Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Is Obama Really Losing Women Voters?

There are a couple of tried and true methods for finding the truth in politics. One is to follow the money, but another less quoted technique is to follow a politicians actions and not his words.

For example, the Democrat party and their supporters in the press have made much ado about nothing in their recent attempts to manufacture a "republican war on women." It's simply the latest in their tactic to distract and divide Americans in an election year.

Democrats know they cannot win running on Obama's record of failure, so they hope to carve up the constituents - slice and dice the voting public - and use every method of distraction and pandering imaginable to pit one faction against another and pull out a modest victory in numbers, and not ideas.

My how far we've fallen from Hope and Change.

Recent polls have "shown" that Women Boost Obama Over Romney - a phenomenon they attribute to the Democrat party's "War on Women" slogan.

But here's where looking beyond the hype comes into play.

If the phony War on Women rhetoric was really working, and if it was true that women prefer Obama to Romney, 57- 38, why would Obama be pandering anew to this all so important slice of voters?

On May 14th, Obama gave a commencement address at Barnard College - an all-female school.

During his speech, Obama "focused on the achievements and challenges facing women". In fact, the word “Women” was mentioned more times than any other word in his speech - more than "America", "Jobs" and "work". Mind you, this is at a time when the economy, jobs and getting back to work are the most important issues to most Americans.

Does this make any sense for a candidate that, we are told, is annihilating his competition in the race to win women voters?

And at about the same time, Obama is courting women voters on The View.

This simply does not add up. When does a candidate pander so heavily to a voting bloc? When he knows he cannot count on their support being in hand.

The truth in this case is readily apparent: Don't buy the spin, Obama is in trouble and he knows it.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Obama's Evolution not what it Seems

President Obama recently "evolved" in his view of gay marriage, came out of.... his chrysalis, and seemingly supported it.

His use of the word "evolved" translates to "focus-grouped the best way to appear to support a politically controversial topic, while minimizes the fallout at the ballot box come November."

He knows that gay marriage has been voted down in 32 states, and the only time it's enacted into law is when legislators or judges impose it on the people. But he also knows that 20% of his bundlers (supporters who organize or donate $500,0000 or more to the campaign) are gay and were withholding their contributions until they saw more movement on their issues.

Obama's was simply being pragmatic for once. He was not proclaiming any great new realization on human rights, he was doing what he had to to get the campaign cash flowing once again.

At first glance, this seems gutsy though. After all, Obama narrowly won North Carolina in 2008, and the Democratic Party has made a repeat victory here a top priority. The party will hold its presidential convention in Charlotte in September - a state that became the most recent to shoot down gay marriage just 3 days prior to Obama's "big decision". One would think that would not play out in favor of a repeat victory in that prized state.

But if you look carefully at his statement, you'll see an escape hatch:

"PRESIDENT OBAMA: And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what's recognized as a marriage."
- Obama on Gay Marriage: I Support it, and Support States Banning it

Obama considering states rights? That's a first.

His has been the most heavy-handed and overreaching administration in recent memory, but now all of a sudden he's content to let the states decide what should be law in this all so important issue of the day?

No, of course not. This is simply more "leading from behind." This is his fallback technique of appearing to be down for the struggle, while not actually doing anything to further the cause. His gay supporters think they heard support from the highest level of government, and they open up their purse strings. Meanwhile, Obama and company can claim to North Carolinians that he was merely expressing his opinion and has not enacted any legislation on the matter.

Time will tell how this will play out in the great election of 2012, but frankly I think it's more division and distraction than anything else.

My take on the matter is this: Get government out of the marriage business.

Problem solved. Everyone is treated equally in the eyes of the state. Marriages are considered civil unions by the state and couples get taxed and treated the same. Leave the covenant of marriage where it belongs - in the church.

But if we solve the problem, then there's one less wedge issue to divide and distract the voters come November, and without that the voters may focus on Obama's record.

Monday, May 7, 2012

Rush Limbaugh Advertisers Drop, Who Wins And Who Loses.

There's been a strong campaign of late by liberals to force Rush Limbaugh advertisers to drop their advertising on Limbaugh's show over his controversial comments on Sandra Fluke. I'm not going to argue one way or the other about his comments. I will say this, controversy is Limbaugh's medium, and anyone who engages him on this battlefield will lose.

All the talk about Rush's Fluke comments and the campaign to boycott advertisers has only increased his ratings. Thanks to the fools trying to sensationalize Limbaugh's comments, there are thousands of people who never gave him a listen who now tune him in to see what all the fuss is about. What liberals fail to recognize is that Rush Limbaugh is not running for election. He is a polarizing figure and generates strong feelings of dislike and all out hatred in some groups. But for every one of them there are 2-3 more with no preconceived notions who tune in for entertainment or a different perspective on politics of the day.

So who is losing in the war to boycott Rush Limbaugh ?

The left would have you believe it's Rush, but think again.

The idea behind boycotting Limbaugh's sponsors is to cut Limbaugh's advertising income - hit him where it hurts. This thinking is seriously flawed. It's flawed because of the effect outlined above - i.e. the controversy increases his audience.

It's also flawed because for every sponsor that does drop, there are 3 more waiting in the wings.

Think about it. The sponsors likely to fall victim to this kind of harassment are going to be big, national corporate sponsors worried about their image in a PC world. For every one of them, there are more smaller companies who can then get their foot in the door advertising at EIB.

As their sales revenue climbs, they'll be willing to pay the advertising fees without question.

Here's a simple example of the power of advertising on Rush Limbaugh's EIB network. I was listening to his show the week after the Sandra Fluke comments, prior to the organized campaign against his sponsors. He a caller on his show who purported to be Tom Grace, author of a new book, The Liberty Intrigue.

I quickly hit Amazon to check the current sales rank, saved a copy and went back 1 week later.

  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank at the time of Grace's call to Rush Limbaugh: #284,174
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank 1 week after the call: #23,787

That's pretty impressive. It's since dropped back down again, and at the time of this writing is #46,994.

The book was published at the start of the year, and the author called about 3 months later, so I doubt the sudden jump is sales was due to a promotional effort on the part of the publisher.

One more thing about the supposed list of Rush's Dropped Sponsors.. I'm not sure how many were really sponsors. I've seen a large number given in various places that I've never heard while listening to his show. Some are no doubt regional sponsors, but I have to question the accuracy of many lists as well as the claims of success on the part of the campaign organizers on the left.