What These 2012 Fabricated "Culture War" Distractions Really Are...

[Politico]

Let's just call it like it is: Anybody who is energized by Obama's recent announcement is simply a useful idiot who is being duped by a distraction. Why don't they stop and wonder for a moment why Obama did not make this announcement one, two or three years ago. It's not a coincidence that Obama and Biden "changed" their mind on this issue just this past week, shortly after Mitt Romney clinched the GOP nomination and is starting to gain traction with a slowing economy (Seen the jobs report for April? Seen the situation in Europe? How about JPMorgan's $2 billion loss out of Britain?). Some people need to stop and ask themselves why they are supporting politicians who have politicized a sensitive issue in the exact same disgusting fashion as George W. Bush eight years ago, albeit in the opposite direction. Why do some people like being used with little to show for it?

As for Mitt Romney, he knows this election is about the economy. Why? Because, quite frankly, it's stupid to believe otherwise. Most of America, including Mitt Romney and Co., is not falling for the weapons of mass distraction.

For the record, I disagree with Governor Romney on gay marriage and support President Obama's so-called "change of mind."

[Pacific Councillor LiberalJunkie]

No because Romney hasn't politicized anything at all lol. Sad how the number one issue was Education in 2000 and now it's very low.

[Nagas]

Believe it or not, but a president can tackle multiple issues at once.

[Progressive Realist]

I know this will come as a shock to you, but the rights of women and of LGBT Americans actually matter to many people.

[wildfood]

What These 2012 Fabricated "Culture War" Distractions Really Are...

What they "really are" is Democrats using the dead horse that Republicans beat to a mass of jelly against the very same Republicans who beat that poor horse (cultural issues) to death in the first place.

Republicans used cultural issues to ostracize and alienate segments of society. Now Democrats are using them to include and help segments of society.

And how can you use the word "fabricated" when the Bush campaign (and Republicans in general for decades) have been using cultural issues as a mainstay of their platform? Suddenly these same cultural issues are somehow "fabricated"?

It reminds me of how Republicans ranted about "welfare queens" and then turn around and claim "class warfare" when someone mentions that the wealthy need to receive fewer tax breaks.

[greenforest32]

I don't recall Republicans having problems rounding up the culture war in 2004 when they petitioned all those anti-gay ballot measures to ban gay marriage/civil unions.

Republicans do even worse on fiscal policy. I mean just look at Romney's plan: Bush tax cuts 2.0, increased "defense" spending + an itching for a third "overseas operation", more financial deregulation and more privatization of public services for-profit all (partially) paid for by massive cuts to government programs benefiting the non-rich.

Straight up subsidization of private greed at the expense of the public good.

tl;dr - Our policies wrecked the economy and budget and our plan is more of the same but it's clearly the fault of the Democrat in office. Vote Republican because critical thinking is hard and hate is easy

[Politico]

I know this will come as a shock to you, but the rights of women and of LGBT Americans actually matter to many people.

Absolutely, but that does not mean they should be used in a game of political football, does it? Barack Obama is as guilty of political football on gay marriage as George W. Bush eight years ago. I ask once again: Why did Obama not make this announcement one, two, or three years ago? Why is Obama and his team exploiting gay people in an election year?

[Politico]

I don't recall Republicans having problems rounding up the culture war in 2004 when they petitioned all those anti-gay ballot measures to ban gay marriage/civil unions.

Republicans do even worse on fiscal policy. I mean just look at Romney's plan: Bush tax cuts 2.0, increased "defense" spending + an itching for a third "overseas operation", more financial deregulation and more privatization of public services for-profit all (partially) paid for by massive cuts to government programs benefiting the non-rich.

Straight up subsidization of private greed at the expense of the public good.

There is no subsidization. Taxes belong to the taxpayers, not the government, and if most taxpayers vote for a tax cut, they ought to get what they want. Romney's plan is authored by esteemed economists from Harvard and Columbia. We've tried Obama's plan by his economists, and it did not work. Keynesianism did not work in the '70s and it did not work this time either.  It's time to return to the principles of Milton Friedman. The sub-prime mortgage crisis will never be repeated because the Fed is better mentoring the banks, and it's abundantly clear that that the separation of commercial and investment banking will definitely come back if banks drop the ball like that ever again.

