Obama’s Evolution – Or, The Wheels Of The Bus Go Round And Round!!!

1996 – Barack Obama supported same sex marriage
2004 – Running for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois, Obama declares that, “marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman”.
In The Audacity of Hope he wrote that society had the right "to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child-rearing most common to every culture."
2008 – Running for President, Obama tells MTV that he believes marriage is “between a man and a woman”. At the same time he said he was against California’s Prop. 8 which was intended to remove the “right” for same sex marriage. "I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think it’s unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about."
2010 – Obama’s position is “evolving”.
2012 – Obama comes out personally in favor of Gay marriage but “I think it is a mistake to — try to make what has traditionally been a state issue into a national issue.”

For our President being a breath of fresh political air in 2008, everything and I mean everything he has done from day one has been with a jaundiced political eye toward life. He has worked hard on the two most important jobs a Politician has. The First: getting elected. The Second: getting reelected.
Anything else he has worked on during the last three and a half years has been with an eye toward keeping his seat and nothing more. The Gay Marriage “stand” he now has is a perfect example. If he really believed Gay Marriage was the right thing to do, if he had the political courage we were assured he had in 2008, he would have come out in favor of repealing the Defense Of Marriage Act and called for a National recognition of Gay Marriage. Instead he couches the entire issue in States Rights of all things. “I think it is a mistake to — try to make what has traditionally been a state issue into a national issue.”
How convenient to defer to the States on Gay Marriage? Interesting he didn’t defer to the States when it came to Health Care Reform. Both are of national interest and importance. But, our President played the part of a board game spinner and finally landed on Pro Gay Marriage…kinda. Just like his days in the Illinois State Senate when he voted “present” over a hundred times, or, once he became President, the important decisions he “contemplated” for weeks and months as the problems that demanded a quick decision got worse and worse, the Gulf Oil Spill and air support for Libyan rebels come to mind, he has refused to take a politically dangerous stand. Instead his true motives are shown by his timidity. Go for the money that Gay Organizations and individuals were withholding until his announcement and screw the supporters who are against Gay marriage but can’t afford to donate much cash. His gamble, and probably not too big a gamble, is that those supporters who are against Gay Marriage will still vote for him in 2012.
Gay Marriage: Yet another example that anyone who truly believed he was anything more than a basic Politician was deceiving themselves, or allowing themselves to be deceived…and they say Romney is a flip-flopper!

I was checking out my MSN homepage and found a story about how the clothing retailer H&M's models are too tan. The best quote of the article was:

H&M made a splash with its new bathing suits, but not in the way the Swedish clothing retailer intended. The company issued an apology yesterday after coming under fire from the Swedish Cancer Society for a series of ads featuring Brazilian model Isabeli Fontana in bright swimsuits and a very, very dark tan.

"Every year, more people die in Sweden of (skin cancer) than in traffic accidents, and the main cause is too much sunning," the Society wrote in an opinion article in the Thursday edition of Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, according to the AFP.

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/11/11657352-hm-apologizes-for-using-too-tan-model-in-ads?lite





Obviously the Swedes aren't driving fast enough!!!

TRB

As I was perusing my copy of the Traverse City Record Eagle, I came across a story which I actually found useful. The FBI has announced that a virus has been released that can cause computers to stop connecting to their Internet connections. The virus is called a DNS Changer (Domain Name System Changer). When you type in an address, such as www.---.com, it is converted into a numerical address that all computers understand. This is how your computer communicates with other computers. This virus changes the numerical address for the www. address you type in and sends you to a different address which may or may not purport to deal with or be the site you're looking for. The virus is a Trojan and you might not know it is there until the "bad guys" turn it on. As reported on the FBI website:

Update on March 12, 2012: To assist victims affected by the DNSChanger malicious software, the FBI obtained a court order authorizing the Internet Systems Consortium (ISC) to deploy and maintain temporary clean DNS servers. This solution is temporary, providing additional time for victims to clean affected computers and restore their normal DNS settings. The clean DNS servers will be turned off on July 9, 2012, and computers still impacted by DNSChanger may lose Internet connectivity at that time.

