PDA

View Full Version : The Answer That Would Have Won the Nomination



Odysseus
01-10-2012, 04:30 PM
January 10, 2012
By Peter Heck

To say the moment was ripe for any earnest conservative who wanted to capture the Republican nomination for president would be an understatement. As Diane Sawyer sniffled out a question that makes even the most fanatical bleeding heart look cold, she dangled a low-hanging fruit for any of the candidates to pluck with ease. To my great disappointment, none of them did.

After spending nearly a quarter of an hour at the recent Republican presidential debate discussing a hypothetical scenario where a state might want to ban contraception, Sawyer put on her trademark pained countenance and, continuing the transparently obvious moderator pledge to direct all issues away from Barack Obama, challenged, "If I could come back to the living room question...what you would say sitting down in your living room to a gay couple who say...we want gay people to form loving, committed, long-term relationships? In human terms, what would you say to them?"

Anticipating the trap being laid for them, the Republican candidates gave carefully articulated responses that struck a balance between personal freedom and traditional morality.

But none of the candidates answered the question as they should have. I don't think I was alone in hoping that one of them would lean into the microphone and, after starting off by incredulously asking, "Are you kidding me?," unleash the following:


Diane, we are living in a country with 9% unemployment, and let's cut the bull -- everyone knows that number doesn't include the enormous number of people who every week throw up their hands and leave the job market. If those were added, we've got closer to 1 in 5 Americans desperately looking for good, steady work.

We've got a record number of American families subsisting on food stamps. We've wasted a trillion taxpayer dollars on a government stimulus that brought no substantive job growth, but added more crushing debt to the backs of our children.

We have small businesses being threatened by the specter of an ill-advised health care entitlement that was crammed down Americans' throats despite their vehement objection. And to add to their frustration, all the folks who were clamoring and lobbying for the legislation are mysteriously all receiving waivers exempting them from its dire consequences.

For the first time in our history we have a majority of American parents who believe that their children will have things worse than they did.

We have a housing market that's depressed, an energy crisis brewing, and a border that is unprotected to the point where American families living near it are being terrorized by invading drug lords.

We have gas prices that are two times what they were when this president took office, and those increased fuel prices are driving up the cost of living, placing an unprecedented strain upon the American family's budget.

We have an administration that is engaged in outright corruption -- from gun-running schemes that result in the deaths of border officers to crony capitalism that sees taxpayer dollars flushed down green energy toilets like Solyndra.

Internationally, we have upwards of nine countries now under the thumb of the Muslim Brotherhood. We have a rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq due to our politically motivated rushed withdrawal. Next door to that, the caliphate-obsessed, apocalyptic madmen running Iran are pursuing nuclear weapons with the promise to use them indiscriminately in their efforts to bring glory to Allah. They are at this very moment positioned to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and thus hijack 40% of the world's oil -- bringing on an industrial crisis around the world.

We face an increasingly hostile Chinese regime that is stealing our patents and intellectual property, hacking our computers, deploying advanced weapons systems and buying our debt so as to hold a position of economic blackmail over us.

Meanwhile, our allies in Israel have never seen us as weaker or less reliable, and our allies in Europe are mired in an economic crisis from which they may not be able to avert total collapse.

And at precisely such a dangerous moment in world affairs, our president -- who has been conducting social sexual experiments with our armed forces for 3 years -- decides it is the best time to dramatically slash our defense budget and usher in a vast reduction in the size and strength of the United States military.

With all that on the table, Diane, you take valuable time in this debate to ask me what I'd say to a gay couple in my living room?

What a great question. Let me make sure I state my position on this critical issue unequivocally so that there can be no mistake, because I can't imagine any American finding anything else more significant than this: we'd first pop in a copy of the Bette Midler classic Beaches, then we'd take time to independently journal about our reaction to its message. Then, after a good cry, we'd grab the acoustic guitar and sing a round of "We are the World" before calling it an evening.
That's the answer that question deserved. And it's one I think would have brought with it the White House in 2012

Peter is a public high school government teacher and radio talk show host in central Indiana. E-mail peter@peterheck.com, visit www.peterheck.com, or like him on Facebook.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/01/the_answer_that_would_have_won_the_nomination.html at January 10, 2012 - 02:23:19 PM CST

__________________________________________________ __________
I'd have added that I'd have asked the couple if they also thought that Diane Sawyer is dimmer than a 10-watt bulb in a brown out.

JoeKwonDo
01-10-2012, 04:37 PM
Nice answer, but I would want a bigger point addressed - the gay community is estimated anywhere between 2 to 8 percent of the U.S. population. Sure there interestes are important to them, but to waste 30 to 40 percent of these debates discussing hypothetical gay biased questions... REALLY??

