An Underlying Difference Between Portman and Salmon on Gay Marriage

While both Senator Rob Portman and Representative Matt Salmon have a gay son, each takes a different posture on the right of gays to marry. Understanding how each man’s view the issue and their sons differently helps one to understand why they differ.

In listening to his son and observing the son's life, Portman has concluded that his son is not emotionally ill and that the son is not socially dysfunctional or rebellious. He recognizes that as with many out of the closet gays, his son has and will endure ridicule and attacks, be shunned, looked down upon and ostracized, not something an emotionally balanced person one would seek to endure. Hence, he has concluded that his son is gay not by choice but by nature. One can well understand that right of gays to marry is a logical extension for Portman once he concluded that his son is gay by nature, that his son cannot help be attracted to and love with a person of the same gender.  

By contrast Salmon's position is simple and shaped by his religious beliefs. Though he loves his son, he cannot accept or approve of his son having sex with a man. For Solomon, being gay is a deliberate choice. Salmon holds that as God is just and that Scripture views gay sex as evil, a person cannot under any condition be viewed as gay by nature, for it would mean that God unjustly created a person with a nature for which he condemns them. While Salmon loves his son, for him the son’s sexual activity is a chosen yet unacceptable behavior, not part of the son’s nature. Tens of thousands of parents each year are faced with an adult child engaged in unacceptable non-criminal activities, such as, habitual lying, habitual and constant laziness, being irreligious, etc., but they like Salmon continue to love the child without accepting the sin. While not explicitly saying so, one can read between the lines, that for Salmon to embrace his son's lifestyle would be an act of denying what he professes as being his Christian faith.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/01/rep-matt-salmon-gay-son-hasnt-changed-my-views-on-gay-marriage/?wprss=rss_homepage

Possible Factors as to Why Romney Lost

On so many levels Mitt Romney should have won the popular vote for the presidency by at least a six point spread. Also, the Republicans should have picked up seats in the Senate and House. As noted in another posting, changes in House districts helped the Republicans retain control of the House. The election results were not encouraging for the Party.

This should have been a poor year for the Democrats. The economy was not strong. Seniors were concerned about the future of Social Security and Medicare. From a multitude of deep pocket donors giving tens of millions of dollars to the GOP PACs, the PACs were flush with cash to be used on television and radio ads, mailings, get out the vote initiatives. Combined, they could outspend the Democrats by at least 2 to 1. Also, on the campaign trail Obama was stiff and disengaged until the last five weeks. Obama’s overwhelmingly poor performance during the first debate should have sealed Obama’s defeat. So, why did not the Republicans gain seats and the presidency? Political pundits are pointing fingers and spinning their rationale, some insider pundits doing so more as a way to deflect blame from them or their allies.

With the cool passage of time with its dispassionate sifting process historians will be able to give a reasoned picture. Until then there will be a mixture of biased and balanced perspectivies. With no axe to grind, and only from my perspective as an independent, below I note factors that impacted me and several other independents I know in their decision making process:

· Voting for the Republican party is increasingly more difficult for independents. The Party's hard dogmatic uncompromising stances on an array of social and financial issues is moving them away from many independent voters. Contrary to the view that independants are right of center on social issues, poll after poll on social issues are more left of center while more right of center on the budget.  

 · The Republican campaigns, presidential and congressional races, were too focused upon the economy claiming Obama's handling of the economy was poor. That rationale lost traction as most voters recognized that Obama inherited an economy from Bush that was crashing. While was not stellar it was much better than the one he inherited. The Republican strategy did not take into account the perspective of the general public. Even more importantly, the economy improved and that unemployment fell in the year prior to the election. As the numbers improved, spinning that “we could have done better” did not gain traction as the Republican Party was saddled with the “obstructionist” baggage of hindering efforts to help improve the economy. 

· Romney has postured himself too far to the right on fiscal and social issues. In order to win the Republican nomination Romney had to posture himself well to the right and away from his earlier positions that were more moderate. Selecting Ryan as his running mate solidified his well right of center posture. Hence, efforts to be more a centrist in the general election was difficult. By pointing to earlier moderate positions made it seem like he was pandering...saying and doing whatever was needed to win the necessary votes. Thereby Romney come across as a man who lacked principals.

