411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 129 – Obama and the Gay Community, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and Obama VS the American People in the Economy on a Pole Match

Posted by Mark Radulich on 06.12.2009

This week I come out swinging on Dear Leader Obama while professing my unrequitted love for Sarah Palin.

It's time to play the game…DUN DUH…IT'S TIME TO PLAY THE GAAAAAAME!!!!!

(insert Vincent Price like laugh here)

I believe that this is the third installment of the Radulich Era Fact or Fiction and so far so good. Every week so far I've had at least two participants e-mail me which is great but I'd like to see more of you that make comments actually participate as well. I think most of the comments for the previous two articles were spot on and interesting (save the obviously juvenile ones) so be brave and take it up a notch.

Just so everyone knows, the schedule that has worked for me so far is that I send out the statements on Tuesday and Wednesday and when I've got all four from both participants, I edit them together on Thursday to be posted on Friday. Also, if you do e-mail me because you want to participate, right now the odds are you will be tapped the following week. Lastly, when you e-mail please use whatever name you want to be known as plus a little bio line so I know who you are and how to introduce you. Nothing fancy, just what you've already seen in the past two columns.

A Word on this weeks edition: You may have noticed that the tone of this week's statements are a little more provocative then normal. This was done by design, not to be a partisan hack but to generate spirited debate. I think strong, provocative statements invoke interesting discussion rather than the middle of the road sort that I tend to write (when I'm not annoyed by something). Lastly, I beat up on our President a lot this week so next week he gets a reprieve. No anti-Obama statements so that I can focus on somebody else instead…to be fair is to share : )

So let's get on with it already, first we have Patrick Taylor who regularly comments here on the 411 Politics Zone as AdmChesterMynutz. In the opposite corner , a man that has been with 411 for quite some time and regularly participated in F or F in past, Chris Connolly (and you should all go and read his columns when you are done here).

And now let's get it on...

…Ding Ding!

1) As per President Obama's urging, the Supreme Court declined to hear a constitutional challenge to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military. The Supreme Court was right in its decision

Patrick Taylor: Fact. Although my formal legal training has been limited to watching several seasons of Law & Order (criminal law) and Judge Mathis (civil law), Supreme Court ruling to not hear the "don't ask, don't tell" challenge was entirely correct; Which is not necessarily an endorsement of the policy.

The Supreme Court has consistently given the military special Constitutional deference in administering its affairs. And that the legislative and executive branches are wholly responsible for the military's law and legal processes. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact".

If the military recommends the policy, the legislature codifies the policy, the executive enforces policy and the policy's goal appears reasonable, the policy passes Constitutional muster. Don't look to the Court to change the administration of the military. If you do not like the policy, blame the President and Congress. If you do like the policy, blame the President and Congress.

Chris Connolly: Fact. While I am technically a lawyer, I haven't taken the bar yet and I also don't want to bore anyone to death with going into the legal mumbo-jumbo that justifies the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case. There are two things to keep in mind before talking about this one. The first is that the current policy does not prevent gays from serving, they just have to keep their sexual preference to themselves. The second is that when you sign those papers, you are no longer an individual, you are a numbered piece of government property, and you give up a lot of the privileges you have as a civilian when you put on the uniform, especially your privacy.

I will say that from a purely military perspective, this is the right call. The military is around for two things: kill people and break things. It shouldn't be used to advance social agendas. From the surveys I've seen and from talking to current and former military personnel, allowing openly gay people to serve would be detrimental to re-enlistment rates, troop discipline (just look at the cases of sexual harassment by female officers of female enlisted) and overall morale. That to me is enough to justify not interfering with the system in place right now.

1 and 1 to start. I don't have much to add to this other than that I'm glad this didn't get into a spitting match over Gay Rights and rather stayed on the topic of military policy. Both Patrick and Chris seem to understand that you can be against a policy but can still deem constitutional or even necessary in terms of discipline and order. As to whether or not "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is good policy, that's a whole other kettle of fish for a different day.

2) President Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage (but is in favor of civil unions)." Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said recently he supports same-sex marriage because "freedom means freedom for everyone (so long as it's deemed legal by the states and not the federal government)." In reality, President Obama is no friend to the Gay Community.

