brethren are always the same and never vary: Abortion? It's always wrong and never ok in any circumstance. Ever. At all. Gay marriage? It's destroying the country and threatening our children. Defense spending? No cuts, for any reason, at any time. Ever. Taxes? Get rid of 'em. The poor? Lazy. Women? Home makers. The courts? A beacon of truth and reason when we agree, activist and overreaching when we do not.
The purists can come no closer to a perfect candidate than Rick Santorum, former senator from Pennsylvania, who today is threatening the once seemingly inevitable nomination of Mitt Romney. And, of course, the problems with his candidacy are as predictable as his socially conservative, devoutly Catholic politics. He has compared homosexuality to polygamy and incest. He has said that women being allowed in combat rolls raises certain "emotional concerns". He has said that homosexuals should not be allowed to serve openly in the military. He has said contraception is dangerous to women. He has raised questions regarding the moral integrity of mothers who choose to have careers rather than be career mothers.
Regardless of how one actually feels about these issues, there is a skill in politics that good politicians learn, and learn fast. The art of learning when to shut one's mouth can be a very helpful skill. Only ideologues possess the kind of self righteous chutzpah required to actually say they believe homosexuals are as dangerous as men who have sex with their daughters or that working mothers are, somehow, subpar.
Needless to say, these issues would be unimportant if Americans at large actually agreed with Rick Santorum. The problem, of course, is that they do not. If the GOP is willing to nominate a man so comfortably out of the mainstream on these very sensitive issues then it is prepared to lose one of the most consequential elections in a generation. In the pursuit of everything these purists will gain nothing and insure the president's reelection.
It has been said, often grudgingly, that the establishment always wins in the nominating process. Let's hope that it does this time, at least.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
In just a mere two years 67 million (yes that's MILLION) people are now relying on federal aid in one form or another.
Investors.com explains "In 2010, for the first time ever, average spending on dependence programs per recipient exceeded the country's per-capita disposable income."
The Left would have you believe that the reason behind this spike is mainly the crap economy, but WE'RE NOT BUYING IT.
In true Demo fashion BO has to create a dependency among the voting base so he'll have something "positive" to discuss on the campaign trail & like a broken record we'll hear it over and over and over again...
By creating this base of individuals who are largely dependent on the government Obama is attempting to solidify his next term. A few problems here 1) we're on to you 2) we're paying for it 3) we're sick of it.
Investors.com continues: "The report also found that spending on "dependence programs" accounts for more than 70% of the federal budget. That, too, is up dramatically. In 1990, for example, the figure stood at 48.5%, and in 1962 just over a quarter of federal spending went to dependence programs."
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Last night, after losing to Mitt Romney in Nevada, the former Speaker of the House decided not to host a party and give a speech, as is traditional in these cases. Instead, the Speaker chose to hold a press conference in which he attempted to do what he does best; chastise the media and blame his campaign's failure on Mitt Romney's "dishonesty", calling him a "Soros candidate". The episode quickly disintegrated into an episode of a man desperate for any explanation of his poor performance other than his own inability to raise money, earn support and organize a GOTV campaign. Former GOP House leader Dick Armey, now Chairman of Freedome Works, has pity for Newt, but still calls Newt what he is, namely, a sore loser:
Armey said that Gingrich’s criticisms of Romney were not helpful for either the GOP in November or Gingrich’s own campaign during an interview on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday. “I feel bad for him. I think he’s digressed into a state of taking a second-rate campaign and turning it into a first-rate vendetta,” said Armey
Of course, Newt's problem is not that he's incapable of being president. It's not that he is a poor debater. Nor is his problem that he is not intelligent or an important conservative thinker. Newt's problem is that he's not as smart or effective as he thinks he is, and after two subpar debate performances in Florida people are beginning to figure that out. If Newt Gingrich wants to have any chance of being competitive in this race again, he'd better figure that out for himself, and soon. Politics requires a certain arrogance if you are going to survive in the mine field of elected public life. But it also requires more humility, or at least feigned humility. Newt has neither feigned nor actual humility (which one might find odd for a man on his third wife).
The simple truth is that arrogance, not a determined desire to be president, is what is driving Newt's campaign. His over the top rhetoric as he grapples to explain to himself why he is losing is only making it worse. More from Mr. Armey:
“I thought that last night was really sad for him,” said Armey about Gingrich’s Saturday speech. “Quite frankly again so much of Newt’s whole life is overstated, he overstates the case in such a hyperbolic fashion, it just looks vindictive.”And that's what it is.
It's time for Mr. Gingrich to take a page out of Mr. Romney's 2008 play book and step aside and make way for the GOP nominee.