Does He Have Their Back?

In Barack Obama’s mind, black people listen to gospel music mixed with a sort of 70’s techno-rap.  At least that’s what I got out of his recent ad targeting one part of America based on their skin color.  Obama’s divide and conquer strategy relies on race politics and getting people to vote for him because they share the same color skin.  After all, that’s what worked in North Carolina in 2008 when 95% of blacks voted for him.

But recent polls are showing that Obama’s racial politics may not have the same decisive effect in 2012.  Already his support among black voters in North Carolina has dropped to the mid 70s.  Perhaps it has something to do with minorities questioning if Obama really does have their back. 

Unemployment among blacks has soared to the highest level in 27 years.  In fact, while unemployment among whites has dropped slightly, it continues to rise for blacks.  Guess when the last time the unemployment rate was below 10% for blacks.  During the Bush administration.

Obama wants blacks to have his back. Does he have theirs?

In fact, despite Kanye West’s claim that Bush didn’t care about black people, they certainly fared much better under a Bush administration than they have under Obama.  In fact, from 2002-2007, the number of businesses owned by people who identify themselves as black rose by an unprecedented and historic 60%.  That was more than triple the overall rate of business growth for that period.  Economically, blacks did much better than their white counterparts under a Republican administration.

Aside from economics, Obama has come down on the wrong side of several social issues for blacks as well.  Blacks still oppose gay marriage by a large margin.  In fact, while blacks were helping hand Obama California in 2008, they were also helping California define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to oppose abortion than whites, but there is still an odd disconnect where pro-life blacks are more likely to vote for Democrats.  On the other hand, Obama and Democrats have been intensely pro-abortion.  They have not paused their agenda at the doors of religious institutions, but instead are working to force religious groups to pay for some forms of abortion for their employees.

Democrats have pursued blacks aggressively with identity politics.  But in 2012 the tide may turn.  The key is a little bit of pursuit by Republicans.  In the past, Republicans have written off the black vote as a waste of campaign cash.  This time around, Republicans should take the time and money to win back a segment of America who should be the natural allies of the party of Lincoln.

Part of the issue facing Republicans is that the racist attacks on black GOP members is nearly as intense as the anti-women attacks on female Republicans.  While Democrats accuse Republicans of using racial codewords, such as “cool”, to describe blacks, Democrats have openly used racially offensive language against black GOP members in order to diminish their roles.  How does calling the President too cool compare to calling Allen West an uncle Tom?

If Republicans can deliver on what Obama promised, national unity and healing, then they have a good chance at defeating the identity politics of the left.

Gay Marriage and Equality

In the land of liberalism, portraying Obama’s timid conversion to gay marriage support as the sort of principled, bold action that no other executive would ever take (kind of like choosing to go in and shoot Bin Laden) is a trump card.  In fact, Obama is now playing his conversion up for all it’s worth, acting as though he’s the Martin Luther King Jr. of the homosexual movement.  Cash-wise, it’s paying big dividends.

However, reality may soon kick in.  While Obama’s conversion is symbolic, it doesn’t change anything anymore than when Dick Cheney came out in support of gay marriage.  Obama himself admitted that he still prefers to leave the issue up to the states, which puts his view in company with most other conservatives.

Obama thinks he’s so original

In addition to nothing changing policy wise, and Obama filling his campaign advertising with gaudy rainbows, Obama is in danger of losing votes in several swing states who have amended their constitutions to protect the definition of marriage.  For example, Colorado, California, Florida, North Carolina, Michigan and Virginia are among the states that have defined marriage in their constitutions.  Perhaps Obama’s coming out of the closet won’t lose him California, but it will have an effect in North Carolina and Florida where traditional marriage won with super majorities.

There is a debate brewing in the country now over how Obama has framed the gay marriage issue.  Is gay marriage a requirement for true equality in our country?  There are two issues that conservatives must be clear on with this question.

The first is the question of legal rights.  Can homosexuals be considered equal if they don’t get the same tax treatment, however favorable or unfavorable, as traditionally married couples?  By the way, as a tax accountant I’ve been able to save some gay couples more money by filing them both as single than I would if I had to file them as married filing jointly.  Just sayin’, in case you are reading this, homosexual, and think you are missing out on all sorts of great tax benefits because you can’t file jointly.

The question about equal legal rights can easily be defeated by testing if the individually truly cares about equality or is just using that argument to advance their agenda.  Ask them if they support a progressive tax system.  The progressive tax system that taxes rich and middle income earners at higher rates than the poor is a staple of liberalism, and a clear antithesis to equality.

