Stuart95 wrote: Is it possible that strong, persistent stands against abortion and homosexuality will hurt, rather than help, the Republican Party? Is it possible that a winning margin's worth of swing and independent voters either don't care about those two issues, or believe the government should not be involved? - The Broken President’s Broken Politics
Dear Comrade Stuart,
I don’t see much evidence that either abortion or gay marriage is an issue that changes general elections, although that’s not true of primary elections.
You are right about this: A wide margin of voters- voters who will vote either party- really don’t care much about either issue, either way. One way that you can tell that either party is in trouble is how much time each party spends talking about either issue.
In 2004, Karl Rove spent quite a bit of time putting together a coalition for Bush-Cheney that was solidly pro-life and helped pass the marriage amendment. In part, they did this because they couldn’t count on the base to support their record in the Iraq war or their record on an economy that, well, let’s say was in the late stages of a very mature business cycle.
I see 2012 as the counterpoise election by the Democrats, wherein Obama’s coalition relied very heavily on turning out the base on issues like gay marriage to distract from a really poor economic and governing record.
And here’s the primary problem with that strategy: Putting aside my own personal views on the issue, most voters have nuanced views socially. They care more about good government than they do about wonkish policy details that relate to either abortion or gay marriage. They have only so much bandwidth and when basic issues like the direction of the economy under the federal government don’t get resolved, and then things go bad, it rebounds on the people in charge.
Let’s face it, most people who decide elections go for the lesser of the two evils, rather than vote affirmatively for the proposals put out by the winning side.
Unless someone wins by a landslide, and even then it’s questionable, claiming a mandate can be very dangerous.
For example, Obama just found that out with taxes and spending. He thought he could dictate practically any tax policy just because he won the presidential election by a few votes.
We have had a very narrowly divided government for the last fifteen years. That has not changed because of gay marriage or because of abortion. Nor do I expect it to change because of social issues in the future.
One area where Republicans do have opportunities to pick up swing voters is with Hispanics. The GOP needs to figure out an immigration policy that shuts down the border first and foremost and then deals with the $2 trillion underground economy that largely has been created by not closing the borders.
We should be embarrassed that our black market is now approaching the size of failed countries. The size of a country’s black market is a key indication of the efficacy of a country’s policies.
While Obama bellows about the offshore corporate dollars that he wants to bring back to the U.S. he should be more worried about the onshore collars that epitomize the failed policies of both parties on immigration.
Wally wrote:You teabaggers won't be happy until you destroy this President. You would literally kill him if you could. - The Broken President’s Broken Politics
Dear Comrade Wally,
Kill him? Come on. That’s too stupid even to address.
That really depends on what the definition of “destroy” is.
Do I want him out of office and for his ideas to be condemned? Yes.
Do I want him dead? Nope.
While I don’t care for the man personally, I don’t think he’s that big of a deal for conservatives.
On the other hand, I think Obama is the worst thing to happen to the Democrats in a long time. They’ll not be done with him once he’s out of office. They’ll have to reckon with him for a long time. Don’t expect him to be particularly helpful either.
Imagine, for example, if Jimmy Carter was de facto president of the Democrats since his disastrous term as President of the United States.
That’s what’s awaiting the Democrat party of the future.
Identity politics is firmly in the saddle with Obama. I think Americans will be sick of it even while Obama stays personally popular.
That’s good news for conservatives.
wtmoore1 wrote: Usually I refrain from commenting on Ransom's columns, but this is a joke. The right wing media has exploded into a frenzy in recent days trying to link disparate stories together in an effort to show that their preconceived notions of massive governmental conspiracy must be true. Too bad a few bad actions do not form the backbone of Obama being out to get "you and you and you and me." What a joke. If Ransom hadn’t spent months attacking Obama for ridiculous things, and repeating blatantly false charges, this claim to have validated his conspiracy theories might have credibility. - Fourth Estate on Marion Barry Obama’s Plantation
Dear Comrade WTM1,
The great timing ward goes to you, Ms. Moore.
I usually refrain from making comments on your comments, because I rarely read your comments. But I do want to thank you for being a regular reader of mine, even if you claim not to comment much on my articles because of the blatantly false, right-wing conspiracy theories that I spin out of thin air.
To be “fair”- to claim a word from your friend Barack Obama- I don’t actually make up these theories myself.
I have help from other members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VRWC).
For example, just today, CBSNews, the epicenter of the VRWC made up this laughable charge about Obama: Evidence emerges that Obama administration official knew of IRS targeting during 2012 campaign
Or how about this one from the Chicago Tribune, Obama’s hometown newspaper, which kept it’s participation the VRWC on the down low by twice endorsing him so they could lull him into a false sense of security: “Taken together, though, these controversies project a less flattering image of truth-shading, hubris and intrusion. In the week of humiliating disclosures that started with last Wednesday's congressional hearing on Benghazi, Americans haven't seen the administration exhibit ... one shred of humility.”
Or how about this one from the very top of the VRWC, the New York Times, titled Spying on The Associated Press: “The Obama administration, which has a chilling zeal for investigating leaks and prosecuting leakers, has failed to offer a credible justification for secretly combing through the phone records of reporters and editors at The Associated Press in what looks like a fishing expedition for sources and an effort to frighten off whistle-blowers.”
Thanks for pointing out that the preconceived notions of massive governmental conspiracy must be untrue because I made them up.
Don’t forget to pick up you award after your acceptance speech.
And remember acceptance is the last stage of the death spiral.