On July 9, 2012, if you are infected your computer will shut down as it will also lose contact with your Internet provider since the numerical address will be different from the real one.
The help you need is at www.dcwg.org I went to this website as soon as I read the article in the paper, 3:30 a.m., and tested my computer. It is clean. The test is as simple as going to the site and pressing the green "Detect" link (button). As you scroll down the next page you will see two large boxes, one red and one green both with images of people and the letters IP in them. Click on the red box to start the test and the results are almost instantaneous. Whether you suspect there is something wrong with your computer or not it would be wise to run the test just in case.
If you have trouble running the test, or you want to dink around with your computer and pretend you're doing something important, there are links at the bottom of the page to help you check you computer manually without having to trust one of those damned government sponsored tests. Me, I clicked the Red Box and, so far, am free of that virus anyway.
Is this another Y2K scare? Who knows? Probably not but I'll check my computer periodically before July 9 just in case. It doesn't cost anything and it's easy. Until 9 July 2012, I'll be ranting away. After that? Let's see if I'm virus free!
TRB

So, I’m reading this article in the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/bomb-attack-on-afghan-police-convoy-kills-4-in-east-including-city-police-commander/2012/04/15/gIQA5vikIT_story.html?wpisrc=al_national
about yesterday’s coordinated attacks by the Taliban on several Afghan cities. I was stopped by the following paragraph:
Afghan Interior Ministry spokesman Sediq Sediqi said militants took up position in a building under construction near parliament. Some lawmakers grabbed weapons and started fighting when militants fired on the parliament building on Sunday.
I couldn’t help but admire the lawmakers for their strength and willingness to continue to fight for their cause, even though they are not the “military”. They know that they have to continue to fight to keep what they have recently won. Then I couldn’t help but wonder how many of our lawmakers in Washington, outside of the veterans in the group, would actually pick up a weapon and take part in a firefight to defend our freedom? Just wondering!!!
TRB

Sure it's important that we make the ultra-rich pay more because they can fix the whole deficit problem...blah blah blah!!! Today the White House released the resident's tax returns. They show he paid just over 20% in taxes. He says that is an example of why we need the Buffett Rule. Problem? Only that he wouldn't be covered by the Buffett Rule because he made less than $100. Once again, Democrats saying others should pay more but not me!

Thank You, Hilary Rosen! You give us yet another example of the continued liberal attack that will be the entire Obama re-election strategy. Attack every aspect of Mitt Romney, his wife, soon their kids - no doubt, make up issues that don’t even exist, hoping that they then become issues; I sight George Stephanopoulos’ question at the 7 January, 2012 Republican debate:

