Archive for November, 2012
Everybody knows Fox News is in the tank for conservatives, Christians, and especially Republicans. Right?
Every now and then Fox News shows why it isn’t.
First, the cable network employs leftists, including Geraldo Rivera and Kirsten Powers.
Second, news anchor Shepherd Smith criticized Republicans for being “on the wrong side of history” with regards to marriage.
Today, Fox News reports on a larger ancestor to the Great White Shark. And look at some of the language they use:
The evolutionary history of the great white has been contested by paleontologists for 150 years. They were originally classified as direct relatives of megatooth sharks such as the extinct Carcharocles megalodon, the largest carnivorous shark that ever lived.
Fossils of a newfound species of shark, Carcharodon hubbelli, suggest the modern great white actually may have descended from broad-toothed mako sharks. Researchers say the newfound species represents a possible midway point in the evolution from one to the other.
Of course, there isn’t an iota of evidence supporting evolution. But this is yet more proof positive Fox News buys into much of the dogma of the Left.
By Jack Cashill, World Net Daily
After Barack Obama’s victory in 2008, many a Republican tracked with the Kubler-Ross model of electoral grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. That sense of acceptance may not have lasted long, but initially al least, most Republicans acknowledged Obama’s legitimacy.
In 2012, things are different. Monitoring my Facebook pages, I see a new model in play. This one goes directly from shock to disgust, and, unfortunately, it is altogether justified.
Yes, there is a good deal of intra-party sniping, much of it predictable and painfully stupid – Jeb Bush, please go away – but the genuine disgust is directed elsewhere, specifically at the Democratic-Media complex (DMC) and the hell it wrought with the electoral process.
At first, the numbers coming out of inner-city Philadelphia and Cleveland – both crucial cities in battleground states – seemed like the kind of misinformation DMC Luddites thrill to hector us about.
On “Meet the Press” not too long ago, Tom Friedman of the New York Times and NBC’s anchorman emeritus Tom Brokaw fretted openly about the vast right-wing communication stream.
“A lot of people will repeat back to me and take it as face value something that they read on the Internet,” cautioned Brokaw. “And my line to them is you have to vet information.” Not to be out-preached, the Time’s Tom Friedman countered, “The Internet is an open sewer of untreated, unfiltered information.”
The Internet, however, now lets us see and hear information the two Toms and their pals have long tried to suppress. On Tuesday, for instance, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that in 59 inner-city voting divisions, Mitt Romney received no votes.
“These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst,” reported the Inquirer glibly. Well, yes they do.
When Barack Obama outscores Romney by a combined 19,605 to 0 votes cast in these 59 districts, the stench of fraud is surely in the air. Saddam never did this well! Yet, as far as I could tell, not a single major media outlet picked up on the Philadelphia story.
If they had, they would have likely scolded the implicitly racist Republicans for imagining fraud in an attempt to “suppress” the vote. This the DMC has routinely done whenever Republicans have attempted to tighten the voting process.
Even worse than fraud, though, is the process that turned 20,000 citizens into sheep. Years of crude, vile, racist propaganda by the DMC and its local operatives have transformed the birthplace of democracy into a laboratory of mind control Goebbels would have envied.
Philadelphia is hardly unique. In one Cleveland precinct, Obama beat Romney 542 to 0. This was one of nine precincts in which Romney received no votes. The same pattern, in fact, was repeated in every American inner city. It is just that Democrats harvested and/or manufactured votes more aggressively in the battleground states.
The Democrats also harvested votes among the young. In Ohio, with its early voting, they staged campus rallies and then bussed their clueless lemmings to the polls.
Revealing Politics’ Caleb Bonham and Lacey Meeks attended an Obama event on the campus of Ohio University and asked the students what they thought about the attack on the Benghazi consulate.
“I have no idea,” laugh two girls. “I am really uninformed about that,” says another. “When did that happen?” asks still another. “I don’t even know what this is honestly,” says a fellow. When asked about Ambassador Chris Stevens, several just shrug their shoulders and say, “Who’s he?”
