Sometimes in their commentary, our readers express points important enough to merit a post of their own. Our loyal reader and regular commenter V the K did just that in a comment to my recent post on Newt Gingrich:
Why was so much time even put to the question of gay marriage last night? Really? Our economy is strangling in taxes and bureaucracy. Iran is nuking up as [President Obama] guts our military. EUrotopia is collapsing into bankruptcy. China’s economy is slowing. [Obama] has been shutting down domestic hydrocarbon production while loaning billions to Brazil for offshore drilling and running guns to Mexican drug gangs. The [president] is making unconstitutional appointments and just signed a law letting himself detain American citizens indefinitely for no reason… and they spend the first quarter of the debate talking about gay marriage? WTF?
I think we know why. Gay marriage is a tribal marker, and the inquisitors brought it up to establish affiliation with their liberal tribe and also in hopes of making the Republicans look whacky. We also know that liberals vote based on social issues, and that social issues trump economics and national security for the Democrat base. So, the MFM get a threefer, they get to ask Republicans potentially awkward questions, they get to smugly assert their membership in the liberal tribe, and they help Obama get his base motivated. Win. Win. Win.
Edited as indicated because I don’t feel it appropriate to use the term he used to describe the President of the United States. Emphasis added. George Stephanopoulos, Michael Barone wrote about the former Clinton White House official’s moderation of last night’s debate, “who otherwise has made an almost Russert-like transition from partisan operative to fair-minded journalist, seemed to be trying to get the Republican candidates in trouble“.
Seems that the folks in the legacy media would rather contrast the Republicans with the Democrats on social issues than acknowledge that (many of) the GOP presidential candidates are doing what the incumbent is not–putting forward real solutions to our nation’s pressing economic and fiscal problems, the top items on most voters mind as this year’s election approaches.
Folks, like Stephanopolous, in the legacy media want to make it appear that the Republican candidates are obsessed with social issues.
Indeed, many of my friends and acquaintances in LA see the GOP as a party obsessed with social issues. At the same time, these very people who vote Democratic because they see the Republicans as social troglodytes, share the GOP perspective on the the deficit an the economy, concerned by ever growing government spending and frustrated by increasingly regulation of private enterprise. Those may ask such questions as if such issues are paramount in the minds of the Republican candidates, but the candidates themselves in their stump speeches and policy pronouncements are more focused on economic and national security issues.
Yes, the questions are biased, but Barone contends this might actually help Republicans:
. . . there is something to be said for having hostile questioners: it sharpens Republican candidates, makes them figure out how to turn questions around and answer them in ways that frame the issue their way. Democratic candidates tend not to get this kind of practice and can go into general election contests less prepared to make their case.
Indeed, the sage pundit wondered if some of the “moderators” are fishing for sound byte for Democratic candidates:
David Gregory’s invitation to the Republicans to name three areas in which voters will feel pain from their proposals shows his mindset: Republican policies hurt people, Democratic policies help them. Would he ask an equivalent question of Democratic candidates?
Without folks like Gregory to push administration arguments, one wonders if the incumbent would be doing as well in the polls as he is.
FROM THE COMMENTS: Geena offers:
They all handled it quite well. It’s pretty obvious no one on that stage is going to take the bait. Thank goodness Bachmann and Cain are out.
And this question: “What do you want gay people to do who want to form loving, committed, long-term relationships? What is your solution?”
What do they expect? The executive branch to run a dating service?
Indeed. (Emphasis added.)
Is it the MSM who mono-focused on GOP social issues? Or the candidates and their campaign-industrial-complex? The Economy in the hole, yet the issues highlighted are “family-values” and sex….
They all handled it quite well. It’s pretty obvious no one on that stage is going to take the bait. Thank goodness Bachmann and Cain are out.
And this question: “What do you want gay people to do who want to form loving, committed, long-term relationships? What is your solution?”
What do they expect? The executive branch to run a dating service?
Well, if you look just a few threads below (nearing 300 comments at this point) you can see how easy it is to start a tsunami if you fiddle the “social issues” sore points.
The MSM wants to talk about social issues so they won’t have to talk about the economy, ObamaCare, & Dodd-Frank.
They also need to call out the liberal bias moderators & embarrass them into submission; they are working for the Obama Administration & must recognize this fact if they are going to win.
This is a neat trick the MFM does all the time. They bombard Republican candidates with questions about social issues; then, they claim Republicans are obsessed with/only want to talk about social issues.
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5134145&ct=11103981¬oc=1
Bachmann, Romney, Santorum and Gingrich ( newt just signed the pledge in Dec) all signed NOM’s Marriage Pledge
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 4, 2011
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105) at 703-683-5004
BACHMANN, ROMNEY AND SANTORUM SIGN NOM MARRIAGE PLEDGE, COMMIT TO CONCRETE STEPS TO SUPPORT MARRIAGE
“Three marriage champions have emerged,” says Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage
WASHINGTON – “Many candidates say they support traditional marriage (like President Obama!) but three GOP presidential candidates today stand head and shoulders above the crowd as marriage champions, for their willingness to go beyond words to commit to concrete actions,” said Brian Brown, president of NOM, speaking on the eve of the launch of the Values Voter Bus Tour through 22 Iowa cities, which NOM is co-sponsoring. “We are grateful to Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum for their courage and their leadership in standing up for marriage, and so are millions of Americans who care about protecting marriage.”
NOM’s marriage pledge was offered to all serious announced candidates for the GOP nomination. An opportunity to sign the Marriage Pledge will be extended to Gov. Rick Perry and other major candidates, if and as they enter the race.
In signing NOM’s marriage pledge, Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum pledged to:
Support and send to the states a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman,
Defend DOMA in court,
Appoint judges and an attorney general who will respect the original meaning of the Constitution,
Appoint a presidential commission to investigate harassment of traditional marriage supporters,
Support legislation that would return to the people of D.C. their right to vote for marriage.
“Marriage is an issue with an unbroken string of victories that unites Republicans, and we’re pleased and honored the leading candidates in the race for the GOP nomination have spoken up for marriage. We expect the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina will continue to reward candidates who champion marriage,” noted Brown.
The signed pledges can be seen here:
Michelle Bachmann
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of NOM, or Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of NOM, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com at 703-683-5004 ext. 105.
###
The answer has to be very straightforward:
“How does gay marriage help a business owner being crushed under ever-increasing government dictates and taxes, George?
How does gay marriage keep Iran and other terrorist-sponsoring nations from getting nukes, Diane?”
Then watch their heads explode as the audience applauds.
V in #6, nicely (& succinctly) said.
Rusty, a question.
When your partner loses his job because of the bad economy and crushing government taxation and regulation, will waving your marriage certificate bring it back?
When terrorists set off an Iranian-supplied nuclear bomb in Seattle, will your marriage certificate make a magic bubble that protects you?
Because that’s what your Barack Obama is telling you. He says you don’t need to worry about jobs, the economy, national defense, or anything like that because of gay-sex marriage.
Which he opposes giving you.
For those that may not be aware, NOM, still has a case to overturn SSM in NYS moving through the courts.