Thoughts on the Reelection of President Obama

President Barack Obama visits the University of Iowa

President Barack Obama visits the University of Iowa in Sept, 2012.

This was a good night for Democrats. It was a good night for us moderates who voted for the President. It was a painful night for Republicans, who not only lost the Presidency in a bad economy, but actually LOST seats in the US Senate.

In fact, if the President wins Florida (where he is presently leading by approx 40K votes with 100% of the precincts reporting), the final electoral count will be 332-206. This means President Obama won every swing state: FL, OH, WI, VA, NV, IA, CO, & NH. He is also winning the popular vote by 2.6 million votes.

It was a great night for marriage equality, as Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota all passed voter-approved same-sex marriage laws that allow same sex marriage. Let us remember what has happened in just the past few years. First, Republicans tried to ban same-sex marriage, so the courts threw it out. Republicans then accused them of being “activist judges”, so legislatures began to pass it. Not liking that, Republicans tried to place it back on the ballots as initiatives. However, the tide has swung so much since 2008, states are now beginning to pass same-sex marriage in the voting booth. This is truly a testament to equality and perseverance on the part of those who seek to stamp out discrimination on the basis if sexual orientation.

Likewise, Americans witnessed the election of the first openly gay US Senator in Wisconsin.

The big losers of the night were Christian fundamentalist Republicans, who not only failed to stop President Obama from winning reelection, but who watched the self-inflicted wounds of Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin lose in Missouri and Richard “Rape pregnancy is God’s Will” Mourdock lose in Indiana, costing the Republicans the Senate. Then again, if they follow their own logic, since this happened, it must be God’s will, right?

I am proud that an African-American has won yet another election to the Presidency of the United States of America!

I am proud to have cast my first vote as an Iowan for President Obama and for our Iowa District 2 US Congressman, Dave Loebsack. I got to see the President when he came to the University of Iowa this fall. It was fun to hear a campaign speech, since California has only been an ATM machine for both parties for some time now.

(UPDATE) Women are also winners, as a record number of women were elected to the US Senate. (/UPDATE)

This is total vindication for nerd/genius Nate Silver at the Five Thirty Eight blog, who called this BIG for President Obama. (Did I say BIG? I meant PERFECTLY.)

It was also painful (and somewhat embarrassing) to watch Karl Rove argue (and chastise) the FoxNews anchors when they called Ohio (and the election) for President Obama. As

I’m waiting for the GOP to turn on GOP National Chair Reince Priebus who, in an economy THIS bad, not only watched the President win reelection, but watched the GOP actually lose seats in the Senate.

I will also be curious to see how President Obama did among Evangelical Christians. I remember reading that Obama won ~25% of Evangelicals in 2008. I’m curious to see if that number is up from 2008 and why. As a professor of Religious Studies, I’m curious to see if Evangelicals really did turn out to vote for a Mormon, a faith tradition that, up until Mitt Romney visited him just before the election, Evangelical godfather Billy Graham had designated as a cult on his own website.

I also see that Rick Santorum used election day to make a fool of himself one last time with this unfortunate tweet. (He apparently hasn’t Googled his name in a while, or still doesn’t understand double entendre.)

My favorite comments (most via Twitter) of the night were:

  • “Binders full of electoral votes” (@Hipster_Christ)
  • “Todd Akin lost. I guess when you’re a “legitimate religious fundy”, women’s bodies have a way of “shutting that down”. (@xkv8r)
  • “Legitimate loss” for Todd Akin in Missouri. (@xkv8r)
  • CNN pundit just said Romney’s stance on Latinos cost him: “Romney self-deported from the White House”. (@xkv8r)
  • Before it starts, I’m calling @BarackObama’s acceptance speech a failure if it doesn’t end with a mic drop. (@Hipster_Christ)
  • Claire McCaskill has won the MO senate seat over Todd Akin, dealing a serious blow to “legitimate rape”. #GodsWill (@xkv8r)
  • For those of you who do not like the outcome of the election, four states have legalized marijuana. (@eJoelWatts)

One positive for Republicans is that right-wing Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann barely win reelection. However, I count this as a victory as well, because if she had lost, FoxNews would have hired or her, or worse yet, she’d have gotten a reality show on some channel. As a congresswoman, I’ll have to listen to her much less.

