Skip to comments.A Sister Souljah Moment for Obama: Defend Chick-fil-A
Posted on 07/27/2012 4:59:13 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
It's no secret that things are not going well for the Obama campaign. The President has been forced to veer to the left on gay marriage, immigration and a host of issues to shore up his base. ....
The fact remains that this is a center-right country and if you're a Democratic president who appears beholden to the left, you're in trouble. If you want to reassure voters, you have to establish your independence. ....
Obama could really use a Sister Souljah moment of his own -- and he's got an opportunity for one staring him right in the face: The President should to ride to the defense of Chick-fil-A. ...
Let's list the ways this would be good for Obama:
He reassures socially conservative, blue collar "bitter clinger" Democrats that he's not afraid to take on the cultural elite and defend those who are being pilloried for adhering to their cultural and religious traditions. ....
Defending the Chick-fil-A CEO's right to express his religious beliefs without his business suffering legal consequences would blunt some of the criticism he's been getting from Catholics and evangelicals who are hopping mad over Obamacare's birth control and abortion mandates.
He can defend Cathy without making his sudden same-sex marriage flip-flop seem even more disingenuous. ...
By coming out in support of Chick-fil-A, Obama could gently criticize Rahm Emanuel and the Chicago Alderman for persecuting Chick-fil-A. That way, he can distance himself from the sleazy Chicago machine politics of his early career that many people still associate him with.
He can use this to reinvigorate his campaign with a genuinely postive theme -- bringing people together. ....
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Will he? Heck no!
You have Rham Emmanuel on one side and the 95 year old Billy Graham on the other which side do you think Obama comes down on ? Even tho this is a huge issue in the Black community I am all in on that Obama goes with Rham and the liberal/progressive side.
Mark Hemingway obviously has way too much time on his hands.
I suspect that since the ACLU has condemned Chicago and Boston that Obama may do it so that he can beat Romney to the punch.
Where the hell is Romney on this issue? His silence suggests he is either agreeing with the Mayors or he is too chicken to take a stand, Considering his recent stand on gay couples adopting children, I wouldn’t be surprised if he issued a statement that he supports the planned kiss in.
Too late. Everyone knows what Obama is. Those who hate Obama will never vote for him and those who love him will vote for him no matter what he says or does. I doubt at this point in the game that many people are really undecided. I personally don’t know anyone who hasn’t made up their mind yet.
LOL. Like Gaybama is going to risk LGBT money?
Not going to happen.
I pray he doesn't. I want him to veer even harder to the left. He needs to demand that all Christian churches perform same sex marriages.
Maybe this will get some of the pew sitters off their asses.
Not a chance. Obama is a true believer and the best he is able to do is stay out of this one. (In his heart of hearts, I’m certain he’d like to ban Chick-fil-A from American soil.)
I work in downtown Manhattan next to the heli-port that presidents favor. Have watched Obama fly in multiple times since he “evolved” on gay marriage to collect bags of cash from the Greenwich Village crowd.
He can’t touch Chick-fil-A with a ten-foot pole.
If he had done it earlier, then it might have been seen as heartfelt.
Now, it would be a calculated moment.
You know it, I know it, he knows it, everybody knows it..
Having a Sister Souljah moment requires political pragmatism and decisiveness, which Bill Clinton had as a sitting governor. You are now talking about a junior senator who votes present from the back row and never veers right, even when it’s easy to do so.
Interesting that the ACLU is against this. Maybe even they recognize that if Mumbles Menino got his way, it would start us going down a very slippery slope. Before long you’d see liberal mayors banning businesses simply because their owners supported any conservative organization—maybe even the GOP.
Of course, the practical effect of such a policy be to plunge that particular city into poverty. Even so, some might value ideological purity over economic prosperity. Detroit is a prime example of this.
hey...can you photoshop this to show the cows holding signs saying....you didn’t build that!
i think that’d be great!
A little off-topic, but this is a pet-peeve of mine. We need to stop assuming that the US is a "center-right" country. I no longer regard that as a "fact".
I don't think this is a center-right country. Or not any more at least.
Here is a hypothesis for consideration.
