2008

Barack Obama's on the make for evangelicals - specifically the conservative, registered-to-vote variety.  The same type of voters he previously referred to as being "bitter" and who "cling to guns or religion".

A few weeks ago he told such voters that, if elected, he would expand and overhaul President Bush's federal faith based initiatives, announcing his own "Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships".  He has begun regular attempts to appeal to evangelicals, speaking to them on multiple occasions in recent weeks as part of what his campaign terms its "Joshua project".

Of course this is all well and good.  Candidates who expect the votes of any Americans should make an attempt to address their concerns.  The reality however is more blatantly political in that, on the fundamental cultural and moral concerns of evangelicals, he has very little in common with them at all.

The differences are greatest on two fundamental issues: abortion and gay marriage.

On abortion, Obama just became only the second presidential candidate in American history to be endorsed by Planned Parenthood, which referred to him in its announcement as a "passionate advocate" for the right to abortion.

In a speech to the group last July, Obama stated that, "...on this fundamental issue, I will not yield...", and that, "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act", (an act that would overturn hundreds of state abortion laws, including those regarding parental notification, and would guarantee public funding for abortion).

A hint as to just how "passionate" he is on the subject, as a state senator in Illinois, he actually opposed legislation, (known as "Born Alive Infant Protection"), that would mandate care for infants who were born alive in spite of attempts at abortion.  Not exactly a mainstream American position, much less for evangelical voters.

As for his views on the most fundamental institution in our society, the family, it gets no better.

He's for overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, overruling the military by repealing "don't ask, don't tell", opposes constitutional amendments that define marriage as "one man and one woman", (which have passed in 30 states with an average 70% of the vote), and wants anti-discrimination laws that not only cover "sexual preference" but "gender identity".

That's "change we can believe in" all right.

And keep in mind that overturning the Defense of Marriage Act means each state could then be forced to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state, in effect allowing one state to redefine marriage for the entire country. 

He made his position on state marriage amendments known a few weeks ago in a letter to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Democratic Club of San Francisco, saying: "I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states".

Well, that's pretty clear, right?  At least until his campaign went into spin mode, suggesting that he still opposes gay marriage, but supports gay civil unions and domestic partnerships.

In other words, he's suggesting that he's opposed to same-sex marriage, but opposes any attempts to keep it against the law.  Meaning he opposes the right of voters in any state to be able to keep the traditional definition of marriage from being redefined by unelected judges, (as happened in Massachusetts and California).

The truth is that he wants to play the political game of being for something without having to admit it.  Meaning he'll say he's for gay civil unions and domestic partnerships which have all the same rights and benefits of marriage and hope nobody points out that it's gay marriage in all but name - so as not to upset some of those "bitter" middle class voters he'll need in a few swing states this November. 

For all the rhetoric of a new kind of politics, it turns out he's really just a repackaged version of the same old cultural liberalism most Americans have rejected for decades.  He's hoping that they don't catch on before Election Day.

This really gets on my nerves:

If anyone could lay claim totheir state's Republican Party, it's Deborah Burstion-Donbraye of Cleveland. The 53-year-old international business consultant is the former outreach director for the Ohio Republican Party, for starters. She helped deliver the swing state to President Bush in his 2004 re-election bid in which he garnered 16 percent of the black vote. ...

During the 2008 primary season, Mrs. Burstion-Donbraye cast her conservative lot with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. She staunchly opposes abortion.

"But there's been an 'Obama' sign on my lawn since Super Tuesday," she readily admits about her unusual support for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama. ...

Mrs. Burstion-Donbraye can be counted among the growing number of high-profile black Republicans, including Gen. Colin L.Powell, commentator Armstrong Williams and former congressman J.C. Watts, who say they might not vote for the Republican candidate this fall.

These black Republicans are struggling with the historic significance of the Obama candidacy. Their conflict is just one example of the ways in which race will affect the outcome of the general election between Mr. Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.

