Sunday, March 11, 2012

It didn't work

Rasmussen Reports:

For the third consecutive day, Mitt Romney leads President Obama by five points in a hypothetical 2012 matchup. It is still, however, too early to tell if these results reflect a lasting change in the race or are merely statistical noise. Today's numbers show Romney at 48%, Obama at 42%. That matches the largest lead Romney has ever enjoyed over the president. Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). 

Romney’s support among Republican voters has moved up to 83%, just about matching the president’s 84% support among Democrats. However, only six percent (6%) of GOP voters would vote for Obama if Romney is the nominee. Twice as many Democrats (12%) would cross party lines to vote for Romney. The former governor of Massachusetts also has an eight-point advantage among unaffiliated voters.  

If Rick Santorum is the Republican nominee, he is up by one point over the president, 45% to 44%. He receives 77% support from Republican voters and is up three among unaffiliateds. Santorum and Romney are the only Republican candidates to lead the president more than one time in the polls. See tracking history  for Obama vs. all four Republican candidates. 

The Democrats understand that B. Hussein Obama will be almost impossible to reelect and so have been desperately attempting to find some way of distracting voters from his dismal performance as president.

Creating a false controversy over the issue of contraception was a part of that strategy and it seems to have if not totally backfired to at least have accomplished nothing in their favor.

To start with too much information about the real Sandra Fluke - the 30-year-old professional left-wing activist who deliberately targeted Georgetown rather than the 22-year-old financially disadvantaged law student who only wanted the best education she could get - made it out to the public too quickly for the left's party line narrative to take hold with anyone not already suffering from brain damage from overdosing on progressive Kool-Aid.

In a nation in which a large majority of the population still attend weekly services in church or synagog the attempt to force a religious institution to violate its sacred teaching by providing birth control pills to its students was bound, if I may be permitted a small vulgarism, to go over like the proverbial fart in church.

The truth is that Sandra Fluke is far worse than a slut or prostitute.  Sexually promiscuous women, whether they take money or not, only harm themselves and possibly those who voluntarily chose to sleep with them.  Ms. Fluke, on the other hand, is a parasite, a societal cancer who demands that her fellow citizens be forced to subsidize her lifestyle.  She is the moral equivalent of a tapeworm or tick.

While outrage at Ms. Fluke has understandably been focused at her insistence that the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty be repealed in order to finance her desire for consequence-free sexual activity it is just as outrageous that she would demand that anyone be forced to provide for any of her wants or needs.

And that is exactly what she is doing.  She wishes for the federal government to use its coercive power to force her University (which happens to be a ministry of the Roman Catholic Church) to provide her with a product or service against its will.  She wishes to do this because she believes that she has a "right" to have her needs, real or perceived, met at the expense of other people.

Ms. Fluke and others like her believe that they are entitled to the fruit of other peoples' labor.  Just like an antebellum planter believed that he was entitled to live in luxury from the labor of those he presumed to own as slaves.

Our modern society rightly regards the old form of slavery practiced before the Civil War to be evil but somehow holds that those who resist having their property confiscated and redistributed to others today are somehow greedy and selfish. 

Those who demand that others be presented the bill for their wants and needs (whatever they might be) have no more moral right to call those who resent being forced to become their personal ATM greedy or selfish than Simon LeGree would have had in calling his slaves selfish for not voluntarily going out into the fields and picking his cotton.

Our society cannot be rescued from disaster until that attitude of entitlement at the expense of others is seen to be as morally indefensible, as selfish and cruel as the institution of chattel slavery ever was.