Certainly it's a center right country if men are asked. But women have dragged the country into far left territory where it is now. Women want government services (and more gun control). Responsible politicians voted to increase taxes before spending and got voted out of office. Then irresponsible politicians starting about in the 1970s voted to increase spending and let the taxes be increased later, rising debt. This finally backed the Fed into a corner where it prints money, aka Quantitative Easing. Women are not so stupid as to vote for printing money, but ask a random woman what Quantitative Easing is and be prepared for a blank stare. That blank stare is why we are where we are right now. Women care so little about the country that they will push any government handout program beyond its natural economic limit without concern for the consequences of that pushing. So as long as we have women we will have Quantitative Easing 3, 4, 5, ... 12, 13, 14, ... 201, 202, 203, ... 5439, 5440, 5441, ... and thanks to women, sooner or later we will be spending wheel barrels of money at the bread line.
Obama knows all this so he goes out and makes stupid sounding statements like you did not build that, but to be forthright, most women don't care. And they are the voting majority. So Obama can make any stupid statements he wants. As long as he favors MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING the women vote is in his corner and he is safe.
The fact that some of this policy comes from a woman (Warren) underlines the truth.
Women also always equate more government authority with more safety so all the men can just write off their guns because as long as women keep voting for more gun control fecal matter, more gun control fecal matter, courtesy of politicians like Obama is coming down the pike too.
These days this is the function of government, to defile the currency and take away rights. Women love it because they have lost the concept of family as the central unit of their lives. All powerful government services have replaced husbands as their protector and breadwinner.
Want real controversy? Try to convince a woman waiting in line in a supermarket that the primary function of federal government is protection of our borders.
And now for the real question which needs an urgent answer right away-- does anyone have a barfing kitty graphic? Hello barfing kitty?
>> nope... can’t do it; the “aberrant lifestyles” crowd owns him...lock/stock/barrel.
+1. Barky put ALL his chips on the rainbow-colored square.
>>> Mark Hemingway obviously has way too much time on his hands
But you gotta admit, this is SOUND advice for a ‘normal’ person in Obama’s shoes.
One, Nobama would never criticize Rahm. Two, Nobama is the epitome of "Chicago Politics" - always has been, always will be.
President Soetoro has no credibility.
It doesn’t matter what he does any more.
He does have to be careful, as the message might come out something like “When I am it here on the road (AF1 at closed airports, entire luxury hotels), there’s nothin’ I like better than having’ me some fried chicken, from ts here Chick-a-fil something. I mean it, I’m just like any of you (secret service, go kick tht proterster’s ass for me).”
Here’s what I find very interesting about this entire Chick-fil-A thing.
One, the guy never said anything of the such about gays in his establishment or employment in his company.
Two, no one has come out and questioned the “tolerance” being demonstrated by the so-called “party of tolerance”.
Three, I find it really interesting that the gays have not even uttered a word in regard to this whole thing - an issue totally made up by the libtards. Makes me wonder what 900 lb gorilla they are attempting to hide in the corner.
STOP it with the Sister Souljah Moment...
ALmost nobody remembers what that is all about..
A better example must be used..
You know to express the thought..
ONLY a few republicans remember this.. and not many of them..
If it was, we'd have a major center-right party. What we've got is a hard-left party and a centrist party that pretends it's a center-right party.
We have to admit that even though a strong majority of patriotic Americans hold center-right to conservative values, these people are being undermined by the present system, and we have to look outside that system if we are going to survive.
Then again, maybe not....
Here's the problem - no one's going to believe him. And we don't want him on our side because we don't believe him either - and it opens up the door for rumors about Obama's gay lifestyle... Not gonna happen...
Why should Romney (or Obama, for that matter) get involved in this at all? A private citizen who owns a private company said something very tame in an interview and the Pink Mafia is screeching about it. The American people will vote with their wallets. The cities whose mayors condemned the position of the private citizen are not Federal territory.
It would be like the President commenting on local law enforcement controversies or his opinion of rap stars or his picks for the NCAA tournament—pointless and beneath the position of the office.
I hear what you’re saying about assumptions that this is a center-right country.
But, the liberals start from the position that we are a liberal country, and that liberal values, whatever they are, should prevail. And as the liberal ideology promotes big government, we know that liberals will use the full force of government to impose their views on all of us.
“It would be like the President commenting on local law enforcement controversies . . .”
That would be acting stupid, but, hey, let’s talk about it over a Budweiser and a Blue Moon.
It would be a masterstroke. And he would not have to trash Rahm but be very soft about the Chicago situation. But it’s not gonna happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.