Stephanopoulos: “Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?” Stephanopoulos asked the slightly bewildered-looking former Massachusetts governor.
Romney: “George, this is an unusual topic that you’re raising. Do states have a right to ban contraception? I can’t imagine a state banning contraception. I can’t imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so…Given that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so, you’re asking could it constitutionally be done? We could ask our Constitutionalist here.” Romney gestures toward Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).
Stephanopoulos: “Do you believe states have that right or not?”
Romney: “George, I don’t know if the state has a right to ban contraception, no state wants to! The idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do, that no state wants to do, and then asking me whether they can do it or not is kind of a silly thing,”
Do whatever you have to do to keep Americans’ attention off the facts of this nation’s situation. When Romney’s message about the economy and how he plans to fix it starts to take hold, send out George Stephanopoulos to invent an issue. When that tempest passes and Romney’s numbers start soaring again, send out Hilary Rosen to attack Anne Romney because she “never worked a day in her life.” Rosen said on Anderson Cooper’s 360, on CNN, "What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, 'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.'” She followed that up with, “Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future,"
Man, talk about trying to invent an issue. And talk about failing…Miserably!!! The Obama Campaign was almost as fast as the Republican Establishment in not only disavowing any connection with Rosen but assuring the nation that she did not speak for them. Although the disavowals started on Twitter, the President finally responded to the Cedar Rapids powerhouse affiliate of ABC, KCRG, with, "I don't have a lot of patience for commentary about the spouses of political candidates.”
One thing Rosen might keep in mind is the fact that the Romneys have been on the campaign trail for four years. Even as Mitt lost his run in 2008 he began running for 2012. With that amount of time on the trail, the Romneys have talked to tens of thousands of people. Anne Romney has held many meetings with women’s groups, has spoken to thousands of individual women, and has gotten input from those women. As Rosen said, Mitt Romney admits to getting his information as to what women think from his wife. While she may have never worked “a day in her life”, she has interacted with many “average” women who do work, who do deal with the daily problems that Rosen suggested Mrs. Romney couldn’t understand. I’d suggest that the fact the Romneys have traveled so much and have talked to so many people over the years makes Mrs. Romney more in touch with the average person than Ms. Rosen is. Ms. Rosen talks to her friends and neighbors but when was the last time she was in Whitehall, Michigan, or Lampasas, Texas, or any number of towns in fly-over country? When was the last time she spoke with farmers, ranch hands, construction workers who weren’t from New York or New Jersey?
Ms. Rosen has no idea what my wife goes through on a daily basis, the troubles she faces, including economic. She certainly can generalize about what my wife might face, as she generalized about Anne Romney and what she could possibly know. Yes, thanks to Hilary Rosen for trying to change the daily topic of political discussion. Thank you for enhancing the image of a Democratic political advisor appearing ignorant when it comes to real life politics. I sometimes wonder how you ever get your people elected…then the Republicans step on it just as badly and I wonder how any political party is able to operate effectively. Hopefully the Republicans don’t take the bait and continue to beat this Rosen drum much longer. The important issues that we care about need to be brought out to show how poorly the Obama Administration is performing. The economy, unemployment, illegal immigration are all more important to the American Public than Anne Romney being a stay at home wife.
Realclearpolitics.com shows why the Democrats are shying away from the President’s record. His record is not something that he can be proud of, since 46.2% of the American public disapproves of it. 50.5% of the American public favors repealing the Health Care Reform Act. Gas prices are $4.00 plus. The Stimulus Plan and its clone were unsuccessful. Unemployment has dropped to a tremendous 8.2%, better than the almost 10% unemployment rate that it was a few months ago, but still above the 8% the President promised we wouldn’t see if the original Stimulus Package was passed. Yet, the 8% unemployment numbers have been reached largely by modifying how the unemployed are counted. 2 million jobs, which were lost in the beginning of the Obama Administration, are simply not included in the formula. It’s almost as if they didn’t exist. Labor Force Participation Rate is 63.8%, the lowest in ten years with no sign of turning around. The Employment to Population Ratio dropped almost five points when the Recession began in late 2008 and bottomed out in October, 2009 at 58.5. That ratio has remained static since; the Obama economic programs have had no positive effect on it at all. Finally, the President’s Job Approval rating is split at 47.8% approves and 47% disapprove. He’s been stuck at that level since November, 2009.
There are obvious reasons the Obama Administration needs the attention of the American public moved from the real problems we are facing. If they can’t get our attention off our economic problems, the President will not see a second term in office. That is the single reason these attacks have begun. Romney is the all-but-official nominee and the Obama Re-election campaign has begun the attack campaign which was fully anticipated. We always hear that negative campaigns are effective even though we don’t “like” them. We’ll find out this year. Romney has no problem with a negative campaign as proven by his attack ads against Santorum and Gingrich. So, let the games begin and we’ll see if it’s possible for the American public to get so disgusted with negative campaigns that they rebel at the polling stations.
TRB