The other question is whether the government should be telling homosexuals what marriage is and isn’t.  What many call the government defining marriage, others call the government banning all other forms of marriage.  But what is in a definition?  Fortunately, we have a prominent liberal Democrat who has demonstrated the importance of words and their definitions.

If you’ve heard the name Elizabeth Warren, then you know what I am talking about.  Warren, the liberal candidate who said the rich should pay higher taxes because they only reason they are rich is that the government gave them education and roads, lives what she preaches.  She gave herself a leg up both in school and career by claiming she is a Cherokee Indian.  Harvard touted Warren as adding diversity to their staff. Turns out she is about 1/32 Cherokee, and her ancestry has more Indian killers than actual Indians.

But that brings up an interesting question: can we all call ourselves Cherokee Indians in order to achieve equality and have a better shot at employment at Harvard?  Is it the government that is banning me from being a Cherokee Indian?  Perhaps you find that argument offensive.  Let’s back up about 60 years when there was a true battle for equality taking place in our country.  Should blacks have been given the right to be called white in order to achieve equality?  Of course not.  There is no need to redefine the word “white” in order to achieve equality.  Same with the word “marriage”.

Still, now that the war on women angle has failed, as has the war on the poor, the next play is the war on equality.  Be prepared to be accused of opposing equal rights for all if you are a Republican.  Suddenly the candidate who admits he was forced into revealing his gay marriage support has become the champion of equal rights simply by endorsing redefining marriage.  Romney will need to find ways to connect with the voters who have overwhelmingly voted to protect marriage in every state they’ve been given a chance, and he will need to win this debate.

Editors Note: As with any post on Whitehouse12.com, the opinions expressed in this post are the opinions of the author and represent the site only in as far as they represent the views of this particular author.  These views may not be representative of the site as a whole.

What Cain Has In Common With The Boyscouts

Cain may not be a current member of the Boyscouts of America organization, but he does share something in common with them.  Today Cain became the latest target of Gloria Allred, a liberal feminist lawyer who once sued the Boyscouts because they wouldn’t let a girl join.

This isn’t the first time Allred has played attack dog for the left either.  Allred represented Rhonda Miller in the 2003 sexual harassment case against popular GOP Gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzeneggor.  The case was eventually dismissed and Arnold won, despite admitting that in his youth he had “behaved badly”.  What that meant wasn’t revealed until after his time as governor came to a close.

Allred is the feminist version of an ambulance chaser.  She even went as far as to represent Kelly Fisher in a lawsuit against Dodi Fayed for breaking off his engagement with her to date Princess Diana.  How about that, fellas.  How would you like to be sued for breaking up with a girl?  Of course, Allred dropped the suit when the evil Fayed died with Diana in an infamous automobile accident.

There are some high profile cases of women being harassed, and even raped, that Allred has ignored. Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, and Juanita Broderick come to mind.

So now there is a name and a face to the accusations that have been coming up against Cain.  There are also two unreleased affidavits of unnamed friends who allegedly can corroborate her story.  Interestingly also, Bailek and the other accusers were all former employees, disgruntled employees, or employees on the chopping block.  Cain apparently was smart enough not to sexually harass any permanent employees.  Meanwhile, Cain continues to deny all of the accusations.  Is Sharon Bailek telling the truth?  Now that we have a name, and timeframe, it shouldn’t be too hard to check some of the details.  As more backstory comes out, the public will continue to develop their opinion of what is truth.

Meanwhile, this is not good news for the Cain campaign.  Cain has the unfortunate privilege of being a member of a party that still cares about morality.  If Social Conservatives begin to turn on Cain, he is finished.  However, if the story simply does not pan out the backlash against the media and the racist left will seal Cain’s victory.

Cain, Gingrich Make Headlines; Paul’s Missed Opportunity

Cain’s Race Card

I have no respect for candidates who play the race card, and so far Cain hasn’t.  In what is an obvious smear against Herman Cain, the candidate has not resorted to what the left finds so natural.  In fact, Cain traced the allegations back to a former campaign staffer who was hired by Rick Perry as Kempite wrote earlier this week.  This hasn’t stopped Cain’s supporters from making the connection.  After Clarence Thomas and the racism that blacks on the right have experienced, the attacks on Herman Cain for doing some undisclosed thing to some anonymous women is just enough to get any conservative’s blood boiling.

This is especially true when you look at how the media has portrayed the whole thing.  Immediately questions were being asked about if there was a double standard on the right because conservatives were not as upset with Cain for having allegedly done something to someone as they were when it came out that Bill Clinton had an affair with an intern (Monica Lewinsky), possibly raped a woman (Juanita Broderick), sexually harassed a woman (Gennifer Flowers), lied about it under oath (like Scooter Libby, who lost his career and faced jail time), and coached witnesses (obstruction of justice).  Of course, Bill Clinton also kept his job as President.