[greenforest32]

I don't recall Republicans having problems rounding up the culture war in 2004 when they petitioned all those anti-gay ballot measures to ban gay marriage/civil unions.

Republicans do even worse on fiscal policy. I mean just look at Romney's plan: Bush tax cuts 2.0, increased "defense" spending + an itching for a third "overseas operation", more financial deregulation and more privatization of public services for-profit all (partially) paid for by massive cuts to government programs benefiting the non-rich.

Straight up subsidization of private greed at the expense of the public good.

There is no subsidization. Taxes belong to the taxpayers, not the government, and if most taxpayers vote for a tax cut, they ought to get what they want. Romney's plan is authored by esteemed economists from Harvard and Columbia. We've tried Obama's plan by his economists, and it did not work. Keynesianism did not work in the '70s and it did not work this time either.  It's time to return to the principles of Milton Friedman. The sub-prime mortgage crisis will never be repeated because the Fed is better mentoring the banks, and it's abundantly clear that that the separation of commercial and investment banking will definitely come back if banks drop the ball like that ever again.

Show me the poll numbers showing that the public wants lower taxes paid for by cuts to social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, etc. Oh wait, there aren't any.

It's a shame so many voters vote while ignoring the connection between services and the taxes that pay for them. It's disingenuous to only look at half of the picture and sell that as the whole package.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast#Political_commentary

Economist Paul Krugman summarized the strategy in February 2010: "Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government’s fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit."

[Bacon King]

We've tried Obama's plan by his economists, and it did not work. Keynesianism did not work in the '70s and it did not work this time either.  It's time to return to the principles of Milton Friedman.

It's kind of disingenuous to compare the faulty assumptions of Arthur Burns' Keynesian monetary policy with anything Obama et al have done.

[wildfood]

Absolutely, but that does not mean they should be used in a game of political football, does it? Barack Obama is as guilty of political football on gay marriage as George W. Bush eight years ago.

As guilty as Bush? Bush used the issue to ostracize and harm while Obama uses it to include and heal.

Just because both a criminal and a surgeon use a knife does not mean they are both "guilty".

[Secretary Polnut]

Ah.... ha

Romney has been a willing participant during the primaries to go all culture warrior... the positions he's taken on let's say... abortion, is to the right of the majority of voters in Mississippi, on gay rights he's to the right of GW Bush, Cheney and McCain ... he had a choice. He could stand by his positions from the past, actually had some degree of principle ... or say actually try to fight against the Santorum-led BS.... but no...

Romney has no guts, no principles, cannot stand up to the nutcase right and there's no position he won't change or throw under the bus to win.

[True Federalist]

How about JPMorgan's $2 billion loss out of Britain?

Do you really think that JPMorgan's self-inflicted debacle is going to cause voters to trust a former financier to be a good president?  While I don't think it will have much effect politically unless it turns out to be much worse than has been reported, it undermines the whole "I'm a businessman, so I know what to do with the economy." theme Romney has been trying to run on.

[Secretary Polnut]

How about JPMorgan's $2 billion loss out of Britain?

Do you really think that JPMorgan's self-inflicted debacle is going to cause voters to trust a former financier to be a good president?  While I don't think it will have much effect politically unless it turns out to be much worse than has been reported, it undermines the whole "I'm a businessman, so I know what to do with the economy." theme Romney has been trying to run on.

Especially considering his endorsement of the Ryan Budget, which would impose the same austerity on the US, as was done in Europe... and that's clearly been such a total success.

[pbrower2a]

Let's just call it like it is: Anybody who is energized by Obama's recent announcement is simply a useful idiot who is being duped by a distraction. Why don't they stop and wonder for a moment why Obama did not make this announcement one, two or three years ago. It's not a coincidence that Obama and Biden "changed" their mind on this issue just this past week, shortly after Mitt Romney clinched the GOP nomination and is starting to gain traction with a slowing economy (Seen the jobs report for April? Seen the situation in Europe? How about JPMorgan's $2 billion loss out of Britain?). Some people need to stop and ask themselves why they are supporting politicians who have politicized a sensitive issue in the exact same disgusting fashion as George W. Bush eight years ago, albeit in the opposite direction. Why do some people like being used with little to show for it?