· The Democrats defined Romney in May and June as an elitist multimillionaire who is out of touch with the common citizens and lacks understanding of their concerns. The Republicans never adequately countered this definition process. Instead they saved their money for overwhelming the market with media buys in September and October...more is not better for after a certain saturation point people tune-out the ads (I tuned out).

· Along with the economic plank, Romney running a campaign as a referendum on Obama’s leadership did not provide adequate ground for proposing a policy-backed argument for credible change. Let's not unduly fault Romney for other primary candidates were doing the same. Romney and his primary running mates remained vague on too many policies. Policies that they fleshed out came across either as too thin and not well reasoned out or too extreme for the middle of the moderate voter. Romney in his campaign missed the opportunity to break from the past, to emphatically state that a host of Bush and Obama policies were failures, state why they failed and then give well a reasoned alternative.

· Romney’s 47 percent statement reinforced the image that Romney was a wealthy elitist disconnected from the common citizen. His statement reinforced May and June ads defining Romney as an out of touch person of wealth. The candidate’s initial response, that his point was “inelegantly stated” was not only feeble but suggested he believed what he stated to be true. As the campaign progressed voters still wondered if he understood them. In the last month of the campaign Obama played into this perspective by repeatedly stating that he stood squarely and firmly for the middle class. 

· For four years the Republican Party was overly focused upon “defeat” Obama. Blocking and criticizing initiatives as mnay of his efforts dominated the Party. When he pushed forward ideas that originated from Republican sources over the prior two to five years left informed independents with the impression that the Party was more interested in winning power than about improving the lot of the Country. Obstruction for the sake of obstruction came across at times as the “divine right to rule” attitude.

· The Republicans increasingly appear as a party of and for the financial elite. It appears to many Independant and moderate Democrat voters that the Republicans nominated a wealthy guy who looked and talked like a rich white male who was being funded by other rich white males to advance and protect their interests.

· Romney’s initial Benghazi statements were a huge mistake. They lacked the balance expected of a presidential candidate seeking to portray himself as ready for the office. He made judgements while most of the details remained unclear. Over the subsequent days efforts by surrogates to defend and justify his comments came across poorly as they were trying to defend a mistake.

· The Republican polling matrix and number crunching processes were so seriously faulty it left their  strategy flawed and their expectations surprisingly inflated.  

· The Republican ground game was poorly developed and managed. It lacked organization which did not reflect well on a candidate who postured himself as a great business manager who would bring his honed management skills to Washington. His "well experienced and skilled manager" argument sounded shallow as the campaign progressed and people started to sense his campaign was not well managed.

· Romney did not connect well with women. This is more of an issue influenced by the Party than the candidate. His past moderate views were lost in all that he had to say and embrace on the right to win the nomination.

· Lack of appeal to minority voters. He rarely campaigned in ethnic minority territory. His 47 per cent comment played into this issue as well. As noted in an earlier blog, this is not just a candidate issue as it is a wider Party issue.

· Republican efforts in various states to curtail early voting, hamper voter registration processes, ads and robo calls designed to depress minority turn-out as well as the implementation of voter identification laws appeared to be efforts to suppress the minority vote. Such efforts left the impression that the Party was mainly focused upon being a Party of and for whites. Rather than suppress the minority votes all these efforts energized the minority community to turn out at a higher rate than expected. The minority community stood in lines for long hours to speak clearlty that their voice will not be suppressed. The Republicans in heavy minority areas suffered.

· The Party's general stance against the bail-outs of the auto industry. Romney's op ed. arguing for the government to let the big three go into bankruptcy court, made him the face of the Party's common posture. He suffered because of such a stance, particularly when for the last two years GM, Ford and Chrysler were back to financial solvency, and with the federal budgeting gaining profits earned off that support.

America's Religious Changes Impacting Elections

It is evident that the ethic profile of the United States is changing, but so is America’s religious profile.  In the 1950s church attendance across all denominations was strong, with three out of four Americans attending church services at least three times a year. In this same decade over 85% of Americans considered themselves to be “religious”. In the mid 60’s dramatic shift that lasted for a little over two decades commenced with the growth in the conservative Baptist and evangelical churches as people left mainline churches for conservative congregations.  

In August 2012 the Washington Post reported the number of Americans claiming to be “religious” had decreased from around 73% in 2005 to around 60%. That same article noted that atheists make up about 5% of the American public, up from around the 1% level of the late 80s.  