Odysseus
01-10-2012, 04:46 PM
Nice answer, but I would want a bigger point addressed - the gay community is estimated anywhere between 2 to 8 percent of the U.S. population. Sure there interestes are important to them, but to waste 30 to 40 percent of these debates discussing hypothetical gay biased questions... REALLY??

Among media types, gays constitute far more than 2% of their acquaintances, therefore they are far more important. Also, as I pointed out above, Diane Sawyer, who publicly announced that OWS had spread to over a thousand countries (apparently including 800 or so that don't exist), is dumber than a bag of hammers. In fact, it's a tossup whether she or Barbara Walters is the dumbest talking head on the networks. I'm of the opinion that the only proper response to these debate moderators is merciless ridicule.

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/011012.jpg

linda22003
01-10-2012, 04:48 PM
That would have been a good answer. Economics matters during this election cycle. We don't have the luxury to worry about the "social" issues right now.

Arroyo_Doble
01-10-2012, 05:26 PM
So the answer is bloggity blog talking points for the true believers.

Sweet.

Elspeth
01-10-2012, 05:26 PM
That would have been a good answer. Economics matters during this election cycle. We don't have the luxury to worry about the "social" issues right now.

Especially ones that only affect 4% of the population. The science has always pegged the gay community at about 4%. This does not count true bisexuals (not just the experimenters) or the transgendered, but even when it does, you get the 8% figure.

The other 92% of us would like a strong economy and our due process under the Bill of Rights which Obama signed away over Christmas.

Odysseus
01-10-2012, 06:07 PM
So the answer is bloggity blog talking points for the true believers.

Sweet.

As opposed to snarkity snark for the gay activists?

Do you really consider the gay marriage issue more important than the national debt exceeding GDP for the first time since WWII, Iran developing nukes, the US retreating from Iraq and Afghanistan after all-but winning in both places, the elimination of 20% of our ground forces in order to finance entitlements, the rise of a global caliphate, the lawlessness of the current administration and its general attitude that America is not only in decline, but that this decline isn't necessarily a bad thing?

Seriously?

Are you that provincial and narrow in your outlook?

Arroyo_Doble
01-10-2012, 06:18 PM
As opposed to snarkity snark for the gay activists?

Nope. Pretty much the same. And neither will get anyone elected.


Do you really consider the gay marriage issue more important than the national debt exceeding GDP for the first time since WWII,

Nope.


Iran developing nukes,

Nope.


the US retreating from Iraq and Afghanistan after all-but winning in both places,

Er .... so soon in to fantasy land?


the elimination of 20% of our ground forces in order to finance entitlements,

Here we go!!!


the rise of a global caliphate,

Don't forget the Mars teleportation device.


the lawlessness of the current administration and its general attitude that America is not only in decline, but that this decline isn't necessarily a bad thing?

Ah, what the hell.

No! I refuse to welcome our new reptilian overlords who hide behind the professorial facade of the Barack Hussein Obama (commander of the Perseid VII invasion and expeditionary force) skin puppet. We must not quail in the face of this cold blooded attempt to colonize this fair planet and remake its purple mountains majesty into the vast, commie wasteland full of prostitution, homosexuals, and those fucking tags on everything threatening jail time.


Seriously?

Sure. Why not?


that provincial and narrow in your outlook?

I can think of a lot of weird stuff so no, I am not narrow in my outlook. You neither, apparently.

linda22003
01-10-2012, 06:37 PM
The "provincial, narrow" outlook on gay marriage works both ways: it also applies to the "values voters" who still seem to think they are somehow doing the Lord's work with their vote. :rolleyes:

Odysseus
01-11-2012, 12:44 AM
Nope. Pretty much the same. And neither will get anyone elected.

Okay, what issues do you consider important?


Er .... so soon in to fantasy land?
Fantasy land? Let's see... We've withdrawn from Iraq without leaving any cadre behind, so the stabilization that we've achieved has already begun to unravel. We're slated to do the same thing in Afghanistan. What's the fantasy? Oh, right, any facts that you disagree with are a "fantasy". :rolleyes:


Here we go!!!
Here we go indeed. (http://defensenewsstand.com/NewsStand-General/The-INSIDER-Free-Article/dod-proposes-shrinking-ground-forces-shunning-stability-ops/menu-id-716.html).

The Pentagon's fiscal year 2013 budget request slashes Marine Corps and Army end strength in conjunction with a new military strategy that urges cutting back on stability operations, but even deeper cuts to both ground services are expected in the coming years, according to sources familiar with the plans.