Maybe it was because the economy was in such bad shape that gay rights were much less important. Maybe it is because people were less accepting of LGBT rights. Maybe it was because the President had a huge legislative agenda (including the Affordable Health Care Act). The American public now supports gay rights by a larger margin than ever and that is unlikely to diminish.

As for Mitt Romney, he knows this election is about the economy. Why? Because, quite frankly, it's stupid to believe otherwise. Most of America, including Mitt Romney and Co., is not falling for the weapons of mass distraction.

"Gay marriage" is not a distraction from the economy. It is an inexorable trend not worthy of resistance. But if the focus of the campaign becomes "whatever President Obama is for I am against", then it is Mitt Romney who falls for the distraction.

I know what you think about the economy -- that President Obama has done everything to impede the 'progress' of America toward a New Feudalism and is thus evil. LGBT rights, like civil rights for ethnic minorities in the past, will not hurt economic progress. But this may show Mitt Romney as nothing more than opposition to an effective President. 

For the record, I disagree with Governor Romney on gay marriage and support President Obama's so-called "change of mind."

Congratulations!

[Purch]

I know this will come as a shock to you, but the rights of women and of LGBT Americans actually matter to many people.

But let's be serious for a sec. After all the smoke has cleared what did Obama really say? He said he supports gay marrige ( Which no one with a decent Iq doubted in the first place) Then he took the federalism position where the states should decide ( Basically the Chris Christie, Ron Paul , moderate republican positions). If you belive it's a Civil rights issue you should feel their rights supersedes state rights.

I'm glad he supports it don't get me wrong but him saying the states should handle it leaves us in the exact same place.

[Secretary Polnut]

I know this will come as a shock to you, but the rights of women and of LGBT Americans actually matter to many people.

But let's be serious for a sec. After all the smoke has cleared what did Obama really say? He said he supports gay marrige ( Which no one with a decent Iq doubted in the first place) Then he took the federalism position where the states should decide ( Basically the Chris Christie, Ron Paul , moderate republican positions). If you belive it's a Civil rights issue you should feel their rights supersedes state rights.

I'm glad he supports it don't get me wrong but him saying the states should handle it leaves us in the exact same place.

That's the thing... the Obama Administration has done pretty much all within it's power to address inequality, regardless of Obama coming out in support.

What Obama did was symbolically important, but what's clear is that the States are going about their business relatively well (all things considered)...

[GM Griffin]

Absolutely, but that does not mean they should be used in a game of political football, does it? Barack Obama is as guilty of political football on gay marriage as George W. Bush eight years ago. I ask once again: Why did Obama not make this announcement one, two, or three years ago? Why is Obama and his team exploiting gay people in an election year?

"Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?"

When Bush did it:

Legal: 38
Illegal: 59

When Obama did it:

Legal: 52
Illegal: 43

The political advantages for Bush were far greater, while Obama's stance is still politically risky. It's not an even comparison. As someone said earlier, he has already done much within his executive power to reduce discrimination and promote equal rights for the LGBT community. It's not as if there's been the congressional support to legalize same-sex marriage nationally, so all that was left for him to do was to make a public statement regarding his beliefs.

Keep in mind also that unless you believe it was a conspiracy, the Biden Blunder Machine brought all of this upon us. It was coming either way, though, in the DNC platform this summer.

[pbrower2a]

It is a question of when support for one side or the other on this issue goes from daring to iffy to irresistible that the change in political norm occurs.  The states going for gay rights are the ones with the clearest pattern of liberal voting. In 2010 the Republicans ensured that there would be no progress on the recognition of LGBT rights. As state legislatures flip even Scott Walker (should he avoid being ousted) will know which way the wind is blowing. 

[Odysseus]

Let's just call it like it is: Anybody who is energized by Obama's recent announcement is simply a useful idiot who is being duped by a distraction.

Well I'm a bisexual American and I was somewhat energized by the fact that Barack Obama supports rights for LGBT Americans. I'm mostly viewing this as a step in the right direction - it's part of an ever growing trend of a change in attitudes towards gay and bisexual people that's been taking place since probably about 2010 now.

Oh well, I guess I am a useful idiot.