Last week Wednesday Mitt Romney’s campaign advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom, said on CNN that in the fall Presidential campaign “everything changes” from this Primary season. “It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.” Thursday, Rick Santorum said, “If they’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future.” Friday, he said, "I will support whoever wins the Republican primary to beat Barack Obama". With that, Santorum painted himself into a corner from which he is unlikely to be able to extricate himself. Santorum has put himself in a position which requires that he win the Republican nomination for President of the United States. If he fails at that, he will have a very hard time credibly campaigning for Mitt Romney, if he wins the eventual nomination.
To say that Romney is an Etch A Sketch toy and no better than Barack Obama, possibly worse, pretty much marginalizes Santorum as a campaigner for Romney should Santorum lose the nomination. The first question out of any reporter’s mouth is guaranteed to be, “Senator Santorum, in 2008, when Mitt Romney was running for President of the United States, you gave him your support saying, ‘If you want a conservative as the nominee of this party, you must vote for Mitt Romney’. During the recent Primary campaigns you said Romney is no better than Obama. Now you say he is conservative enough. Senator, which is it?” And with that, Santorum’s strength as a campaigner for Romney is lost. Instead of coming together with the other candidates behind Romney as the candidate, Santorum may just as well go home and enjoy a long soak in his hot tub.
The likelihood of his being chosen as a running mate is even less than it would have been before his statements. Back when George H. W. Bush was running against Ronald Reagan for the Republican nomination in 1980, he referred to Reagan’s Supply-side Economics as Voo-Doo Economics. When he was chosen to be Reagan’s running mate, Bush could at least say that after he studied Reagan’s economic plan he could see the logic behind it; so much so that he continued the same policy in his term as President. What can Santorum say when he is confronted with the aforementioned reporter’s question? “Well, after I studied Romney’s positions I’ve decided he is 100% better than Obama. There really is no similarity at all. Obviously I was misunderstood and he is very conservative after all.” Even his "I will support whoever wins the Republican primary to beat Barack Obama" rings hollow in the echoes of his earlier attacks on Romney.
Santorum’s recent attacks are poster children for the weakness of the whole Republican Primary season. The candidates put little focus on their differences with President Obama; slightly more focus on their differences with their fellow Republican candidates; and most of their focus with tearing down their fellow candidates. One can argue that such personal attacks get each of the candidates ready for the personal attacks which will inevitably come from the Obama Campaign, since their record is not really something they want to run on. While there may be some truth in that, there is also truth in the premise that Republican candidates will not have as much credibility with voters when the President’s Campaign staff continuously reminds them of the contradictions and hypocracy between their pre- and post-primary campaign statements.
Lesson learned? Keep your focus on your policies and how you differ policy-wise with each other and the President. Leave the personal attacks to the President. He’ll have need of them!

Dave, one of our oldest friends out there, sent me this tongue in cheek question:

During one of the political force feedings on tv I keep hearing that Santorum is a "Washington insider". Can u define that for me. I think it's a great phrase which everyone "wink wink" understands and goes to whichever side uses it first.

My repsonse follows:

Yeah, Something like that. Newt and Santorum would both, obviously, be considered Washington insiders. You can't spend as much time in the House and Senate as they did and not be an "insider". Romney, likewise, is definitely not a Washington insider. Also, it's not necessarily the side that uses it first, it's the side that uses it Best!
Here is the catch, though. The Washington Insiders, if one can believe they actually want to change how Washington works, can be seen as having an inside track when it comes to that change. Put simply, they know where the real problems are, they know who they can work with and how to do it. Theirs is a much smaller learning curve than Romney's would be.
On the other hand, these guys had their chance to change things. Newt did accomplish quite a bit on that level but, from some reports out there, his was not a disciplined Speakership. There was a new idea every minute and, as we saw with his later foray into Global Warming with Nancy Pelosi, or anti-Capitalism in his attack on Romney and his Bane connections, all Newt's ideas weren't exactly great.
Santorum was there during the Republican era of 2000 - 2006 and was voted out in 2006, like many other Republicans. You can sure ask what he did during that period to control spending, government growth, etc. The answer, I'm pretty sure, is not much. At the very best, he had no power to convince the rest of the Senate to go along with him. He also, as the Romney ads say, has plenty of questionable votes along the way.
Finally there have been several Presidents, who came to Washington with no "Washington Experience", who performed very well. So, is being a Washington Insider a good thing? Yes! Is being a Washington Insider a bad thing? Yes! As with most things in this world, it's relative. It all depends on the individual and whether or not they are sincere about their objectives and they have that ability to get both sides of the aisle to work together to succeed with his agenda. Whoever wins, they are especially going to need the later ability since it's almost a guarantee that they will not get a filibuster-proof Senate along with keeping the House.
There you go. Hope that helped! TRB