I'm sorry, but if your conservatism is truly that shallow and easily abandoned based on skin color, then everyone has a right to question what you really truly believed to begin with...or what your motivations were for professing those beliefs.

They deserve any derision they receive.

Well, they do say "Politics make strange bedfellows"!

According to The Wall Street Journal, Carly Fiorina - one of the top financial and economics advisors to John McCain - met with 25 prominent Hillary Clinton supporters on Tuesday.  Apparently, the meeting was initiated by the former backers of the Clinton campaign and not by John McCain's staff.

The Westchester meeting came at the behest of former Clinton
supporters, some of whom have said – adamantly – that they won’t
support Obama. Polls show Obama winning the majority of support from
women voters while about a quarter of ex-Clinton supporters are leaning
toward McCain. The meeting wasn’t stocked with typical voters, however.
These were prominent activists and fund-raisers, including several
known as “Hillraisers,’’ who raised more than $100,000 for Clinton
during the primary season. “I didn’t ask how many of them were
Hillraisers but certainly a number of them were,’’ Fiorina said.

It's apparent these Hillary backers are looking for a viable alternative to having to vote for Barack Obama after that hard-fought primary they just went through.  I personally don't think it will be difficult for them to find some common-ground with McCain on several issues.  The story goes on to detail some of their interest in doing just that:

Fiorina and participants said the town-hall style meeting covered a
variety of issues, from health care to foreign policy to workplace
rights. While many of the subjects could be described as of particular
interest to women, many were not. One topic that got little attention:
abortion rights. “John McCain has a very strong record of being
pro-life, as do I,’’ Fiorina said. “They knew that. This was not a
one-issue crowd.’’

Siskind said Fiorina agreed to provide details regarding McCain’s
stances on mandating health insurance coverage for birth control pills,
federal mandates for paid maternity leave and a reinvigoration of
federal legislation aimed at giving women equal pay for comparable work.

Siskind said the group told Fiorina that if McCain would give some
concrete assurances of support on such issues, the people in the room
and the organizations they represented could help deliver “hundreds of
thousands and maybe millions of votes” to the presumptive Republican
nominee.

At the end of the day, I'm sure Hillary Clinton is going to tow the party line and maintain her verbal support for the nominee.  But, this sort of migration to McCain by her supporters, especially with its financial implications, is the kind of thing that could help level the playing field to compete toe-to-toe with Obama and his '50 States' campaign strategy he's going to employ to try to bleed McCain of his funds.

It seems 'Nothin's easy" these days as far as Obama is concerned.

Read the full story here

The issue of gay marriage just got a boost, courtesy of the Massachusetts Senate yesterday. 

BOSTON (AP) — Gay couples from across the country are one step closer to a Massachusetts wedding.

The state Senate voted Tuesday to repeal a 1913 law used to bar out-of-state gay couples from marrying in the state. The law prohibits couples from obtaining marriage licenses if they couldn't legally wed in their home states.

The House is expected to vote on the repeal later this week. Gov. Deval Patrick, whose 18-year-old daughter announced publicly last month that she is a lesbian, would have 10 days to sign it.

Just another step down the slippery slope.  But I do think it increases the chances of this becoming a "real" issue in the presidential campaign.  Remember, traditional marriage amendments on are on the ballot in both California and Florida this year.  Now you've got Massachusetts about to open its doors to gay marriage tourism...sending newly married gays back to their home states to start filing lawsuits.

This is just too good to be true.  From Dave Brody:

Barack Obama may be talking up his Christian faith like he's doing today in Ohio and trying his best to appeal to Evangelicals with a “new kind of politics”, but he’s got a problem. Many of his positions are the same liberal positions that have turned off Evangelicals for years.

Obama delivered another speech about faith Tuesday. He’s done a few of these concerning his faith and how it shapes his public policy. But Sunday his campaign and the Democratic Party were handing out pro-gay rights flyers at the Pride Festival in St. Louis. How is that going to play in the heartland?