When queried about their reasons for supporting Obama, the students happily cited student loan relief and free birth control pills just as ghetto dwellers talked about food stamps and Obamaphones.
The students may outgrow their bought-and-paid-for ignorance. The ghetto dwellers will not. They are locked in, and that is the real scandal. The fact that they live in the crime-scarred hellholes that they do testifies to their routine betrayal by their presumed liberators in the DMC.
Today, the laborers of the NEA, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party, teach their students that the Founding Fathers were guilty of ignorance and prejudice in limiting the vote to stakeholders. Alexander Hamilton, for one, knew better than the teachers.
Citing Blackstone’s Commentaries, Hamilton cautioned that those “under the immediate dominion of others” and lacking a “will of their own” would undermine those voting thoughtfully and independently. The 2012 election has proved his wisdom.
By Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
Now that some of the shock is wearing off, conservatives are experiencing another emotion. Disbelief. Less than 48 hours after barely surviving the election, liberal leaders insist they have a mandate to lead America even farther Left. I don’t know about you, but squeaking out an election in a bitterly divided nation is hardly what I’d call a blanket endorsement of the President’s policies. In fact, the only mandate we’re aware of is the one 43 institutions are fighting in court!
Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) from assuming this new mantle of self-entitlement. During a press conference yesterday, Sen. Reid made it clear that he’s seizing these results as a national nod to higher taxes. “The mandate was look at all the exit polls, look at all the polling, the vast majority of the American people, rich, poor, everybody agrees that the rich–richest of the rich–have to help a little bit.” Well, interestingly enough, those same exit polls showed a huge discrepancy between the Democrats’ proposal and the voters’ opinion. Asked if taxes should be raised to cut the deficit, only 33% of voters said “yes.” If that’s how liberals define a consensus, then there’s more separating these parties than politics!
In reality, Mitt Romney had a huge advantage with voters in areas that should force the President to rethink his in-your-face strategy. In several of those exit poll questions, voters gave Romney a double-digit edge over the President in categories like “shares my values,” (55-42%), “is a strong leader” (61-38%) and “has a vision for the future” (54-45%). Americans also thought Mitt was more qualified to handle the economy (49-48%) and the deficit (49-47%).
As disappointing as the election outcome was, it wasn’t a mandate. A little more than two million votes separate the two candidates in the popular vote, and, as John Podhoretz points out, they aren’t even done counting. “It’s a little noticed fact that in two weeks following every presidential election, votes will continue to be reported… by the millions.” A lot of these are military, provisional, and absentee ballots that could break the Governor’s way. So the idea that waging a close and bitter campaign that divides the country somehow gives the President a blank check is ridiculous.
Michael Barone hinted at this on Tuesday in his column, “America Is Two Countries, Not on Speaking Terms.” “One America tends to be traditionally religious, personally charitable, appreciative of entrepreneurs, and suspicious of government. The other tends to be secular or only mildly religious, less charitable on average, skeptical of business, and supportive of government as an instrument to advance liberal causes… Now the two Americas disagree, sharply.” And for four years, President Obama’s administration has done more to widen the gulf than bridge it. He spent his first term as the leader of one America–and chief antagonist of the other. So, as far as I’m concerned, this election isn’t a mandate–it’s a second chance. Despite a highly controversial four years, some Americans still believe this President is capable of putting aside his acrimony, his extreme social agenda and assuming the unifying role our nation needs. But that’s not a mandate. That’s leadership.
FRCA Had Plenty of Election Im-PAC
As more people sift through the polling data and try to piece together what happened Tuesday, evangelical voters seem to be on a lot of pundits’ minds. In the aftermath, many have wondered if the church’s enthusiasm for Romney wasn’t as high as many leaders–including myself–had predicted. Turns out, evangelicals were not only voting, they outperformed their 2008 involvement. Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, it still wasn’t enough to overcome the massive turnout by Democratic Hispanics, African-Americans, and young people. “Of white evangelicals specifically,” Ed Morrissey writes, “turnout was steady at 26% of the electorate from four years ago and Romney took 78% of the vote compared to just 74% for McCain.” Apart from how people self-identify (as either Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, etc.), weekly church attendance was another key statistic. Forty-two percent of this year’s voters worship weekly (compared to 40% in 2008) with Romney capturing 59% of that vote compared to John McCain’s 55%.
For FRC and FRC Action, those numbers help validate all the work and miles we logged to increase values voter turnout. And the evidence of impact stretches well beyond the presidential. Despite losing the big prize and grieving the loss of so many key ballot initiatives, it was still a good day for the FRC Action PAC and the men and women we endorsed. After all of the disappointment on the national stage, our team was thrilled to see that 81% of our congressional candidates won. In the House and Senate, we celebrated victories in 129 of 159 races where the results are final (five contests have not been called). Our thanks go out to everyone who invested in the FRC Action PAC. It was money well spent! Whether we were replacing phony moderates, beating liberals, or reelecting strong conservatives, you can rest assured that there are new leaders in Congress who have our pro-family seal of approval!
A couple of days have passed since Tuesday’s loss, but for many of us, it still stings. The outcome was not what we hoped for, worked for, or anticipated, but even in the midst of it, I have not once questioned what we did or what we stood for. Even when the criticism comes–and it will come–the words of Teddy Roosevelt never ring truer for FRC, for our movement, or for the millions of voters still fighting, at great personal cost, for the truth.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
The reality in life is that sometimes we win and sometimes we lose. In times like these, we have to keep an eternal perspective, remembering that as Christians, we go from victory to victory. That doesn’t mean every election ends with a parade, because our battle is not temporal; it’s spiritual. Voters may reject the values that have sustained this nation for more than 230 years–but an election is not going to change the sovereignty of God, nor will it alter his eternal truths. Our charge is to not lose heart; to stay faithfully engaged in the struggle for faith, family, and freedom.
And our challenge is to pray. In Luke 18, Jesus’s parable reminds us that, “Will not God give justice to his elect, who cry out to him day and night?” If Paul could call on believers in his day to pray for those in authority, like Nero, who used Christians as human torches, then we can pray for our President and government. Prayer gives us the grace to go on, the mercy to maintain, the patience to persist, the courage to care, and the strength to stand–which is what we are called to do. As John Quincy Adams said when asked about his unyielding and unfruitful fight to end slavery, “Duty is ours, results belong to God.”
by Ryan T. Anderson and Andrew Walker
Until Tuesday, no state had redefined marriage by popular vote. Indeed, 32 out of 32 states that put the issue to a vote defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
But in this week’s election, citizens in Maine, Maryland, and Washington State all passed ballot initiatives redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. Meanwhile, citizens in Minnesota failed to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a man and woman. (It remains so defined, however, by statutory law.)
But a little perspective on the setback is in order. The results were close, and marriage did better in these deep blue states than Mitt Romney did. Of the four states that had marriage questions on the ballot, traditional marriage outperformed the presidential candidate in each and every one:
- In Maine, Romney received 41 percent of the vote, while marriagereceived 47 percent.
- In Maryland, Romney received 36 percent of the vote, while marriagereceived 48 percent.
- In Minnesota, Romney received 45 percent of the vote, while marriagereceived 48 percent.
- In Washington, Romney received 43 percent of the vote, while marriage received 48 percent.
Factor in also that pro-marriage forces were outspent by more than four to one, and the battle for redefining marriage is much tighter than headlines might make it appear.
The exit polls also revealed that young Americans are more likely to support same-sex “marriage.” This should motivate conservatives to redouble their efforts to explain the nature and public purpose of marriage—what marriage is and why it is such a significant factor in maintaining civil society and limiting government.
Our marriage law should reflect the truth about what marriage is: a pre-political institution springing from human nature itself. Government should not redefine or recreate marriage, nor should it obscure the truth about what marriage is. Recognizing same-sex relationships as “marriages” would weaken marriage as a social institution. It would redefine marriage as essentially an emotional bond, thus rendering marital norms arbitrary and less intelligible. It would further delink childbearing from marriage and deny, as a matter of law, the importance of a mother or a father in a child’s life. The outcomes associated with such absence are far from promising.
If the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the issue of marriage this term, as is widely expected, the coming months would offer an important opportunity to focus on the ramifications of redefining marriage. The potential clashes with religious liberty and the realities for educational norms for children is already evident, and they will become more so as three states move forward to recognize same-sex “marriage” as a result of Tuesday’s votes.
By Jay Hominick, The American Spectator
The Emperor’s latest suit of new clothes fits about as well as the previous ones. Now we all have to mouth platitudes about what a terrific campaign Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan ran. Well, guess what, they ran a pathetic embarrassment of a campaign, and when the R/R met Conductor Karl Rove’s caboose at the American Crossroads, the result was a disastrous train wreck. The Emperor not only has no clothes, he is covered in unsightly warts.
I say this fully acknowledging that Romney almost won with a fine debate performance and that I for one was gulled into predicting he would win. But that would have been a fluke, losing the campaign and winning the debate.
Without doing a laundry list of complaints, I can prove my case with a simple question: did anyone here see an ad, one single solitary ad, laying out exactly what was going to happen to you after Obamacare is implemented? Anyone mention the “fine” you will pay if you do not honor the mandate to buy health insurance? Anyone mention one by one, slowly, each new tax that will kick in automatically on January 1, 2013?
I saw a million polls on Rasmussen and Real Clear Politics about the Presidential and the Congressional and immigration and exfoliation and peregrination and miscegenation and who knows what all, but not one single poll asked people if they know the amount they will pay extra in 2013. Not one asked if they are aware of the amount of the health insurance penalty. So it falls to me to give you the results of my informal poll. The answer is zero. Zero! Nobody knows because it was out of sight, out of mind and no one called it to people’s attention.
I went around asking my wealthier friends if they were aware that if they die on December 31 and leave an estate of 5 million dollars, their children will receive five million dollars (well, not in New York, with an estate tax as high as 16 percent), but if they hang in until January 1, their children will receive 2.8 million and Uncle Sam will take delivery of the other $2,200,000.00. No, they were not aware, for the most part. And those are the more fiscally knowledgeable people in the society.
Personally, I would have preferred direct attacks on the Democrats and on the President, but even in the Gentleman Jim model, it made sense to EDUCATE people about the dollars-and-cents consequences of their vote beyond repeating like a mantra umpteen zillion times that there are 23 million Americans looking for work.
Even that issue was not framed to pack a punch. It would have resonated much more to repeat how many people had jobs when Obama took office and how many have them now. Then point out this is the first time in our lifetimes the country has fewer total jobs at the end of four years.
But if Romney was dumb Rove was dumber. He collected upwards of one hundred million dollars and all but one of the candidates he backed lost. The reason for his monumental ineffectiveness was simple: his ads sounded like campaign ads from the Campaign.
The whole point of surrogate advertising groups is to get their hands dirty. If the man on the ticket wants to be Mr. Nice Guy, then it’s up to his backers to play rough. (The Talmud says a scholar should not fight back against his detractors but his students and followers should instead.)
The Swift Boat guys defeated John Kerry by telling uncomfortable truths that George W. Bush did not think were fodder for Presidential conversation. Where was the equivalent material about Obama in the ads run by Rove and his pals?
We did not even hear substantive material from his Presidency that was hard-hitting. No ad mentioned his telling Medvedev to tell Putin he would be flexible after the election. No ad mentioned he agreed with Sarkozy that Netanyahu is a liar. No ad mentioned he told the San Francisco Chronicle he would bankrupt the coal industry.