So at the end of the day,

  • Obama wins re-election with over 300 electoral votes (My prediction was 290; I gave FL and VA to Romney.) Only 6.9% of respondents to my blog poll called this (although 65% had President Obama winning.)
  • Right wing Evangelical “legitimate rape” is “God’s will” fundys lost (and lost the senate for the GOP).
  • Same-sex marriage is beginning to be approved on ballots, and openly gay politicians are beginning to be elected, signalling a decline in discrimination against homosexuals.
  • FoxNews looked like idiots throughout yet another election cycle (especially Karl Rove on election night).
  • And Big Bird is safe.

To quote the venerable poet Ice Cube, “Damn it was a good day!” ;-)

God Hates Chick-Fil-A

Congratulations to Chick-Fil-A, the new corporate symbol for Christian homophobia.

Congratulations to Chick-Fil-A, the new corporate symbol for Christian homophobia.

Congratulations to Chick-Fil-A, the new symbol for corporate Christian homophobia.

(I, Robert Cargill, made this mash-up.)

The mash-up below I found on the internet.

Chick-Fil-A: Official Chicken of the Tea Party, American Family Association, and Westboro Baptist

God Hates Chick-Fil-A

God Hates Chick-Fil-A.

When I first read The Onion article (“Chick-Fil-A Debuts New Homophobic Chicken Sandwich: ‘Queer-Hatin’ Cordon Bleu’ Goes On Sale Wednesday”), I simply thought it was a goofy satire on the well-known Christian fried chicken business, which is closed on Sundays.

It was not until this afternoon (I am presently in Israel digging at Tel Azekah) that I realized that the article was a response to comments made by the President of Chick-Fil-A, Dan Cathy, who was quoted last week as saying he was “guilty as charged” for supporting, what he called the “biblical definition” of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Biblical definition? Really? How fundy is this guy? I’ve addressed this issue before.

The Chick-Fil-A President continued:

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

Married to our first wives“??? What is he saying? NONE of Chick-Fil-A’s employees are divorced? Only upper management? Apparently it’s not enough to not extend benefits to same-sex couples. It’s not enough to publicly take a position on gay marriage (which is NEVER a good business move). But now we’re going to make an issue out of anyone who has been divorced and/or widowed and remarried??

This is a good business strategy? Apparently, if your business strategy is run by Rick Santorum’s campaign.

It’s no wonder that cities like Boston and Chicago are blocking the expansion of Chick-Fil-A into their major metropolitan areas. Who wants a bunch of fundamentalist-owned businesses opening in major urban areas?

A Chicago Sun-Times story reads:

Appearing on the Ken Coleman Show, Cathy was further quoted as saying, “I think we’re inviting God’s judgment when we shake our fist at him, you know, [saying], ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ And I pray on God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try and redefine what marriage is all about.”

It is “prideful” and “arrogant” to stick up for the civil rights of certain Americans? I seriously can’t tell if this quote is from the present same-sex marriage debate or the Civil Rights movement decades ago.

This is REALLY not helping the image of the South and southern companies as a bunch of fundamentalist, homophobic, Christians makin’ fried chicken except on Sundays.

And as for me, I’ll never eat at Chick-Fil-A again. Done. Let them become the poster child for the Tea Party, the American Family Association, Westboro Baptist, and any other individual or organization that wants to openly discriminate against others based on their sexual orientation.

ARRRGGGHHH: the ramblings of an idiot

Rick Santorum said words yesterday, which means there’s a good chance he threw logic and facts to the wind and simply made stuff up.

Really? 4000 years of human history? That’s ‘traditional marriage’? Rosemary Joyce at Psychology Today has some pesky facts that speak to this claim. (HT: Morag Kersel)

And 4000 years? That’s as long as humans have been on the earth? Even fundies think the earth is older than that! Or is that how long humans have been getting ‘married’? And marriage between one man and one woman is ‘biblical’ marriage? Really? I’ve dealt with this fantasy before.

Likewise, hasn’t slavery also been around for most of those 4000 years? Is that his argument: because we’ve done it all throughout human history, we should continue to do so?

Where on earth is he getting his facts? Actually…don’t answer that. It may smell like…well…Rick Santorum.