I'll tell you how, "not good".  Check these out:

Note how they managed to work the rainbow flag into the Obama logo in place of the American flag.

But more important, check out the details.  He's for overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, overruling the military on allowing open homosexuals by repealing "don't ask, don't tell", wants federal funding for drug needle exchanges, oposes constitutional amendments that define marriage as "one man and one woman", (which have passed in 30 states with an average 70% of the vote), and wants anti-discrimination laws that not only cover "sexual preference" but "gender identity".

Not enough for you?  Take a look at the "Pride" section of Obama's website.  "Change we can believe in" allright.

And keep in mind that overturning the Defense of Marriage Act means each state could then be forced to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state, in effect allowing one state to redefine marriage for the entire country. 

And now his wife's out there saying basically the same thing:

Speaking to the Democratic National Committee's Gay and Lesbian Leadership Committee last Thursday in New York City, Michelle Obama said her husband supports "a world where federal laws don't discriminate against same-sex relationships, including equal treatment for any relationship recognized under state law."

"That is why he supports robust civil unions," she said. "That is why he has said the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide for themselves how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples -- whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union or a civil marriage."

Of course he's NOT in favor of them deciding whether or not they want to define marriage as it's been defined since before the birth of the country...  And pay no mind that doing what she suggests puts people of faith, to say nothing of religious institutions at risk of lawsuits for continuing to run their lives and businesses in accordance with their faith.

This kind of stuff doesn't play in the heartland.  He can make all the moves he wants towards evangelical voters but, in the end, they vote on the basis of issues which are rooted in their faith.  And the list outlined above - plus his pro-abortion stance - will trump anything else he can say or do.

Now that the general election campaign is in full swing, we are beginning to see some telling traits come to light, which are defining the Obama political machine.  In just over the last few days we’ve learned of several unique actions that can be chalked up to nothing but ‘Politics as usual’. 

The most shocking has been the revelation illustrating to what lengths the Obama campaign will go, and likely has gone throughout his run, to craft the Obama image.  Politico.com broke the news of two female Muslim supporters of the nominee being barred from sitting behind Obama on Monday at a campaign rally.  The volunteers that prevented the two women from appearing behind Obama’s podium did not want the women who donned their traditional headscarves to appear in any campaign images behind their candidate in photographs or on television.

It’s been pretty clear that the Obama image has been a highly crafted and closely managed one.  But, events such as this coming to light, are very troubling - events which clearly show the lengths they will go to in trading decency and respect for people in exchange for that desired image.  If this is how calculating and dismissive Obama and his camp will go with his supporters to further his political prospects, I’d hate to see how far he would go with those in opposition to his views.

Another notable action by Obama ’08 this week is yesterdays announcement that Senator Obama will be the first modern presidential candidate to refuse general election public financing.   In making the decision, Obama will refuse the $84 million from the federal government.  But, he will in turn not be limited by the program to spending $84 million. 

Obama has built much of his image as being a ‘new kind of candidate’ on the strength of his major statements in support of the public financing system in the election process - (See a retrospective from Politico.com right here highlighting the evolution of Obama’s views on public financing).  Any reasoning he states for his complete 180-degree turn, at this point, rings completely shallow.  This shallowness in his decision is based on two major favorable facets of the race Obama finds himself in – Yes, both reasons given are actually in efforts to further two advantages Obama already has!

The first is in relation to just how much success he has enjoyed with his private fundraising - through April of this year, Obama had raised an incredible $266 million.  With this being his reality at this point, why stick to his guns?  Why place the limits on himself under these advantages, when those restrictions and rules could just be for “the other guy”... You know, "other people".