Arley2 wrote : Good article John, I am, at times, not that fond of your articles when they are comprised only of venom and sarcasm (even though there's plenty to be venomous and sarcastic about) but I like your writing A LOT when you bring forward facts, evidence, and examples. Without facts and evidence, opinion articles on TH aren't any better than when Chris Matthews opens his mouth to spout huge bytes of ignorance. Thanks. Keep up the good work. - Fourth Estate on Marion Barry Obama’s Plantation
I’m not very fond of your comments especially when they are full your comparisons of me to Chris Matthews. I’m much fatter than he is and tons poorer too.
But at least I’m a better writer.
There is a place for opinion and a place for facts.
I try to keep my readers entertained and use a variety of writing styles to accomplish that.
But I get your point.
I will always regard the Simpsons as one of the greatest TV shows ever. But yet, I never enjoyed the Simpsons episodes that featured Lisa Simpson because they always dealt with some moral non-issue for me.
So just consider the pieces that I write that you don’t like the entertainment equivalent that the “Lisa Simpson” episodes occupy for me.
The rest of my work you may contemplate however you will. I won’t object.
But no more Chris Matthews stuff. That’s way too ornery and mean.
Afroggy wrote: I never call anyone an ass--I look on the dray animal in a good light as well as the part of human anatomy of that name. A pimple on a hemhorroid, however, would be abhorrent to me and I liken such to you and your disdain of others. - God Pees on Liberal Media and Tells Them It’s Just a Tea Party
Dear Comrade Chris Matthews,
Please see above.
Carlos7 wrote: John, I was reading this article on my Kindle earlier, and thinking to myself: "Mike Adams really outdid himself." - God Pees on Liberal Media and Tells Them It’s Just a Tea Party
At least you didn’t call him Chris Matthews.
But what you did do was bad enough. Shame on you.
rgarrett wrote: So now instead of a veteran Republican senator in Indiana we have a Democrat. - God Pees on Liberal Media and Tells Them It’s Just a Tea Party
Dear Comrade R,
You’re speaking of course about Dick Lugar losing the GOP nomination to Richard Mourdock, who promptly stuck his foot in his mouth.
Well you all should have thought about that before you kept re-electing a guy, like Tricky Dick, who invested in buddy Al Gore’s Chicago Climate Exchange.
Lugar didn’t even live in Indiana anymore.
The guy served on the board of the lefty Campus Network. Their blog contains articles that oppose US energy development and school choice, while it advocates for the GLBT community and “reproductive” justice, whatever that means.
The Campus Network is a project of the Roosevelt Institute, which also maintains a blog called New Deal 2.0.
Amongst the featured titles on New Deal 2.0 are these left-wing eye-rollers:
It’s hard to understand how any Republican could have signed up with this lefty group while expecting to hold on to the nomination for US Senate from his supposedly conservative party.
According to records compiled by the Farm Subsidy database, Lugar received $165,687 in farm subsidies during a decade and half in the Senate, including the six years he spent as chairman of the Senate Agricultural Committee, from 1995 to 2001.
You’re trying to blame the doctor for removing the cancer in your lung because you might die, while it never occurs to you to stop smoking.
It’s voters like you, more than anything the Democrats have done, who have brought our party to such a pass. If you hadn’t given a free pass to guys like Lugar, who used it as Obama used his free pass- to pillage the public treasury- we wouldn’t be in this plight.
Fix the plank in your own eye brother comrade.
Nana82 wrote: Steven Miller got his marching orders. Challenge their terms.
Feign indignation and object to their definitions. Substitute nonjudgmental, inaccurate alternatives. Miller seems highly offended by the word TARGET. He feels it is...what's the adjective...? PEJORATIVE! In point of fact it is not. "DumbA$$" is pejorative. It's derogatory and not logical. "Target" is neither. Target is the exact correct term.
He, like other LIBERAL WORDSMITH HACKS prefer soft phrases, preferably non accusatory ones like "mistakes were made." (presumably by unnamed third parties) And by the way, a MISTAKE is an error without intent. It commonly describes an effort to do something specific which falls short. It's failing to carry the one, not insisting that 5+5 equals 9. Obviously a purposeful action or decision to break the rules or commit a crime is a "mistake" ONLY in the eyes of one caught.
Progressives often use "misspoke" instead of LIE. Makes it sound like putting the accent on the wrong syllable or mispronouncing a word with no intent to deceive... An example of misspoke to a Liberal is "we dodged sniper fire on the tarmac."
We must ask Ms. Clinton if assuring a grieving mother that her dead son "will receive justice when the filmmaker responsible is punished" is another example of "misspoke?"
To make the truth seem more palatable, Democrats love euphemisms: "revenues" means "taxes," "invest" means "spend," "AstroTurf" means "grass roots." "undocumented worker" means "illegal alien," "recused myself" means "avoiding perjury," "I don't recall that" means "avoiding perjury" and "I don't have a factual basis to answer that question" means "avoiding perjury."
A particular favorite is "inappropriate" in lieu of WRONG. Using your knife to eat peas is inappropriate. Targeted harassment and intimidation by the federal government is not "inappropriate." It's criminal discrimination. If Progressives were being targeted I'm sure it would also be RACIST.
"Bad or horrible customer service" generally means the service provider failed to make the experience pleasant, to be polite, provide follow-up support and and honor promises. If you order a pizza and the delivery man brings you a cold, burnt pizza, it's "bad customer service." If he is rude and overcharges you too, it's "horrible customer service." If he arrives with no pizza, forces his way inside, assaults and robs you...it's criminal. I might also point out that we are not "customers" of the IRS. We are their employers! - Obama, IRS and Eric Holder: The Axis of Hear No Evil, See No Evil
Wow, wow, wow again.
That’s it for this week.