As noted in a past post, the evangelical church is in decline, a decline that will become starkly evident over the coming decade. Many evangelicals argue the decline is a result of a lack of religious fervor and conviction in their churches and society as a whole. They argue that the church and nation is decline because prayer has been taken out of the schools, gay marriage and rampant disregard for biblical teachings.

While lack of broad fervor may be a factor in the decline of the evangelical church, it is a minor factor. The two primary causes for the decline are entangled somewhat. First, the group that flooded into the evangelic churches between 1965 and 1985 as a reaction to social changes occurring in that era are aging rapidly. Their children and grandchildren are not attending evangelical churches at the same rate. While not the only cause, significant declines in attendance, particularly amongst those below the age of 30 follow on the heels of periods of strident political activity within the evangelical church.

My intent here is not to judge one way or the other the appropriateness of such action on a particular issue or set of issues. My intent is to note that there is a correlation between the evangelical church’s manifest fervor on particular issues and the younger generation remaining within or being attracted to the evangelical teachings. What is evident is that there was a cost to the evangelical churches the more they became politically engaged on a host of social, cultural and financial issues. It increasingly appears that their political activity has left those who came into adulthood since the early 1990s feeling that the evangelical church has no answers for them. While some of the younger generation are returning to mainline churches, for a more balanced approach, more often than not the younger generation are not looking to any organized faith for sucker and guidance.

Hence, the evangelical finds itself with an aging membership. In many congregations the largest age block are those over the age of 60. Attendance is slowly declining, and will become more rapid as their largest block of members start to enter nursing homes and pass away.     

This shift was evidenced in this past election, an election which on so many levels Romney should have won by a spread of at least 7. With this economy, if the values and the demographics of the late 80s and early 90s were in place Romney would have won easily. Then the evangelical church, the heart of the Republican base, was strong and the younger generation was still somewhat religiously connected.

November’s exit polls showed that those who claim to have faith of some manner but with no specific religious affiliation, called “nones” in the data, made up 12 percent of the electorate in 2012. This is up by 3 points from 2000 and double the 1980 level. Further, the number of people who say that they do not attend church or house of worship stood at 17 percent. The Republican base is shrinking.

 

That this level the “nones” make up a voting block as large as the Hispanic. These “none” broke for the Democrats by over 40%. If one adds into the mix the atheists, the voting block becomes more significant. The block will only grow.  America is becoming more pluralistic. Hopefully the Republicans can make the adjustment.  

President Obama - Short Reflection on Election Day

I am pleased that the current presidential election cycle is coming to a close. This election has been three years too long creating posturing bring about years of stagnation in which the great American founding principal of compromise been replaced by dogmatic stubborn firmness demanding that the other side capitulate all along the board.

Will Obama be re-elected? While the coming hours will tell, I suspect that history will view the last four years as a period of missed opportunities, for the President as well as Congress to work together for the greater good.

Obama’s presidency has lacked consistent clarity and passion. Yes, there has been been moments of clarity, but for the most part his overall plan and direction has not been evidenced. Some of the lack of clarity has been due to him trying to find ways to work with an obstructionist Congress and the Republican's primary agenda of ensuring Obama is a one term President...not a posture of governing for the good of the nation but a posture of doing whatever is necessary to win at all costs. A good part is that the President's lack of passion makes him appear to be detached. I suspect that he understands the anxieties and feels the pains of the common citizen and their plight, but it does not come across as frequently as it should. He has not been selling his ideas with passion and from the framework of addressing the issues felt on Main Street.

Obama was handled a horrible economic situation created by crass and unchecked greed in so many sectors of the economy. Bush, shares the blame, but so does Congress, the mega banks, those realtors who pushed subprime loans and homes they knew people could not afford, the citizens who knowingly bought homes they could not afford, and local as well as state politicians who rather than encouraging the building of modest housing stock facilitated the building of upscale large homes. 

The crass greed and off-loading of risky derivatives around the world continue to be felt by nations around the world. The impact of the economic collapse that was underway four years ago continues to linger in the United States, Europe and Far East.  Obama is commended for calmly guiding the country through an economic minefield and helped prevent the collapse of our major banks, he has not led with a passion and vision a President should project, particularly in troubled times, in terms that the average family can appreciate.    

What drives Obama? We have not evidenced what drives him, his grand vision or ideas. Health-care expansion was not a driving vision or passion. He was not highly engaged in driving the shape of the reform as expanding health insurance and improving health-care was Hillary Clinton’s issue. Healthcare was Hillary passion, a platform he co-opted to secure the nomination. He never argued strongly in favor for it, guide and drive the shape of the reform. Instead he left it to various parties to shape reform apart from his ongoing involvement which resulted in a healthcare reform that is more flawed than necessary.

He rightly extracted the nation from the ongoing morass of Iraq. He is commended for doing so. Other than giving a deadline to withdrawing from Afghanistan he has not given a clear definition of what needs to be done and how it would be done. The withdraw from both countries will help stop the spiraling deficit. His posture on Libya was reasonable, but Egypt was muddier and Syria still merkier. Presenting a cogent vision for the world or how America will be involved in the world has only been articulated in broad terms.  The current strength of international relations more a result of Hillary Clinton, not the President. 

While Obama is an eloquent man who can move hearts on the campaign trail, but we have rarely evidenced the same in the White House. Too often Obama comes across a pleaser who sticks his finger into the wind. We have not evidenced what angers and disappoints him, what are his burning issues that are at the center of his presidency. The lack of ongoing eloquence and burning passions has left him exposed to the attack that he has no plans.

I fear that regardless who wins next week, a presidency lacking passion, burning conviction and clarity will continue for the next four years. Romney is not any better. The earlier months of his campaign lacked passion and miandered due to Romney's lack of passion. He did not define himself well. Further, various positions Romney has held over the years have been all over the map. The ad claiming Chrysler was moving its plants to China was so blantantly false that Chrysler had to refudiate it again and again, so much so that the ad left people questioning his honesty and character. 

Romney's ever shifting positions on various issues is not evidence of a maturing thought process that we should expect for a maturing person as they weigh out issues in light of new information. Rather, for me, it is evidence of him being a pleaser too, an excellent salesman who changes his message to match the audience to whom he is skillfully pitching the sale. In Massachusetts he campaigned for governor and governed as a moderate, taking positions which are contrary to statements over the last two years. Though he postured himself as a moderate, today he claims he was a radical right-wing conservative governor, thereby recasting his history. To gain the Republican nomination required Romney to make the hard right sales pitch, some of which he is today downplaying or walking back somewhat towards the center during the national campaign to appeal to the center. To do so he is highlighting moderate statements made five to ten years before, statements that conflict with positions taken in the primaries.

 

Given the economy, Romney should be well ahead in the polls and should win with a landside. Alas he is not winning in the polls by a wide margin, partly because a host of positions are out of touch with the center leaning public. If he is the victor, I fear that his presidency too will lack a clear well defined vision and passion. I also fear that under his presidency that the public debt will continue to grow significantly over the next four years.

The only positive is that regardless of who is in the President that according the federal Office of Budget and Management that the economy will continue to get stronger and employment will move below 6% by 2016. Romney’s projections of 12 million more jobs outlined in his plan is what the OBM forcasts to take place of the next four years. Of course, a President Obama or a President Romney and Congress could unravel those projections by doing something drastic or remaining engaged in unproductive gridlock.

The nation needs a President who has passion and a vision that is more than a slogan. Hopefully who ever is the victor will discover the passion.

Why I Could Never Support a Politician Like Sarah Palin

In yesterday’s post I noted that the politics attracts some people of questionable character but not all are of unsavory as there are a good number of honest brokers who have not been seduced. I noted that we, the voter, must give due diligence to weed out the former and seek the latter.

Regardless of my political leanings, I was the recipient of a mailing a year ago from one politician that very quickly disqualified her from ever being considered as the recipient of my vote. The letter contained a survey with five questions that recipients are encouraged to return.

One of my ongoing concerns is the way politicians of various parties and levels twist and intentionally obfuscate information to manipulate the public to support them or the issue they are pushing, and pushing not always for reasons that are apparent to the voter. One issue that greatly concerns me, and which I believe the public does not appreciate, is how push polling is being used to convince (manipulate?) the person being surveyed into coming to one and only one conclusion, and then to use the results to make claims on political talk shows and on the campaign trail that a large number of my and your neighbors feel about something, and if I think differently I am in a small minority and better rethink my views.

Most telephone push polling last three to five minutes and contains twelve to fifteen questions. The organization sounds innocuous enough or patriotic, but they are often fronts for an organization or party with an agenda. The first three or so questions are normally demographically related and are followed by two or three qualifier questions. If the person answering the survey answers the two or three qualifier questions in a particularly manner, the survey may well end quickly and before the primary questions are asked. If they are answered in another way that survey often moves quickly through two or three set-up questions before getting to the two or three primary questions.

The set-up questions are carefully crafted to draw the person to respond and think in a particular direction and thereby answer the primary questions in the way the survey designer is seeking. If the person being surveyed sends mixed signals with the qualifier questions two or three more set-up questions may be added.

One of the signs of push polling is not only how the wording moves you in a certain direction but also in that they require only a simple yes or no answer. No somewhat or gradient scales are used as are done with neutral and academic polling. Being forced to give only a yes or no answer is a telling sign of a push poll.

The survey in the letter not only has all the signs of push polling but also includes hot button words and demonizing language, another sign of push polling and driving people to think and feel along a particular line. The letter says that the author is interested in their views and will use them to help shape the Republican party.

What turned me off was the second paragraph in the letter inviting the recipient to join millions of other Americans in expressing their views and frustrations. The second paragraph reads, “If you think Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are doing a good job running America, the put this down. This Victory 2010 Survey isn’t for you.”

I already viewed Sarah Palin with a high degree of askance for stepping down as Alaska's governor in her first term to respond to "the higher national need" (code for...I'm a hot item and I will make as much money as I can). Any small vestige of a chance of supporting her vanished in the second paragraph.

In light of the second paragraph for Palin to on to say in the letter that she is not only interested but needs the public’s views is disingenuous. The second paragraph and the nature of the survey disqualified her from ever being considered for my vote. She does not want my honest views or yours. She only wants to have her own views reinforced by a choir of loyal supporters who do not think independantly. Regardless of the person's party a politician like her will not have my support.

We already have too many politicians seeking to manipulate how I and the public think and feel. The country does not need another, particularly one who does so with such unashamably bold craseness. We need honest brokers who wrestle with weighty issues, who are willing to listen, to change their mind and work for the overall interest of the whole country.

A Shortcoming With the American Political Process

With “exploratory committees” being formed by various Republicans, the next presidential political cycle has been underway for at least six months. Today President Obama official announced that he will be running for re-election.


While Obama is governing for the most part from the political center, over the coming year various Republicans will describe him, and thereby the center, as extreme. For the most part Obama is progressive/liberal, but he is not a progressive/liberal wingnut. Unlike he predecessor who was a dogmatic ideologue, Obama is as a pragmatist who is leading from the center to just left of center and is working to coalitions. Unlike his predecessor who was more of an imperialist president than the arrogant power flaunting imperialist Nixon, Obama’s presidency is in keeping with the traditional presidents who hold a traditional view of the Constitution and the Constitution’s definition of congressional powers.


While Obama is governing from the center it will be proclaimed by the Republican presidential candidates and leadership that he is an extremist liberal. Though he is no such thing, he will appear to be that way because the Republican party has moved so far to the right and are arguing against views that were held by Republican presidents Eisenhower and Regan. When there are two parties, and only two parties, one or both can move over time to the extreme. One of the greatest shortcomings of the American political system is that it lacks a good national third party. When there is a viable third party the other two parties have to remain towards the center.

Mike Huckabee

Lest anyone think otherwise, Mike Huckabee will be running for President in 2012. He has his own show on Fox News that will expose him to the general population who are open to voting for a Republican candidate. In three years his campaign staff will be using the demographics of the show and its appeal to substantiate their argument that Huckabee will win over the middle undecided voter. Of course once he announces that he is a candidate he will have to give up the show, but it will have served his purpose of keeping him highly visible and broadening his appeal.

On Friday I received a taped telephone call from Huckabee. It was a robo survey on abortion. Each question was carefully crafted to elicit a “yes” response. If you tried to respond with a response other than “yes” or “no” the recording informed you to answer yes or no to the question. The results of the survey will be used to identify four groups of people: a) those who are clearly on their side, b) those that are open to their message that through future surveys could readily become Huckabee supporters, c) those that will need cultivation but still could become Huckabee supporters and d) those that are not worth their marketing efforts.

Though many things bother me about the survey, one of the main things that bothers me is the simplistic thinking that stands behind a yes and no only option. Such thinking is dangerous as it ends up distorting complicated issues, misrepresents issues and vilifies opponents….which is the mindset of George W Bush, Chaney and Rove, and what the Republican party and the nation does not need in a candidate.