Rick Santorum needs to learn the difference between the loss of a previously exclusive privilege and persecution. Asking people of faith to treat others as they would be treated themselves is not persecution. Demanding that a large group not suppress the civil rights of a smaller group is not ‘intolerance,’ just like a police officer arresting an assailant is not ‘intolerance’ against the ‘right’ to assault people.

When the U.S. decided that it was wrong to, oh…let’s say, own other people, implementing the law emancipating slaves is not intolerant of the southern, slave-holding way of life. Rather, it is the loss of a previously exclusive (and unethical) privilege of southern slave holders. Southern plantation owners were not being ‘discriminated against’ when they were told that owning people was no longer legal, they were simply being told that what they had been doing for generations prior to that is highly discriminatory and flat-out wrong, and the state finally recognized this and remedied it, despite the fact that the Bible clearly endorsed slavery (Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; Tit. 2:9; 1 Pet. 2:18), and despite the fact that slavery had been around for ‘4000 years of human history.’

This is pandering to religious conservatives at its best. For the Christian argument that demonstrates why it’s OK for Christians to support the legalization of same-sex marriage, and if you’re really looking for a Biblical basis for at least allowing the state to pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage, read here. (Warning: it’s long, rooted in the biblical text, and full of pesky facts and reason, so be prepared to think.) And if you still can’t get over it, try this.

so, rick santorum, what you’re saying is “be conservative: don’t go to college”

Don't wanna be conservative anymore so I went to college

Rick Santorum’s real beliefs on education are finally frothing up and boiling over. Unfortunately, he’s saying them aloud in public.

Kyle Munzenrieder wrote a brilliant response for the Miami New Times to Santorum’s most recent comments, as did The Hill‘s Daniel Strauss. Allow me to offer my own.

Rick Santorum finally said aloud what many fundamentalist Christians have felt for a long time: “be conservative: don’t go to college. And if you do go to college, make sure it’s a Republican party-approved private conservative Christian college. (I’m looking at you Liberty University, Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, Regent University, BYU, and Pepperdine.)

Listen to what Santorum told a Florida audience:

“It’s no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go college..the indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America. And it is indoctrination.”

Evangelicals would prefer that students either attend schools with the words “evangelical,” “theological,” and “seminary” in the title (preferably all three) or not at all. Because according to Santorum’s and other evangelicals’ line of thought, when the nation’s top colleges and state universities educate students, it’s liberal indoctrination. But, when private conservative evangelical schools educate students, it’s not indoctrination; it’s a simple dissemination of facts (and by facts, I mean faith claims that are often contrary to scientific facts).

It’s almost comical: Evangelicals don’t want kids to go to America’s top colleges because they might actually learn something besides a fundamentalist, conservative, literalist, theologically-laced worldview, which often leads to a biblically defended suppression of the civil rights of groups that don’t look and/or think like they do. So, from a very early age, they encourage like-minded people to isolate and insulate their kids from any point of view other than their own by placing kids in home schools, private (approved conservative) Christian schools, conservative Christian colleges, and if they do attend graduate school, they often receive some fantastic degree in education, physics, and applied scripture from Southern Evangelical Theological Seminary (I made this title up. If it does exist, my point has only been further underscored.)

So just to clarify:

Public school: Liberal indoctrination
Home school: NOT indoctrination

Public High School: Liberal indoctrination
Christian High School: NOT indoctrination

Public or Ivy League university: Liberal indoctrination
Christian College: NOT indoctrination

R1 Research Graduate School: Liberal indoctrination
Evangelical Theological Seminary: NOT indoctrination

I shake my head.

HT: Jim West

really rick?? children with 2 parents are better economically than children with 1 parent, unless the parents are gay??

Former United States Senator Rick Santorum recently argued in Iowa City that economically speaking, children that are raised by 2-parent families have more economic opportunities than children raised by a single parent, unless the 2-parents are gay.

Santorum achieved the rare double-double of parenting politics by offending both single parents and gay parents in one speech. He apparently took the same statistics class as U.S. Senator from Arizona Jon Kyl.

Does Santorum really think that same-sex couples aren’t as economically viable as heterosexual couples? Economically? Being gay makes a difference economically??? If men are still statistically paid more than women for the same work, wouldn’t this statistically be an advantage for a child of a same-sex male couple?

Read the article here.

%d bloggers like this: