Friday, May 11, 2012

Did Obama just give evangelicals the reason they needed to vote for Romney?

Pat Buchanan gives voice today to the same thought I had: Now evangelicals have a reason to vote for Romney. Whether Obama helps or hurts himself among his own constituency is still unclear--to me, anyway. But what he's done is energize a portion of the Republican base that has been iffy for him during the primary season.

Obama just made the battle lines are clear: Romney is a conservative economically and socially, and Obama is a full-fledged left-wing socialist.

Here's Pat in fine form:
It took Joe Biden's public embrace of same-sex marriage to smoke him out. But after Joe told David Gregory of "Meet the Press" he was "absolutely comfortable" with homosexuals marrying, Barack Obama could not maintain his credibility with the cultural elite if he stuck with the biblical view that God ordained marriage as solely between a man and woman. The biblical view had to go. 
Obama had to move, or look like a malingerer in secularism's next great moral advance into post-Christian America. 
... Obama may also have just solved Mitt Romney's big problem: How does Mitt get all those evangelical Christians and cultural conservatives not only to vote for him but to work for him? 
Obama, by declaring that homosexual marriages should be on the same legal and moral plane as traditional marriage, just took command of the forces of anti-Christian secularism in America's Kulturkampf. And Nov. 6, 2012, is shaping up as the Antietam of the culture war.
And the trouble for liberals is that not even by dredging up Romney's high school past will make a difference. High school, for crying out loud.

Read the rest here.

10 comments:

Lee said...

They were pretty mum about Obama's drugs use in high school.

Some ancient history is more important than other ancient history.

One Brow said...

Lee,

I'm glad to see you and Martin being so forgiving about assault being committed by young people. No doubt you'll soon be lobbying to get more people out of prison.

Or, is it only rich, young white men for whom assault is no big deal?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

So white supremacist Pat Buchanan is in the christian camp? The christian camp includes the racists but not the christians who have accepted the legitimacy of homosexual relationships?

Martin Cothran said...

So anti-Semite Obama is in the gay rights camp? The gay rights camp includes anti-Semites but not the gay rights advocates who have not accepted the legitimacy of homosexual relationships?

KyCobb said...

Obama isn't an anti-semite.

KyCobb said...

BTW Martin, are you saying that because you think Obama is an anti-semite, that makes racism compatible with chrisitanity?

Lee said...

> Or, is it only rich, young white men for whom assault is no big deal?

As I recall, when Republicans tried to bring up things Obama did when he was in high school, the media sniffed, and Obama replied, I was only in high school for crying out loud.

I'm not trying to hold Obama and the media up to my standards; they'd have no chance of success.

I'm only trying to hold them up to their own standards.

One Brow said...

Lee,

Are you saying that what Obama did was as bad as assault? My understanding is that there was some illegal drug use. Do you see those crimes as being equal?

However, I don't think Romney needs to be sent to jail for assault; we seem to agree there. I'm just seeing if you are consistent enough to say that's true for any young man.

Lee said...

> Are you saying that what Obama did was as bad as assault? My understanding is that there was some illegal drug use. Do you see those crimes as being equal?

Well, from what I have read, the WaPo's story is sort of falling apart. The family is disavowing the story, and WaPo quietly edited their first version of the story.

So at present, we don't know what happened.

As far as bullying is concerned, I hate bullies. There aren't many things I hate more.

But if someone was a bully in his high school days, it doesn't mean he is still a bully. Even as if someone was a doper in his high school days it doesn't mean he is one now.

And I'd say it's complicated. Being a bully is certainly more reprehensible than being a victim. But I wouldn't want a victim to be president.

All I'm saying is I think if Romney's high school shenanigans are news, by the same standard, Obama's doper days are also news. Except you would never know that by, you know, reading the news.

One Brow said...

Lee said...
Well, from what I have read, the WaPo's story is sort of falling apart. The family is disavowing the story, and WaPo quietly edited their first version of the story.

How can the family "disavow" a story that they did not "vow", and had no knowledge of? The tory came from the actual participants in the assault, not the family of the victim. As for the edit, I'm curious what it was, precisely, and why it would be relevant.

Obama's "doper days" were news, otherwise you would not have heard of them. They are now old news. Romney's assault is recent news.

But I wouldn't want a victim to be president.

Why not?