Put down your coffee before you click on this link.

Sorry, but, …you were warned.

Now, after viewing the silliest magazine cover Of. All. Time…..let’s get serious for a second. President Obamessiah will forever receive media adulation for “coming out” on gay marriage last week. That’s a lock. However, as always, the media isn’t telling us “the rest of the story”.

With such hagiographic coverage, you might think that the poll results would be rather lopsided in Obama’s favor; that this would be a gigantic boost for the president.

Guess again, bunky.

From today’s

“…..Specifically, 23% of independents and 10% of Democrats say it makes them less likely to vote for Obama, while a smaller 11% of independents and 2% of Republicans say it makes them more likely to vote for Obama. Those figures suggest Obama’s gay marriage position is likely to cost him more independent and Democratic votes than he would gain in independent and Republican votes, clearly indicating that his new position is more of a net minus than a net plus for him. However, those figures also underscore that it is a relatively limited group of voters — about one in three independents and fewer than one in 10 Republicans or Democrats — whose votes may change as a result of Obama’s new stance on gay marriage……”

And armed with this information, leave it to Brit Hume to sum up what is clearly indicated by these poll results. From

“…And what did (Obama) say actually? Did he say, “I’m for this and I want to make it possible everywhere and get behind legislation to do that or an effort to advance a Constitutional amendment to do that?” No. He said he’s going to leave that up to the states. So, he’s really not going to do anything to advance a position from which he hopes to get some political gain. Very obviously political – all of it. And I think that, as people look at that, it may further the impression that the President suffers from. That far from being a kind of post-partisan leader and all the rest of it, that he turns out to be just another politician doing what politicians do. And I think that’s harmful to him.”


When your only game plan is to try to distract away from the economy at all costs, once in a while one of those distractions may backfire on you. To be fair, it’s not like Obama really has any choice, since:

and a gazillion other reasons.

Prediction: As it becomes apparent that his “distractions” are losing their effectiveness, he may start to look more than a little desperate…..

12 responses to “Backfire?

  1. Nice way to start off the week.

    My finely honed political instincts were telling me the gay marriage announcement (what a shock it was–not!) would be a net minus for President Jugears with independents, and the poll numbers cited seem to confirm that. The LGBT (or whatever they call themselves these days) “community” is an extremely vocal minority in the U.S., but also an extremely small one. Some folks object on religious or other grounds, but reality is most people just don’t care what you do in your bedroom as long you don’t try to cram your views down their throats. The entire schtick, like playing the race card, is wearing very thin with a lot of voters.

    I am actually beginning to feel optimistic about the presidential election. As you point out, Romney isn’t rising to the distraction bait. His campaign seems professional and focused. Unlike that old guy four years ago who rolled over, he seems to actually WANT to be president. And our half-black, Harvard Law Review editor, constitutional scholar, post-racial, post-partisan, smartest-ever “president” keeps proving time and again that he’s not even that good a politician. He’s really nothing more than a spoiled child/bully with a massive sense of entitlement (why not, since he’s had everything in his life handed to him?) who keeps shoring up his ever-shrinking base while he loses the middle. That base, of course, includes the liberal media, which is acceleratings its slide toward complete irrelevance with drivel like the latest Time and Newsweek covers.

  2. justturnright

    Good points, Buckeye, especially this:
    “The entire schtick, like playing the race card, is wearing very thin with a lot of voters.”

    But for me: as bad as the Time cover was, it totally pales in comparison to Newsweek’s.

    • Well, Wash Post Co. DID sell Newsweek for $1. To the 91-year-old “tycoon” husband of a former Democrat congress critter. And then he hired Tina Brown as chief editor. So it was not/is not worth anywhere near the paper it’s printed on, and we should not be surprised at any stunts pulled under Brown’s direction.

      Of course, the limousine lib also acquired the rag’s considerable debt, which I don’t believe was ever disclosed. Had to be tens of millions of dollars. Was this guy even legally competent to do such a deal, or did he just not care about the $$? Both, maybe?

      • justturnright

        I’m guessing that buying such an infamous rag just burnished his reputation as a man of the people. Limo libs are notorious for trying to do things that establish their common-man bonafides; it helps to keep the rabble away from their door.

        If he uses Newsweek to propagate lib talking points, he gets more cocktail party invites AND insulates himself from accusations that he should be punished as a card-carrying member of the 1%.

        “Pain for thee, but not for me”, etc.,…..

        • The guy’s name is Harman. As in Harman Kardon. So (going back to my boycott comment from the weekend) the next time I’m in the market for audio/video gear I will be looking at other brands.

  3. livinrightinpgh

    Once again, this entire issue is being convoluted by those who use divisive tactics to promote their political agendas. Obama (within the last several years) has proclaimed that he is “against” gay marriage. Now, in order to, ONCE AGAIN, throw a smoke-bomb into the public discourse, he “evolves” his position (See Jay Carney’s press conference if you want a good laugh).

    My faith-based views aside, my understanding of what the LGBT folks want is equal rights and protection in their “unions”, the same as what a man and woman enjoy in “marriage”. Frankly, I have ZERO problem with that. My issue is the attempt (and what I believe is more for the cause of creating this smoke screen) to co-opt the term “marriage”. THIS is where my faith-based views engage the conversation.

    Heterosexual = marriage
    All others = civil union

    All rights, protections, etc., extend the same to both. After all, isn’t THAT really what we’ve been told the issue is? If so, what does one CARE what it’s called? Quit looking for a word to give one a sense of legitimacy.

    • You’re absolutely right about marriage versus civil unions, livinright, and I think a pretty big majority of Americans would agree with that position.

      I cannot abide watching/hearing the Zero speak or watching one of Carney’s briefings, which are always painful. The first guy–Gibbs–was such a smug little s— that I just wanted to hit him upside the head with a baseball bat. Carney looks like he is genuinely in pain. Maybe he’s just perpetually constipated. Regardless, he’ll be out of a job come November.

      Happy Monday all!

    • justturnright

      Ditto to you and Buckeye, Pgh.

      I am insulted by the hi-jacking of the language. It is an attempt at more than legal equality; it is an attempt at forcing Moral equality. Which is odd, since so many SSM proponents don’t believe in absolute Morality.

      Call it Civil Unions, call it water-skiing, call it Eugene, I don’t care…..

      ..but don’t call it marriage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s