The attack on Herman Cain is already starting to backfire on both the media and the left.  And finally, Uncle Tom is getting the attention it deserves as an often used racist “codeword”.

Gingrich Keeps Rising

There is plenty to be negative about on the GOP field.  But there is also plenty to be positive about and that is the angle Newt has used to kickstart his second wind in this race.  The Hill questions the wisdom of Gingrich’s refusal to go negative on his fellow candidates.  I think he is making the best decision.  While Mitt Romney gets torn down by the Social Conservatives, and Cain and Perry continue to duel, Gingrich has been slowly sneaking back into the top tier through his focus on Obama and better ideas.

In fact, I gained interesting perspective from my vacation in Connecticut.  No matter where I go, red state or blue state, and who I talk to, I get the same response on Gingrich.  He is the smartest man in the room.  He knows what he is talking about.  He has the best ideas.  We would pay money to see him debate Obama and enjoy every minute of it.  But he has baggage.  In fact, Newt entered this race with the most personal baggage.  But now voters are taking a new look at the man who reigned in Bill Clinton and produced balanced budgets and record growth, two things our country desperately needs.  Depending on how Cain’s unnamed issues with unnamed people turns out, Newt could end up being the cleanest of the top tier candidates.  Every debate makes him look better and better.

Paul Could Be A 3rd Party Winner

I love talking politics with friends and family.  Actually, I just plain love talking politics.  It is always interesting to hear different perspectives, often from where you least expect it.  Well, here’s one for you: Ron Paul could win some electoral votes as a third party candidate by running in blue states.  In many blue states, it is not so much a matter of fiscal liberalism winning out over fiscal conservatism.  In some cases it is a matter of social liberalism overriding fiscal conservatism.

The fear of a Paul third party run has been that he would steal votes from the Republican candidate.  But Paul would actually have a hard time winning any red state in a national election.  On the other hand, put Paul with his limited social conservatism and strong fiscal conservatism and anti-war stance into California, New England, New York and other blue states, and he has a message that would resonate.

Part of Paul’s problem though is missed opportunities.  Ron Paul is like a cult classic movie.  Low budget, but adored to the point of insanity by many.  In 2008, there were Revolution signs strewn across the country in conservative and liberal districts alike.  Somehow Paul supporters manage to stack every conservative straw poll that comes out.  Yet Paul has failed over and over to convert that ravenous support into electoral votes.  Now, put Paul in to states like Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine where a Social Conservative will never win but there is a strong libertarian under current, and Ron Paul could have a huge impact in the general election.  For the Libertarian movement, winning even one state could be a huge victory for their future.

 

GOP Presidential Candidate States That Bachmann’s Husband Seems Gay to Him

Bookmark and Share  While few are paying close attention to Fred Karger, the first openly gay Republican to run for President, Fred Karger is going around and giving plenty of attention to the endless number of audiences that he has been chatting it up with in New Hampshire and even Iowa.  Meanwhile there are more than few outlets who don’t mind giving Fred a little bit of the limelight.

Take for instance Comedy Central’s “Undcision 2012″ segement.

They recently sat down with Fred for what proves to an amusing piece.

While much of what Karger says is innocuous, he tends not to be very amusing when he digs in to the man he has been gunning for ever since the primary process began ——-Mitt Romney.

With Karger, competing against Mitt Romney is more personal than anything else.  Karger takes offense to Romney’s Mormon faith, the same people who used their faith to help defeat a gay marriage referendum in California Karger was in the forefront of the battler for.  In some ways, Karger has a legitimate beef with Mormons.  The faith has taken on an anti-gay tone and level of activity that  doesn’t just discriminate against gays and lesbians, it almost seems that it is going out of their way to insure that gays are treated like second class citizens.

If that is the case, they are  quite wrong for such actions.  But much to Karger’s charging, however wrong their actions may be, when compared to some moral standard, it is not illegal.   So as indicated in the brief interview below this post, Karger has taken on the role of the Mormon Church in his own attempt to persecute Mormons.  In some instances, when talking about Mormons, Karger almost sounds as far fetched as Rev. Jeffress, the loony stereotypical fire and brimstone preacher who states that Mormons are suited to run this country.

Like Jeffress, Karger even suggests what Jeffress charges, which is that Mormonism is a cult.  In Karger’s case he claims that Mormons are controlled by their church and tha Mitt Romney is the best example of that.