Patrick Taylor: Fiction. I honestly do not believe that President Obama is a "friend" to any interest group or segment of the population. He is a politician and no different than any politicians. If public opinion turned heavily in favor of marriage for same-sex people, President Obama would be leading the legislative charge in favor of marriage for same-sex people. Don't get your hackles-up folks, isn't that what representative Democracy is really all about? As I said, he is no different than any politician. Regardless of your partisan persuasion, no reasonable person can argue that President Obama's has stayed true to his campaign rhetoric. Bush said he was going to cut taxes and he did. Obama said he would raise taxes and balance budget, he has done neither. He is adopting the California model of responsible fiscal management.

Chris Connolly: FACT. Before I get on my soapbox about how to solve this marriage mess, let me address the President's absolute hoodwinking of the gay community. The gays thought that before the election they had a candidate that would help them advance their agenda, despite the fact that he has always been clear about the marriage issue (I think they just put their fingers in their ears when he talked about it). He has been non-existent in the argument over the so-called "hate crimes" legislation, and he seems to have spent most of his time trying to advance the interests of his union supporters and no one else. If I were gay and I voted for him, I'd be pretty pissed that he has thus far ignored that community.

What is extremely stupid about this argument is that the way to solve this issue is easy. All that needs to happen is to take the state out of the marriage issue entirely. That's right, no more marriage licenses. All you should have to do is file a "domestic partnership contract" with the clerk's office to protect your rights as a couple. Then if you can find a religious organization willing to marry you (and marriage is a religious institution anyway) and your loved one or ones (yes I am endorsing allowing bigamy), knock yourself out. Hell, marry your cousin if you want, it should be no one's business but the people entering into the contract. It's that simple.

1 for 2, hot diggity! I think there is room for cynicism here (Patrick I am looking in your direction) but I also think you have to take a close look at some of these people in office and see if there is any integrity at all beneath the veneer of opportunism. They should believe in something, anything and should not totally be given over to an "any which way the wind blows" mentality. This was a statement meant to get people thinking about what does Obama REALLY believe and does he REALLY stand for? On the topic of gay marriage itself, Chris, Bill O'Reilly and my dad both agree to just take the state out of it and give EVERYONE the opportunity to create domestic partnerships regardless of sex or the nature of your relationship.

AND NOW SQUARE YOUR SET…I mean SWITCH!

3) When Sarah Palin speaks, she articulates the true, core values and policy viewpoints of the Republican Party and as such is its real leader at present.

Chris Connolly : FICTION. First of all, I will admit that I was one of Palin's biggest fans during the last election. Heck, the evidence is right here on this site. My support has wavered in the last few months, but I still have an overall positive view of her. I do think that for the most part she has stayed true to the Reagan/Buckley/Friedman line of thinking since she got out of the evil clutches of the McCain campaign. But while she may be a strong voice in the party right now (and its biggest fundraising draw), right now she is too low profile to be considered the party leader. Aside from her speech the other day, she has been trying to refocus on running Alaska since the election. Considering Cheney has been throwing bombs at Obama over terrorism for the last 2 months and Gingrich and Cantor have been hammering the administration at every turn, I think they are leading the opposition, not Palin. Also, since those last two have been doing it in terms of articulating policy differences instead of just soundbites, I'd say they are the true leaders of the party right now. Either way, as long as it isn't McCain there is hope.

Patrick Taylor: Fiction. Sarah Palin is not the "real leader" of the Republican Party. Unlike parliamentary systems, there is no official leader of the opposition to our seated executive. Gov. Palin makes for good television, is an easy target, invites traditional feminists to join in on the misogyny they usually rail against and represents the type of folks upon which most intellectuals look down their nose. With all due respect to her accomplishments, I don't think she would be considered a national figure if not for the fact she bears such resemblance to Tina Fey. History is fairly clear that losing vice-presidential candidates do not make successful presidential candidates.

2 for 3. I'll admit I have a thing for Palin but not because she's got legs and she knows how to use them. I have a crush on Palin because it's rare for anyone in elected office to be so candid and clear about who he/she is and what they believe in. I call her the leader of the GOP because she actually has power (Cheney and Gingrich are out of office) and she still makes nationally televised statements that make clear what it is to be a Republican (see her recent interview with Sean Hannity). She reminds me of Reagan in that neither was a policy wonk but they both know/knew how to motivate people and give them hope when things seemed bleak. Finally, as a I stated before, she's still an elected official and as such has more legitimate power than Limbaugh (a disc jockey), Cheney (ex-vice president) or Gingrich (ex-Speaker of the House).