Another one of his excuses he tries to use is his need to counter the political tactics that are surely to come from the GOP and the John McCain camp in the general election.  It is no secret to anyone, if there has ever been any national candidate who has stressed his desire to keep a race issue-based and has wanted to limit “special-interest” ads (whether he should have any say in that matter, being another issue entirely), that candidate would be Obama’s opponent, Senator John McCain.  Obama could not have faced an opponent, even if he chose one himself, who could dispel his claims for needing to refuse public financing, better than Senator John McCain.

As this general election campaign is starting to shape up in earnest, so are the efforts to reimage and retool the democrat politician by the name of Senator Barack Obama – an empty suit bringing us empty words.

The Republican National Committee has launced a new website, www.MeetBarackObama.com. 

The site gives the American voter lots of information to ponder about Obama, which should help to ensure the junior senator from Illinois is not elected in November.

So far, my favorite part is the Democrats Versus Obama ad.  As evident, the hard-fought democratic primary certainly did lend itself to a ton of good soundbites we'll be able to pull out for the Fall.  Never have I heard so many Democrats speak so much truth.

The pro-family conservatives in California met the first half of this years challenge on the issue of gay marriage - they got a traditional definition of marriage amendment on the ballot for this November...making California ground-zero in this debate for the next 6 months.

In fact, they got over 1.1 million signatures on petitions to get it on the ballot - over 400,000 more than they needed.  A good sign for the energy and support they'll need in the campaign.

The bad news is that the folks out in California were forced to do this (in spite of having a defense of marriage state law) by their own judiciary....and the good news is that the judiciary is forcing them to do this.  By that i mean that the State Supreme Court's recent 4-3 edict declaring gay marriage constitutional gives the pro-amendment folks all that much more gas to get this thing passed in November.  And who knows, it might even make the Democrats worry a little about all that extra turnout from "values voters" to the point that they have to spend more money out there for Obama that could otherwise be spent in real swing states this fall.

The other bad news, not just for California but a lot of other states, is that the CA Supreme Court refused to stay the decision until after the election, (despite requests from 10 other state's Attorneys General)... which means we'll likely have thousands of gays getting "married" in California and running back to their home states and instigating law suits there... which means some of those cases will make tracks to the Supreme Court eventually, deciding whether or not one state has to recognize a gay marriage from another state.  Meaning whether or not one state can decide for ALL states whether or not gay marriage should be legal.

If that's not enough reason for you to help make sure Obama's not the guy picking the next Supreme Court judge, I don't know what is.

According to several news outlets, Barack Obama is projected to have clinched the Democratic Party nomination.

Of course, in reality there hasn't been an actual vote cast by the delegates at this point.  But, if the reported tallies do end up being accurate (and the superdelegates do maintain their public and private endorsements) it looks like the process will truly be over.

The question remaining is, will the campaigning be over.  This from MSNBC:

Two sources with the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign earlier Tuesday said she will acknowledge that Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination.

After the report, her campaign promptly issued a statement saying, "Senator Clinton will not concede the nomination this evening."

As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans could hope for nothing more than the Obama nomination to come to fruition and for him to move on from the convention in August as their nominee.  The liberalism which Barack Obama brings to bear on this election will make 1988 candidate Mike Dukakis look like Barry Goldwater.  He's already done the seemingly impossible in making Hillary Clinton look like Harry Truman.

Obama just can't seem to shake the Rev. Wright.  This from the Washington Times:

Most Americans say Sen. Barack Obama has failed to distance himself from his former pastor"s incendiary remarks, the new Fox 5/The Washington Times/Rasmussen Reports poll finds.

In the poll, 66 percent said the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. hurt Mr. Obama and an overwhelming majority said Mr. Obama's repudiation of his former pastor did not rescue his presidential campaign.

Only 24 percent said Mr. Obama's denunciation made them "more likely" to support the senator's presidential campaign, compared with 27 percent who said they were "less likely" and 43 percent who said his explanation had "no impact" on their decision.

Today's the day we'll see how much it still impacts him at the ballot box with white, middle-class voters...especially in North Carolina.