The FY-13 budget request prepared in conjunction with the Obama administration's new military strategy would shrink the Marine Corps to 182,000, permitting the service to spread the reduction over four years, in part by relying on funds from the overseas contingency account, one service official said, noting the plan not only pares back force structure but also reduces the number of Marines in some units. The niche Marine Corps capability known as the Chemical Biological Incident Response Force would remain, as would the practice of having Marines guard U.S. embassies around the globe, the official said.

Meanwhile, the FY-13 budget request aims to cut Army end strength from a force of 570,000 today to roughly 480,000 to 490,000 within the five-year budget plan, said current and former military officials.
The cuts to the Army are roughly 17%, while the cuts to the Marine Corps are even deeper, but those cuts don't take the sequestration reductions from the Super Committee into account. In fact, the cuts go well beyond 20%. Meanwhile, entitlements continue to rise. So, what part of that is a fantasy, Annoyo?


Don't forget the Mars teleportation device.
Not while you've got your head way up Uranus.

Islamist parties have taken control of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Yemen, with unrest spreading throughout the Middle East. Iraq is cozying up to Iran and Afghanistan is negotiating with the Taliban for a power sharing arrangement. Islamic totalitarianism isn't a joke, snark boy.


Ah, what the hell.

No! I refuse to welcome our new reptilian overlords who hide behind the professorial facade of the Barack Hussein Obama (commander of the Perseid VII invasion and expeditionary force) skin puppet. We must not quail in the face of this cold blooded attempt to colonize this fair planet and remake its purple mountains majesty into the vast, commie wasteland full of prostitution, homosexuals, and those fucking tags on everything threatening jail time.

Sure. Why not?

I can think of a lot of weird stuff so no, I am not narrow in my outlook. You neither, apparently.

Okay, you've lapsed into complete idiocy. Seriously.

txradioguy
01-11-2012, 03:04 AM
What's the fantasy? Oh, right, any facts that you disagree with are a "fantasy".

Fanboy considers anything that deconstructs Dear Leaders spin to be "fantasy".

So he faithfully dons his Monica Lewinsky kneepads and does what he does best.

AmPat
01-11-2012, 11:22 AM
In AD's world, facts as presented in ODY's post are "talking points." I suppose in his fantasy world, those facts disappear into space as long as he can label them like a true liberal O Blah Blah robot.

Novaheart
01-11-2012, 12:19 PM
Do you really consider the gay marriage issue more important than the national debt exceeding GDP for the first time since WWII, Iran developing nukes, the US retreating from Iraq and Afghanistan after all-but winning in both places, the elimination of 20% of our ground forces in order to finance entitlements, the rise of a global caliphate, the lawlessness of the current administration and its general attitude that America is not only in decline, but that this decline isn't necessarily a bad thing?

Absolutely not, which is why it's so amazing that so many Republican politicians keeps trying to rouse the rabble on gay issues. Take Rick Santorum, please.

Equality for Gay Americans is such a trivial issue compared the ones you list, it makes it hard to understand why you don't simply make the issue go away by supporting across the board legal equality. So why is it that you and Rick don't do that?

Odysseus
01-11-2012, 04:39 PM
Absolutely not, which is why it's so amazing that so many Republican politicians keeps trying to rouse the rabble on gay issues. Take Rick Santorum, please.

Equality for Gay Americans is such a trivial issue compared the ones you list, it makes it hard to understand why you don't simply make the issue go away by supporting across the board legal equality. So why is it that you and Rick don't do that?

The fact that it isn't as critical, at the moment, as more pressing issues doesn't mean that it's trivial in the long run, or that it's a good idea to cave in on the issue just because you want it. It's still bad policy, and will serve to further erode the idea of marriage, but that doesn't mean that we have to drop everything to debate it. Just accept that the answer is no, you can't redefine marriage to suit your whims, and drive on to more important issues.

Madisonian
01-11-2012, 08:12 PM
January 10, 2012
stuff... stuff... stuff...

"Blow me, Blondie" would have been shorter, just as effective and the answer every sane person would have just loved to hear.

Adam Wood
01-11-2012, 08:58 PM
"Blow me, Blondie" would have been shorter, just as effective and the answer every sane person would have just loved to hear.

LMAO! :rotfl:



http://i39.tinypic.com/307ye5w.jpg

AmPat
01-12-2012, 12:26 PM
Absolutely not, which is why it's so amazing that so many Republican politicians keeps trying to rouse the rabble on gay issues. Take Rick Santorum, please.

Equality for Gay Americans is such a trivial issue compared the ones you list, it makes it hard to understand why you don't simply make the issue go away by supporting across the board legal equality. So why is it that you and Rick don't do that?

Equality for gays???

I'm sorry, I can't seem to find the gay exclusion clause in my pocket Constitution. Can you assist me?:rolleyes:

Novaheart
01-12-2012, 12:39 PM
Just accept that the answer is no...