But we certainly did not hear personal things on the level of the ads against Romney for being a vulture capitalist. We did not hear that he was a community organizer for years without a single testimonial from anyone who benefited from his help. We did not hear that he lets his brother live in a hovel in Kenya.
Nor do the Republicans get credit for playing nice. The press frames it as a mutually negative campaign. I see the downside of this strategy, but where is the upside? Whose respect did they gain?
Yeah, I know I made the same point here eight years ago, but those who do not repeat it are doomed to learn from history.
Rush Limbaugh, Nov. 7, 2012
RUSH: Greetings, my friends. What happened? That’s what we’re going to try to find out. We’re not gotta be able to explain this away in one day. We’re gonna get close. We are not gonna be able to come up with all the answers and solutions in one day, but I want to try to take you through the night for me last night, various thoughts that I had as things happened, beginning with my getting and receiving the exit polls at five o’clock.
But first, let me tell you, small things beat big things yesterday. Conservatism, in my humble opinion, did not lose last night. It’s just very difficult to beat Santa Claus. It is practically impossible to beat Santa Claus. People are not going to vote against Santa Claus, especially if the alternative is being your own Santa Claus.
Now, everybody is jumping on Romney’s chain today, getting in his chili. Look, he may have not been the most optimal candidate, but he’s a fine man. He would have been great for this country. Mitt Romney and his family would have been the essence of exactly what this country needs. But what was Romney’s recipe? Romney’s recipe was the old standby: American route to success, hard work. That gets sneered at. I’m sorry. In a country of children where the option is Santa Claus or work, what wins? And say what you want, but Romney did offer a vision of traditional America. In his way, he put forth a great vision of traditional America, and it was rejected. It was rejected in favor of a guy who thinks that those who are working aren’t doing enough to help those who aren’t. And that resonated.
The Obama campaign was about small stuff. War on Women, binders, Big Bird, this kind of stuff. The Romney campaign was about big things, was about America. It’s mind-boggling to go through these exit polls. You want to hear a statistic that is somewhat surprising? Romney received two and a half million fewer votes than McCain did. Now, who would have called that? Who in the world would have? I think Obama’s vote tally was down ten million from 2008, and we still lost. We lost 50 to 48 nationally. We were not able to build a turnout model that looked like 2004. Very puzzling.
Something else. Just stream of consciousness here. The usual suspects are out, and they’re saying, “Rush, we gotta reach out now to the Hispanics and reach out to the minorities, blacks.” Okay, let me remind you of something. Just ask you a question. And we will be getting your phone calls of course today, you weigh in on this, 800-282-2882 is the number. Let me take you back to the Republican convention. We had Suzanne Martinez, female Hispanic governor, New Mexico. We had Condoleezza Rice, African-American, former secretary of state. Both of those people imminently qualified, terrifically achieved. They have reached the pinnacles of their profession.
We had Marco Rubio. We had a parade of minorities who have become successful Americans. And they all had a common story: up from nothing, hard work, their parents sacrificed for them. Now, why didn’t that work, folks? The answer to that is our future. Why didn’t it work? Some people say, “Well, Rush, we pandered.” No, we didn’t pander. Everybody says that we need to reach out to minorities. We have plenty of highly achieved minorities in our party, and they are in prominent positions, and they all have a common story. They all came from nothing. Their parents came from nothing. They worked hard. They told those stories with great pride. Those stories evoked tears. It didn’t work. And don’t tell me that people didn’t watch the convention or people didn’t see it. I mean, there’s a reason it doesn’t work.
I went to bed last night thinking we’re outnumbered. I went to bed last night thinking all this discussion we’d had about this election being the election that will tell us whether or not we’ve lost the country. I went to bed last night thinking we’ve lost the country. I don’t know how else you look at this. The first wave of exit polls came in at 5 p.m. I looked at it, I read the first two pages, and I said to myself, “This is utter BS.” And I forwarded the exit poll data that I had to three or four people, and my message to each of them, “This is utter BS, and if it isn’t, then we’ve lost the country.” Let me take you through some of it.