Personally I am not sure how far Fred Karger can get by trying to combat discrimination and negativity towards by being discriminatory and negative, himself.  Perhaps it is best to make his case, by not practicing that which he preaches is against.  Oddly gays and Mormons have a few things in common.  They are one of the few religions that is fair game when it comes to intolerance for in America.  Romney’s Mormonism is one reason why evangelicals are unwilling to give Romney a chance.  And the same problem exists for homosexuals.  It would almost seem that homosexuals are the last group in society to be taken seriously enough to be represented in the federal government by more than just a handful of gay and lesbian members of Congress.  Perhaps at soome point, they can work to combat the discrimination that both sides are the victims of.

Through it all though, Karger keeps it fun and as seen in the interview below, makes for quite an interesting presidential candidate.  Although I do not know how well his parting chuckle will go over with members of the evangelical community.  Im not sure how joking at the end of the clip,  about Michele Bachmann’s husbanmd seems gay will play out.  I’d love to see a Rasmussen poll on that one.

Who Members of Congress Are Endorsing for President

Bookmark and Share   In case your keeping track, the list below shows which memebers of Congress have endorsed, which Republican presidential candidates.

As you can see, Mitt Romney has so far garnered the most endorsments from Congress. All it really means is that Mitt Romney is indeed the establishment candidate. However some namesz are more important than others. Som emembers of Congress weild strong control over Republican organizations back in their home districts. That organizational support can translate in to enough votes to swsing a state’s primary to the candidate they get behind.

This is only a list of the endorsements from Republican Senators and Congressmembers and it is only as of today, Wdnesday, October 12th, 2011.

Soon White House 2012 will be making room for a central location that will list the endorsements that each of the candidates have recieved among other elected and elected non-officials, organizations, etc, etc.

Mitt Romney (25)

`

Sen. Roy Blunt (Mo.)

Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.)

Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.)

Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah)

Sen. James Risch (Idaho)

Rep. Rodney Alexander (La.)

Rep. Judy Biggert (Ill.)

Rep. Rob Bishop (Utah)

Rep. Mary Bono Mack (Calif.)

Rep. John Campbell (Calif.)

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah)

Rep. Ander Crenshaw (Fla.)

Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.)

Rep. Tim Griffin (Ark.)

Rep. Michael Grimm (N.Y.)

Rep. Joe Heck (Nev.)

Rep. Wally Herger (Calif.)

Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.)

Rep. Connie Mack IV (Fla.)

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.)

Rep. Buck McKeon (Calif.)

Rep. Mike Rogers (Ala.)

Rep. Todd Rokita (Ind.)

Rep. Tom Rooney (Fla.)

Rep. Mike Simpson (Idaho)

`

Rick Perry (10)

Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.)

Rep. John Carter (Texas)

Rep. Mike Conaway (Texas)

Rep. John Culberson (Texas)

Rep. Sam Graves (Mo.)

Rep. Kenny Marchant (Texas)

Rep. Michael McCaul (Texas)

Rep. Candice Miller (Mich.)

Rep. Mick Mulvaney (S.C.)

Rep. Steve Scalise (La.)

`

Newt Gingrich (4)

Rep. Joe Barton (Texas)

Rep. Michael Burgess (Texas)

Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.)

Rep. Tom Price (Ga.)

`

Ron Paul (3)

Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.)

Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.)

Rep. Walter Jones Jr. (N.C.)

Bookmark and Share

Watch a Live Webcast of Chris Christie’s Speech at the Reagan Library

Bookmark and Share    As speculation begins to intensely swirl about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie seriously considering  a run for President, today, Tuesday September 26th, the Governor will be in California, delivering a a speech as a part of the Reagan Foundation’s series of Perspectives on Leadership Forum’s.

While it is highly unlikely that Christie will announce that he running during this speech, he could indicate whether or not he really is considering the prospect of run for President in 2012.  Either way, Christie’s speech will be watched and scrutinized by much of the world.  It will be quite interesting to hear what the Governor will say, if for no other than reason that to confirm or deny the claims that Christie is the G.O.P.’s best hope for victory in 2012.

Tickets to th event at the Reagan Library were going for $75.00 a person but don’t worry about trying to get a last minute ticket and flight to Cali for the event.  According to the Reagan Foundation, tickets have been sold out for quite a some time now.  But you will have the opprtunity to join with White House 2012 and see the speech via a live webcast at 9:00 pm EST/6:pm PDT.

Just click the on the information link below to view it.

The Live Simulcast has concluded. To see a recorded version of the speech and to read a complete transcript of it, click here

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: