presidential campaign

Media Seeks TFF's Opinion On President Obama's Political Coming-Out-Of-The-Closet

The unintended consequences of President Obama's coming out of the political closet to tell everyone what we already knew — that he supports homosexual marriage — we're in the news! Family Foundation of Virginia President Victoria Cobb was interviewed by WRIC-TV (see below or click here), the Richmond Times-Dispatch (click here) and the Washington Post/AP (click here) about the president's declaration and its impact on the dynamics of the presidential campaign in Virginia, seen as a key swing/battleground state in this November's election, and WWBT-TV ran a statement TFF issued on its 11:00 newscast (click here). It reads:

President Obama is busy pandering to his dwindling base in an election year. It's the sign of a desperate candidate.

In the WRIC report, Delegate Joe Morrissey (D-74, Henrico), just can't contain his glee. He hasn't smiled so broadly or been this giddy since his law license was restored last week. Offering different perspectives are Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13, Manassas) and Victoria.

But if President Obama is being so courageous, as some on the left in these (and other) media reports are saying, why didn't he come out before the North Carolina vote Tuesday, where Tar Heels passed its Marriage Amendment by a 61-39 margin. (It also bans civil unions.) After all, he won North Carolina in 2008 and the Democrats will have their convention in Charlotte. Leading from behind, once again. Never was a man so brave where risk was so unapparent. No wonder he's so loved.

Also interviewed on WRIC is Governor Bob McDonnell, who has an interesting take. While he is continues to be for traditional marriage and supportive of Virginia's Marriage Amendment, he agreed with the president in one respect. He said marriage should be a state issue, not a federal one. Hmmm. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney thinks there should be a federal Marriage Amendment. Does this affect his Veepstakes candidacy?

Ahhhh. Good to see Delegate Joe Morrissey smile again. He didn't have much reason to during the General Assembly this winter.

In His Own Words: The Supreme Court Should Redistribute The Wealth And Restrain Our Freedoms

A lot has been said about socialism and redistribution of wealth during this presidential campaign, although perhaps not enough. In a previous post, we saw a reporter finally ask the tough, legitimate questions of a national ticket that, for the first time in American history, openly uses phrases such as, "spread the wealth" and that it's "patriotic to pay more taxes." (Click here.) If those on the left are upset about this discussion, it's only because they finally are honest enough to talk openly about a philosophy they've tried to impose on America for years through stealth — except when they back off the comments to cover their political tracks. There's just one problem: More and more evidence pops up that Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama has not just "misspoken" or had his words taken out of context. An audio tape found last week from a 2001 radio interview (when he was a state senator in Illinois) emerged where he speaks of redistributing the wealth and that the courts have not been "radical enough;" that the courts need to reign in our constitutional freedoms among other radical suggestions (see AFP article here).

  

So, let's recap: Barack Obama repeatedly uses socialist rhetoric. We find out it's in his DNA because he's been using it since at least 2001. He is more to the left than the Senate's only avowed socialist (see here). His running mate Joe Biden plaigerized from the leading British socialist from the 1980s. But you better not accuse them of being socialists.

But it's more than that. As you heard, he thinks the constitution grants us too much freedom and needs to have checks placed on it to reign in those freedoms. So it's more than just that: It's an ideology of not just pursuing what he thinks is fairness, it's enforcing it and not tolerating dissent (as when his campaign last week kicked off from its press plane three reporters whose newspapers endorsed Republican nominee John McCain.)

We hope whoever released this audio first received protection by federal marshalls and is in the witness protection program. If the personal attacks unleashed on Joe the Plumber (where political appointees in Ohio government went into his tax and voting records just for asking a question) and Barbara West of WFTV are any indication, there's no wonder The L.A. Times doesn't want to give up its video of Obama at a party for a PLO terrorist and former hack for Yassir Arafat. You never know when freedom of the press may be considered too "unrestrained."

BREAKING NEWS: Exclusive Blog Interview Starts Monday With U.S. Senator Sam Brownback

We just confirmed today that starting Monday, and continuing Tuesday, we will post an exclusive Virginia blog interview with United States Senator, and former presidential candidate, Sam Brownback (R-KS), one of this nation's most prominent pro-life, pro-family officeholders.

We are extremely excited to have secured this exclusive blog interview. It was arranged and conducted over the last couple of days and we are extremely grateful to all who helped us pull it off. It will be an informative look at the presidential campaign as it relates to values voters, as well as other topics, with one of the most principled pro-traditional values officeholders in American today.

We're very happy that, as we approach the this blog's one-year anniversary in two weeks, we could provide you with such a scoop. As always, please accept our warmest thanks for making us one of the most read and most influential blogs in Virginia.     

  

Video: A Must-See, Powerful Film

We recently came across a short film on video (3:30) that is very powerful and encourage as many people as possible to view it. It was produced for  CatholicVote.com by Grassroots Films, with a universal message concerning the current presidential campaign. The dramatic imagery and music is not to be missed.

You can view it at YouTube by clicking here.

Is Mark Warner Afraid Of Barack Obama?

A couple of nights ago, as I nervoulsy was cheering on whatever American individual or team on the brink of elimination or medal at the Olympics, I got a call with a pleasant sounding woman on the other end. She wanted to know if I'd participate in a survey regarding the presidential campaign. I obliged, but wanted to know who was conducting it. She said she could tell me at its completion, and so we started. Here are the question predicates pretty much verbatim (they each had a scale or a modifier at the end, which isn't relevant here). I scribbled them down as soon as I hung up:

  1. Are you following the presidential campaign closely?
  2. Who are you likely to vote for?
  3. How likely are you to vote for that candidate?
  4. If not, would you vote for Barack Obama?
  5. In the U.S. Senate race, are you more likely to vote for Jim Gilmore or Mark Warner?
  6. Are your neighbors ready for a black president?
  7. Is experience or change more important in a presidential candidate?
  8. (This was a long winded push-poll question about the evils of pro-life candidates ruining women's lives versus the freedom loving pro-abortion, uhhhh, "pro-choice" candidates.)

I live in a very liberal, pretty upscale area, smack dab in the middle of Governor Tim Kaine's former fiefdom of Richmond's Fan District (when he was a Richmond city councilman just a few years ago; you know, at the same time Obama was an Illinois state senator). So I found the question about my neighbors' attitudes on a potential black, pro-abortion president, interesting. Surely the pollsters know what neighborhoods they are calling.

Surprise! At its conclusion the nice woman identified the poll as being paid for and authorized by . . . drum roll, please . . . "The Democratic Party of Virginia."

Well, I'lllllllllllllllllllll be. If it's all such a slam dunk, why are Tax Governor Warner and his apparatchiks so concerned?

American Idol President

If you've been paying attention to the presidential campaigns, you've no doubt heard much of the pundit analysis of the candidates. It goes something like this: Obama is "energizing" people and speaking about "change" and is bringing "excitement" to the campaign; Hillary is "mean" and having a hard time reaching "new voters" and isn't "inspiring"; McCain is about as "exciting" as tooth decay and doesn't "move" people. And on and on it goes. Of course, the missing ingredient in most analysis is obvious: what are the important issues and how are each of the candidates actually going to address them. Specifics in this race are about as hard to find as a NOVA Republican.

Truth be told, we shouldn't expect much else in our celebrity culture, where Americans seem far more interested in the latest "American Idol" than they are in Iraq. We could spend days talking about why, but syndicated columnist Robert Samuelson has an interesting take. He theorizes that we don't demand honest answers from our candidates, not because we're more interested in their latest David Letterman appearance, but because we simply can't handle the truth about the current state of affairs in America. The truth, as they say, hurts.

I think there is a lot of truth to his argument. Facing the realities of $4.00 a gallon gas, a nanny state that is on the verge of complete economic collapse (i.e., Has anyone seen my social security check?), and borders that are simply lines on paper isn't nearly as entertaining, or diversionary, as Jay Leno.

I guess the question is, how much longer can we bury ourselves in celebrity before we are forced to deal with a crumbling culture?

Bread and circuses anyone?