Based on early exit polls, Obama is locked in a tight race with Governor Romney. Nationally we believe the race to be as tight as it could be, and to the extent that Obama is running strong and can win, it is because they see him as someone who cares about people like them. They feel he did a very good job in the response to Hurricane Sandy. When I saw that, I thought this thing is starting to read like a Democrat campaign speech, this exit poll data. Hurricane Sandy and the aftermath and the way Obama handled that, what did Obama do? He showed up one day, he bear hugged Chris Christie, and then he left. The situation on the ground is devastating, and yet Obama triumphs in the exit polls with that.
He successfully painted Romney’s policies as caring primarily about the rich. He successfully convinced roughly half the country that his policies will favor the middle class. Now, measure that against reality. The reality is that the economy of this country is crumbling. The unemployment situation is worsening. The debt situation is worsening. Everything for the very people who think Obama’s gonna help them is getting worse, and yet they told the exit poll people that they thought Obama’s the best guy to handle Obamacare.
A majority of people like Obamacare in the exit poll. That goes against everything we’ve ever heard in any poll. Voters trust him more than Romney in an international crisis. What? How in the world can that be? In a rational, intelligent world, how can that be? “He’s running very strong with African-Americans, Latinos, and women. If he wins, this data will be consistent with stories about the changing nature of US demographics.”
And I saw this next one. This is the one that made me think this exit poll was BS. I just, intellectually, had trouble with this one. “More than half the people who voted yesterday said that they still blame Bush for the economy.” More than half the people who…? After four years! Well, now, what is the answer to this? How in the world do you deal with this? There are ways, and we didn’t do them. There were too many assumptions made about what the American people thought, about what they knew.
Too many assumptions were made. But look, I don’t want to nitpick the campaign today. That’s not the point. There are larger things here at work. “Roughly half voters want the health care law as it is or expanded, and they are voting for Obama.” Really? I haven’t seen a poll like that anywhere. Every poll — every poll! — I have seen on Obamacare features a majority and close to 60% who don’t like it, but this is an exit poll of people who voted.
“People who say they are looking for a strong leader and someone who has more of a vision for the future support Romney. Romney even wins among voters voting for ‘a candidate who shares my values.’ Voters believe the economy’s weak and Romney will be better able to manage the economy.” Now, this is for people the exit pollers say, this is the reason if Romney wins. This is why. Well, obviously, those people were vastly outnumbered, which is where we are today.
One of the greatest misunderstandings in this country, if you boil all this down, is what creates prosperity. The Romney campaign was essentially about that, and the Romney campaign was devoted to the traditional American view and history — vision, as well — of what creates prosperity. The old capitalism, the old arguments of hard work, stick-to-itiveness, self-reliance, charity, helping out in the community.
All of these things that define the traditional institutions that made this country great, that’s what the Romney campaign was about. It was rejected. That way, or that route to prosperity was sneered at. That route to prosperity was rejected. The people who voted for Obama don’t believe in it. They don’t think it’s possible. They think the game’s rigged. They think the deck is stacked against them.
They think that the only way they’re gonna have a chance for anything is if somebody comes along and takes from somebody else and gives it to them. Santa Claus! And it’s hard to beat Santa Claus. Especially it’s hard to beat Santa Claus when the alternative is, “You be your own Santa Claus.” “Oh, no! I’m not doing that. What do you mean, I have to be my own Santa Claus? No, no. No, no, no. I want to get up every day and go to the tree. You’re the elves,” meaning us.
You throw Hurricane Sandy in here. I must admit, I am genuinely puzzled that Hurricane Sandy and the aftermath helped Obama and hurt Romney. But it did. According to the exit polls. I mean, what they say is what they say. The polls were right on the money, as it turned out. But until people understand why and how big government reduces prosperity for all, they’re gonna continue to be fooled by little things.