4.) 4) The Wall Street Journal reports that "a Gallup poll released Monday showed for the first time that a majority, 51%, disapprove of Mr. Obama's handling of federal spending." Meanwhile, "support for his handling of the economy overall has slipped, according to Gallup, with 55% approving and 42% disapproving, as opposition among Republicans has hardened." This trend of disapproval with regards to the economy will continue and will hurt President Obama when he runs for re-election in 2012 and it will hurt Congressional Democrats in their bid to control congress during mid-term elections next year.

Chris Connolly: FACT. All signs right now point to the economy still being a hot issue in next year's election, and I think that Obama's handling of things will be a major issue used against him when he comes up for reelection. People are starting to realize that our government is broke, and continuing to ramp up spending is insane. Things are going to continue to get worse, and the fact that we are about to have our old friend inflation kick us in the ass once again isn't going to help him much. On top of the general economic picture, the auto bailout/bankruptcy bungling and the absolute failure of the "stimulus"/interest group payoff package (and I am talking failure in both economic impact and implementation/oversight) are going to cause some real headaches for the DNC next fall.

Patrick Taylor: Fiction. Way too early make such a prediction in regard to mid-term and presidential election cycle. Without question the seated president is the "lightening-rod of discontent" between approval and economic performance. If the situation does not dramatically improve, election margins will certainly be squeezed. The economy is a "rogue elephant" in that its performances is driven as much by random events as determined events. As much as we would like, assigning responsibility for economic performance to a president or party is pure partisan folly. What we can measure is their management of fiscal policy and to what degree have they improved or damaged the financial health of the Federal government.

In the early 1990s, Bush the Elder was faced with the bill for the Reagan years. Although he ran on "no new taxes", by 1990 the Feds were facing an unprecedented budget deficit of $400 million. (sort of quaint isn't it $400 million. These days, ACORN alone gets this kind of scratch from Uncle Sugar.) Bush the Elder reversed his campaign pledge to keep the government on a more firm financial footing. He was vilified by his party. Gulf War came along and suddenly his decision was forgotten. By time he left office, the economy had taken a dramatic turn for the worse and everyone certainly remembered his decision. So much so, he had little chance at reelection. Clinton ran on the economy and easily swept to victory

The Bush's tax increase could not cover the increased spending as a result of military and recession. By 1994, the Federal government was facing $400+ deficit which was projected to double then triple by end of Clinton's second term. Alan Greenspan met with Clinton upon which they made the following agreement. Fed would keep rates low if Clinton could balance the budget. Upon losing mid-term elections, Clinton lost the help of Democratic controlled congress with the fiscal health of the government in the balance. Over the next fiscal year, Clinton and Gingrich fought numerous battles but were able to combine a series of budget cuts, tax increases and new budget process rules that would set the Country on a sound financial. Greenspan held his end of the bargain, Congress respected the budget process and by end of Clinton's second turn the financial health of the country had rarely been better.

There were no gimmicks in Clinton/Gingrich budgeting due to new Congressional Budget rules: 1. discretionary budget caps. 2. Pay-Go. 3. use CBO as arbitrator and for policy analysis (scorekeeping) Paygo was allowed to expire by Republicans earlier this decade because it was inconsistent with their effort to increase Medicaid drug benefit program.

As we have recently learned Obamacrats are now interested in restoration of pay-go. It will be interesting to see its effect. Unlike Clinton/Gingrich, who set the budget on a course to be balanced and then instituted Pay-Go rules, the Obamacrats have exploded the federal debt and deficit to a degree that makes Bush the Younger seem like a pauper and then institute paygo.

The current paygo rule is more akin to the effect of reaching your credit limit. Sort of like a people who use pre-paid credit/phone cards are forced to adopt paygo rules. And if you checked today's response by the bond market to the Federal bond auction, the market is increasingly telling the Feds they are reaching their credit limit. That one is solely on Obama. Whether it will mater, depends on whether that rogue elephant works in his favor.

And the final score is 2 for 4. What saddens me is he'll probably keep his job despite people thinking he has trashed the economy because the GOP will inevitably run people who can't do math either…now I'm being cynical too : )

Thanks to both Patrick and Chris for participating. If you would like to join in and play along too email me [e-mail] or leave your email address in a comment and I'll contact you.