Except that it isn't "no". The Supreme Court will eventually strike down laws which discriminate against gay people in marriage, Scalia said so.

Odysseus
01-12-2012, 01:13 PM
Except that it isn't "no". The Supreme Court will eventually strike down laws which discriminate against gay people in marriage, Scalia said so.

You make it sound as if he agrees with your position. He does not. In his dissent in Lawrence V. Texas, Scalia wrote that the precedent established by the ruling would apply to a host of other issues, issues which you claim have nothing to do with gay marriage.

Most of the rest of today's opinion has no relevance to its actual holding—that the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its application to petitioners under rational-basis review. Ante, at 18 (overruling Bowers to the extent it sustained Georgia's antisodomy statute under the rational-basis test). Though there is discussion of “fundamental proposition[s], ante, at 4, and fundamental decisions,” ibid. nowhere does the Court's opinion declare that homosexual sodomy is a fundamental right” under the Due Process Clause; nor does it subject the Texas law to the standard of review that would be appropriate (strict scrutiny) if homosexual sodomy were a fundamental right.” Thus, while overruling
the outcome of Bowers, the Court leaves strangely untouched its central legal conclusion: “[R]espondent
would have us announce . . . a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy. This we are quite unwilling to do.” 478 U. S., at 191. Instead the Court simply describes petitioners' conduct as an exercise of their liberty, which it undoubtedly is,—and proceeds to apply an unheard-of form of rational-basis review that will have far-reaching implications beyond this case. Ante, at 3.

>SNIP<

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers validation of laws based on moral choices.
Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.

In other words, Scalia wasn't supporting the idea that gay marriage ought to be overturned, he was stating that the court's decision in Lawrence created a dangerous precedent which could overturn state laws agains a host of other activities, including incest, bestiality and polygamy, activities that you have previously regarded as completely separate from gay marriage. Do you accept Scalia's full argument, that the collapse of the legal prohibition on state-sanctioned gay marriage will lead to the collapse of state prohibitions on incest, bestiality and polygamy?

NJCardFan
01-12-2012, 04:14 PM
Absolutely not, which is why it's so amazing that so many Republican politicians keeps trying to rouse the rabble on gay issues. Take Rick Santorum, please.

Equality for Gay Americans is such a trivial issue compared the ones you list, it makes it hard to understand why you don't simply make the issue go away by supporting across the board legal equality. So why is it that you and Rick don't do that?

List me in order of importance rights gays don't have that everyone else has. I'll wait.

AmPat
01-12-2012, 07:18 PM
Except that it isn't "no". The Supreme Court will eventually strike down laws which discriminate against gay people in marriage, Scalia said so.

Gays can get married just like normal heterosexuals. Where's the discrimination in that? They just don't get to play Suzie Homemaker with the same sex.

NJCardFan
01-12-2012, 09:27 PM
I'm still trying to look for the law that says gays can't marry. Because you know what? They can. They can do all of the things blushing bridezillas get to do like hiring a caterer, renting a hall, ordering invitations and mailing them out, ordering flowers, hiring photographers, etc. They can even find an officiant to do the ceremony. Nothing is stopping them from doing all of this as well as calling themselves husband and...well, husband I suppose. It just does't have to be recognized by the state. However, I can tell you something gays can do that heterosexuals cannot and that is put their significant other on their health insurance policy. Hetero's have to marry in order to do this. Gays just have to shack up. But that's all fair to the Nova's of the world.

Novaheart
01-12-2012, 09:55 PM
However, I can tell you something gays can do that heterosexuals cannot and that is put their significant other on their health insurance policy. Hetero's have to marry in order to do this. Gays just have to shack up. But that's all fair to the Nova's of the world.

In most major corporations "domestic partner benefits" are not limited to same sex couples. Megabank, for example, offers :

1- Self (employee only)
2- Self plus one (domestic partner, cohabiting sibling, step child, etc...)
3- Family (employee plus partner and children)

Some corporations do indeed only offer DP benefits to same sex couples because heterosexual couple have the option of getting married and same sex couples don't.

Even in those companies which offer DP benefits, it's still not equal to that of married persons. In the first place, it's the married people who simply need to "shack up". You can marry a hooker in Las Vegas and she is automatically covered on your health plant, but a gay couple have to co-habit with evidence of financial entanglement for a minimum of six months or the next open season to get the DP on the DP benefits.

Moreover, the partner portion of the DP benefits are taxable as income for gay couples married or not, but not for straight married couples. So now you know.

Novaheart
01-12-2012, 09:56 PM
Gays can get married just like normal heterosexuals. Where's the discrimination in that? They just don't get to play Suzie Homemaker with the same sex.

Gee, that's almost as clever as "O Blah Blah", and as original too.