I’ve been watching the news all morning as the showdown on the so-called Payroll Tax Cut heads toward a climax. Numerous commitments this afternoon preclude me from offering my take on it right now, but the issue deserves an open thread.
Have at it — play nice.
And, believe it or not, he’s right.
Newt Gingrich told a gay man and longtime resident of Oskaloosa here today that he should vote for President Obama.
“I asked him if he’s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him? And he told me to support Obama,” said Scott Arnold, an adjunct professor of writing at William Penn University.”
Arnold, a Democrat, said he came to the event at Smokey Row coffee house with an open mind. But he wanted to ask Gingrich about how he would represent him as president after reading past comments the former U.S. House Speaker has made about gay and lesbians.
If the most important issue(s) to this man are gay issues, then quite frankly, any candidate concerned with getting the country’s economy back on track, or restoring our country’s respect around the world, has bigger fish to fry than “engaging gay Americans.” The issues that affect all Americans are the issues that should matter to a president or a presidential candidate. Questions about taxes, jobs, health care, national security, etc. are far more important to the 2012 campaign than how one will “engage gay Americans” as if it’s the job of a president.
The President of the United States is the president of all Americans, and no president should strive to pander to a particular group, but rather to represent the whole population. If this man wanted to use his opportunity to ask a presidential candidate one question, and that’s the one he chose to ask, than clearly Newt was never going to get his vote anyway, which Newt was clearly well aware of.
Anyone who thinks a president should pander to specific groups and ignore the majority of the population should vote for Obama, they’ll be far less disappointed.
UPDATE: GayPatriot has a lot more on this story, including important context not provided in the original story I quoted. Here is Newt’s full quote:
I think for those for whom the only issue that really matters is the definition of marriage, I won’t get their support and I accept that that’s the reality. On the other hand for those for whom it’s not the central issue in their lives, if they care about job creation, if they care about national security, if they care about a better future for the country at large, then I think I’ll get their support. [emphasis GayPatriot’s]
The chief strategist of GOPProud even commended Newt’s handling of the question.
I have to say, I love Thomas Sowell’s writing. Ever since I read Basic Economics several years ago I’ve just been drawn to his economic and social writing. He has a way of explaining all sorts of complex subjects in a way that could make even the most close minded liberal understand.
Anyway, I was thrilled to see on Twitter moments ago that Sowell has endorsed Newt Gingrich for president.
In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama — and better than Mitt Romney.
Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared with what Gingrich accomplished as speaker of the House? When you don’t accomplish much, you don’t ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?
Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.
Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich’s past, rather than on the nation’s future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: “If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.” If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means we’ve lost, big time.
If any of you are still on the fence, do check out the whole thing.
We have seen at least two versions (the first two could be one in the same) of Barak Obama (aka the obAMATEUR).
1) Barak Obama the Senator.
2) Barak Obama the Candidate.
3) Barak Obama the President.
We saw a man critical of Iraq and GITMO who promised to close GITMO, try terrorists in US courts, and bring the troops home from Iraq ASAP. The drones swallowed it all. Then the man became pResident…..
… and everything changed.
Victor Davis Hanson sums it up nicely.
Back on December 8th a post about Obama bumper stickers generated 133 comments over the course of 4 days. Late in the thread a discussion of the meaning and ramifications of the Second Amendment developed, and commenter Cory veered off into the weeds with some bizarre assertions. Lest I be accused of misrepresenting what he said, let me just quote directly.
In response to Amazona’s casual comment that “BTW, gun control is a Constitutional issue.”
Cory responded with:
“That’s such crap. There is exactly one Constitutional decision to be made about gun control: either I have the right to bear the arms that the Framers had available (or their rough equivalents), or I have the right to bear anything and everything, including a suitcase full of weaponized Anthrax or a nuclear weapon. The one sentence in the Constitution doesn’t leave any room for any interpretations in between, so which is it? You can’t make the Constitution give you the right to a concealed handgun without giving criminals the Constitutional right to weapons of mass destruction, and I have this funny feeling that if you survey the American public, almost zero of them would want that.”