By marketing, by smooth talkers, by faux compassion. So we’ll see what happens with the economy as we go forward. Some people think, “Hey, Rush, the economy is resilient in this country, and it’s gonna naturally rebound. No matter what.” There are people today scared the economy is going to rebound despite what’s happening in the stock market today and Obama’s policies are gonna get credit for it.
A bunch of libs are salivating over that. They think the economy is gonna come back no matter what, and that Obama’s big government is going to end up being the explanation for the rest of our lives as to how that happened. Just like in Japan, just like in Greece. But look, you bring up Greece and you bring up Europe, and they’re where we’re headed. Their problems are acute.
The difference is that none of those European countries are anywhere near the leading economy of the world like we are. The world depends on what happens here. The world does not depend on what happens in Spain or Greece or Italy. Not to put them down. But regardless, wherever you go… Look at Greece. Whenever necessary austerity measures are proposed, what happens?
“No, you don’t! You’re not taking it away from me!” There is no rising to responsibility. There is no accepting responsibility. There’s just a demand that the gravy train continue, and we have an administration that’s promising an endless gravy train. All you have to do to stay on that gravy train is vote. But it doesn’t matter.
The thing that’s mind-boggling is that there is no new prosperity in America. There is no improved standard of living. It’s all going down. “But Obama cares. He really cares! He cares much more than Romney. He really, really cares. In fact, he cares so much, we’re gonna give him a do-over. We’re gonna give him a second term to do what we know he wanted to do in the first term but wasn’t able to for whatever reason.”
By Jennifer Marshall, Director Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, The Heritage Foundation
“We have made woman a sex creature,” complained a psychiatrist at the Margaret Sanger Clinic, according to Betty Friedan’s 1963 book The Feminist Mystique. A half-century later, a new Obama ad proudly likens voting for the first time to a young woman losing her virginity.
You’ve come a long way, baby. But not necessarily forward.
Women’s liberation is parodying itself in “The First Time” spot featuring Lena Dunham, 26-year-old creator of the shockingly sexualized HBO series Girls.
“Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody,” Dunham provocatively begins the ad. “You want to do it with a great guy.”
“My first time voting was amazing,” says Dunham. She salaciously describes her vote for Barack Obama as a rite of passage to womanhood, dangling a policy teaser about free birth control along the way.
It is an astonishingly base, sex-centric monologue that degrades public discourse and demeans young women in particular. Seeing sexual double entendre everywhere is typically the sport of sophomoric boys. Now adults are using it to stoop for the youth vote—and expecting women to fall for it.
“The First Time” is the lowest yet in a year of new political lows when it comes to infantilizing women.
First, liberals fabricated the “War on Women” to shroud a bumbling Obamacare mandate that trampled on religious liberty. The coercive policy requires, with few exceptions, coverage of abortion drugs and contraception despite conscience objections. When religious charities sought relief, liberals accused them and their defenders of assaulting women’s freedom—as if the First Amendment’s religious freedom protections don’t apply to women, too.
Then they brought us the government-driven Life of Julia. The faceless female seemed hardly capable of taking a step in life without government intervention from the “hubby state,” as one observer dubbed it.
Now, “The First Time” combines sexual and political debut—and vulgarizes both. In a day when more than 40 percent of children are born outside of marriage (and therefore six times more likely to experience poverty) and one out of four teen girls has a sexually transmitted disease, it is brazenly irresponsible of any leader to play on premarital sex in this way.
But it is particularly sad that the purported champions of women’s interests would objectify female sexuality for political ends. It’s hard to imagine any woman not being revolted, anyone with a daughter not being scandalized.
The ad actually flaunts its own short-sightedness: “Think about how you want to spend those four years. In college-age time, that’s 150 years.” It’s true that with our current policy trajectory, America’s horizon seems limited.
But to attribute centennial significance to an undergrad’s matriculation—or a presidential term—is to lose all sense of history. To sexually pander toward the youth vote is to degrade the sober calling of citizenship. And to so trivialize female sexuality is to deal a setback to the dignity of women.