Back on January 31, I asked, “why is the Obama administration picking a fight with the Catholic church during an election year?” For them to wage a public battle with the Bishops, now – when he needs all the Catholic voters he can get, just seemed insane.
But that was before the Obama camp began their full court press strategy of steering the debate away from a religious freedom issue to a women’s rights issue. They accused the hapless GOP of waging a war on women with an assist from feminist plant, Sandra Fluke. Rush Limbaugh unintentionally aided and abetted the faux narrative when he used rhetoric more characteristic of left-wing commentators to describe the 31 year old reproductive rights activist.
What happened next was predictable. The institutional left erupted in spasms of sputtering faux outrage and numerous craven sponsors left the Rush Limbaugh Show. Rush apologized for sinking to the level of discourse that he did, and the Stalinist left, smelling blood in the water, didn’t accept his apology, and instead opted to ramp up the pressure on his sponsors.
As should be obvious, this is not really a reaction to a bad word, or the left would be spending more of its time policing its own side. It’s simply an excuse to continue their jihad against talk radio, because that is the only place where conservative speech dominates.
The Obama war room probably thought they were going to kill two birds with one stone — flip the contraception narrative from their toxic war on religion to a phony GOP war on women and drum Rush off the air, once and for all. The White House’s contraception narrative had been forming since early January, after all – before anyone knew why it was an even an issue. The Rush thing was just an added bonus.
Unfortunately for Obama and his minions, though, conservatives were on to their Alinsky tactics, and rallied around Rush. We brought up example after example of lefty commentators saying worse things about conservative women. We brought up the million dollar misogynist, Bill Maher, and wondered why Obama’s PAC would accept the tainted money of one of the biggest creeps on the air. We exposed the left’s flaming hypocrisy and threw their words back in their stupid simpering faces. We put them on the defensive. The latest fallout: David Axelrod bails out of Bill Maher appearance.
And we’re not through. Since the left wants to play this game, we’re happy to oblige. Because when it comes to unhinged, ugly, demented, hateful and insane rhetoric – the right cannot begin to compete with the left. .
Take Al Sharpton. Back in the day – before he had teleprompters to help him to say “resist we much”, Al had some pretty — exotic things to say about all sorts of people.
As Big Journalism’s John Nolte will tell you:
Breaking today at the American Spectator is more bad news for a network devoting so much of its airtime to creating a rule that says someone should be pulled off the air for anything he or she has said that might be considered offensive.
Using MSNBC’s own standards, should the man who once said the following be allowed to hold a primetime MSNBC slot?
David Dinkins, you wanna be the only nigger on television, only nigger in the newspaper, only nigger that can talk. Don’t cover them, don’t talk to them, ’cause you got the only nigger problem. ‘Cause you know if a black man stood up next to you, they would see you for the whore that you really are.
That’s MSNBC’s Al Sharpton–many years ago, but just as shocking today. I can already hear the excuse — that it’s okay for him to use the N-word because he’s black. But I wonder what CNN’s Roland Martin will think of this:
White folks was in the cave when we were building empires. We learned to admire them, but they knew to admire us. We built pyramids without a ____, ____ new architecture ____. We talked philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.
Just a few weeks ago, Roland Martin was suspended from CNN after GLAAD took offense to a few Super Bowl tweets few but GLAAD could ever find offensive — tweets that never even broached the subject of homosexuality.
“Homo,” of course is an anti-gay slur, especially within the context you hear in Sharpton’s words.
But that’s not all! How about a side order of “Chinaman” to go with that “homo”:
You the best chicken ____ in the universe. Gonna buy some Colonel Sanders chicken. Then the Chinaman come in and throw some hot ___ [cough] ___. Then the Korean sells us watermelon. ___ watermelon all my life. They’re gonna cut it up and put it in a bucket with a rubber band around it, and then we’re gonna buy it like it’s somethin we didn’t know what it was.
And finally we have this:
“___ uh, white interloper I said I was wrong. uh, uh, cracker, though I think cracker is a certain personification of a certain type of person down south, just like redneck. I mean, you know some people misinterpret cracker meaning all whites, it’s not true. But the confusion means you shouldn’t use it. I mean, sometimes being flippant you say things you shouldn’t say, cause it gets in the way of your message and people don’t really understand what you’re saying.”
“White interloper.” I don’t even know what that means, but “cracker” is a slur against white Southerners — end of story.
See Breitbart TV for video: UNCOVERED: NBC News Star Sharpton’s Racial, Homophobic Rants.
As Nolte notes, MSNBC President Phil Griffin added Sharpton to the MSNBC lineup, knowing that he said this sort of stuff regularly. But as MSNBC is the media arm of the Obama White House, Sharpton’s main role at the network is to deploy the race card in promiscuous fashion as an election year racialist tactic to shore up the white guilt vote.. And he’s been doing just that. He wasn’t meant to be a liability.
So you might wonder – how does all this look to the average Joe?
Today, Obama sits at 41% in opinion polls — his lowest approval rating ever. Part of this poll collapse most certainly has to do with a stagnant economy and gas prices, but a lot of it has to do with the fact that Obama has started a stupid war against a nonexistent war on women (which is really Obama’s war against the Catholic Church and religious liberty), and the fact that he has once again been found hanging out with another divisive, radical racialist.
But surely most people agree with Obama on contraception?
Sure enough, when asked, “Should health insurance plans for all employees have to cover the full cost of birth control for female employees or should employers be able to opt out for moral or religious reasons?” women favored opting out by a 46-44 margin. The margin increased to a decisive 53-38 for “religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university.”
That’s among women. Unbeknownst to those who read only the Times‘ main story, the poll asked the same question to men. They were not split. Men favored opting out by a 20 point margin (57 vs. 37), except when a “religiously affiliated employer” was involved, in which case the margin increased to 25 points. Combining men and women, a substantial majority (51-40) favors allowing an opt-out–increasing to 57-36 where religiously-affiliated institutions are involved.
These are not close results. It’s hard to read this poll and not conclude that, contrary to some accounts, Obama wasn’t such a genius to pick a fight over mandated contraception coverage–because he appears to be losing the public debate on the question.
Rick Santorum is being painted as right wing extremist who is obsessed with social issues and wants to take away a woman’s right to contraception. How’s that working out?
Pollster Evolving Strategies conducted a sophisticated poll they call a “message experiment,” and found “Santorum does not do worse with women than he does with men” and that “Santorum doesn’t appear to be seriously harmed by social issues, however there is evidence that he is harmed by a lack of focus on economic issues.”
Here’s the heart of it:
When we look to the data, we see that being socially conservative or liberal has a significant impact on a respondent’s vote, but men and women are fairly similar, with women a bit less conservative overall.
Furthermore, there is no significant interaction between being socially conservative or liberal and the Santorum treatment. In other words, there does not seem to be a significant backlash against Santorum in response to his social policy views.