As the error of his logic was pointed out to him by several individuals, Cory just kept digging his hole deeper and deeper, including statements like this gem:
“I only brought up gun control in passing. Amazona was the one that latched onto it like a rabid dog. I actually don’t have a strong opinion on gun control, I just get sick and tired of hearing people debate about the interpretation of a now useless Constitutional amendment instead of having a discussion about what weapon restrictions make the most sense.”
Finally, after what really had been a pretty civil discussion, he blurted out:
“This will be the last time I post on (or read) blogs4victory. I’m sure some of you are already jumping for joy, because you are thinking you have “won”. I’m not really sure what you’ll think you’ve won, as you surely have not drastically changed my mind on anything, but congratulations to you, anyway.”
That was toward the end of the thread, but it gave me the idea for a post about the Bill of Rights in general, and the Second Amendment in particular. I find it to be one of the ultimate ironies of our political system that Madison’s promise of a subsequent Bill of Rights was what it took to secure ratification of the Constitution in 1789, as many feared the power of a central government without codified restrictions on the power of that government. For at least the last century, Progressives have been trying to figure out ways to expand their power by either ignoring, distorting or outright assaulting those individual rights. If that doesn’t have the makings for a spirited discussion, I don’t know what does.
It’s been a while since we’ve had a good, old-fashioned, knock-down, drag-out discussion about the whole topic of climate change. My own feeling, as many regulars on this blog know, is that the issue of global warming/climate change is one of, if not THE greatest scientific frauds ever foisted on mankind, and now information is becoming public at an increasing rate that backs up that assertion.
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher’s (R-CA) speech on the House floor on December 8th, re-printed at Watts Up With That yesterday, addresses just about every aspect of the debate covering the last couple decades, including numerous new revelations that cast serious, if not discussion-ending doubt on the whole issue.
I realize this is not a problem that ordinary bloggers are going to solve, but it doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it.
Go for it!
Okay people try to stick to the issues….
Deflectors and dodgers stay away.
Apparently, that’s how he sees himself.
In an interview with KOAA-TV, a local news channel from Colorado Springs, Colorado, President Obama says if Congress is not willing to pass legislation he wants, he will do it himself in order to win another term. […]
Rob Quirk, KOAA-TV: “And one year from today we will know if this a one-term or two-term president. So, I asked the president what will it take from now until then to not only win Colorado again, but reelection as well.”
President Obama: “Well, what we’re going to have to do is continue to make progress on the economy over the next several months. And where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves. But it would be nice if we could get a little bit of help from Capitol Hill.”
You know, when President George W. Bush wanted things done in Washington, he worked with both sides of the aisle to craft legislation that would receive bipartisan support. Even legislation that would later become controversial were passed with bipartisan support. Obama, however, sits on the sidelines, not willing to compromise on his socialist ideals, unable to unite his party with Republicans. He chooses to be a divider, and act like he has the power to do whatever he wants if Congress doesn’t do what he likes.
Have at it.
Primaries…. in 3 WEEKS!
POLL: PEOPLE FEAR BIG GOV’T MORE THAN BIG BUSINESS OR LABOR…
Yes, obAMATEUR is “serious” about border security….
FEDS PLAN UNMANNED CROSSING WITH MEX…
Obama to slash National Guard force on border…
I wonder if the cat had to pay the Death Taxes?
Woman Leaves $13M Fortune to Pet Cat…
The libs will cater to their special interests….
Congress considers bill to censor Internet… it doesn’t matter if it is unconstitutional…
…. and everybody’s favorite uninformed talking head liberal drone …. DNC chair denies unemployment up under Obama…
Update:
‘The Americans have perhaps decided to give us this spy plane’…
“However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline,” he said, “they’re going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance.”
Four more years of this???
So using his logic, we need MORE people on unemployment insurance to create more jobs? This man is an imbecile!
Actually, mathematically, stopping the extensions of unemployment insurance will cause more unemployed people to stop looking for jobs. They fall out of the unemployment calculation and TA DA! unemployment numbers go down!
This country can’t afford four more years of this moron. But the mindless drones will REGURGITATE (this is for you cory) these dumbed down talking points, rather than see the truth that this man is accurately labeled the obAMATEUR!
Pathetic.
Blogs For Victory 
You must be logged in to post a comment.