Quick Hits: Volume XXV
-To no one's surprise, President Barack Obama received a bump in his approval ratings a week removed from the capture and killing (or "murder", says Juan Williams) of Osama bin Laden. But I have to say that I was pretty surprised to learn the latest AP poll showed said rating at 60%, with 53% saying Obama deserves re-election.
But as NRO's Jim Geraghty pointed out, we need to look at those who were polled.
It is a poll of adults, which isn’t surprising; as I mentioned yesterday, you don’t have to be a registered or likely voter to have an opinion on the president.
But then you get to the party ID: 46 percent identify as Democrat or leaning Democrat, 29 percent identify as Republican or leaning Republican, 4 percent identify as purely independent leaning towards neither party, and 20 percent answered, “I don’t know.”
With a poll sample that has a 17-percentage-point margin in favor of the Democrats, is anyone surprised that these results look like a David Axelrod dream?
Not really. Besides, the President will have to answer for the skyrocketing National Debt and mediocre unemployment numbers under his watch. Of course, any broaching of those subjects may well result in Obama constantly invoking the name of bin Laden, as if that alone should clear a path to re-election in 18 months.
It would be reminiscent of that early 1990s Saturday Night Live skit when President George H. W. Bush (played by Dana Carvey) used the phrase "Operation Desert Storm" over and over again during an address to the nation.
-In an almost straight (no pun intended) party line vote, the Minnesota Senate passed a bill allowing voters the opportunity to decide if marriage should be defined between one man and one woman, and whether it should be so stated in the Minnesota Constitution.
By supporting this bill, Democrat LeRoy Stumpf was the only legislator to vote opposite his party.
Naturally, the feverish rhetoric was ratcheted up surrounding this hot button issue. In fact, I was on the receiving end of some of the vapid talking points espoused by "gay marriage" supporters. When I commented on Sen. Mike Jungbauer's Facebook page that Minnesotans have demanded a vote on this issue for quite some time, one lady asked me "I didn't get to vote on your marriage, why should you vote on mine?" Still another gal chimed in by saying "It's none of my business who someone loves. It makes me sick to think about putting discrimination into our Constitution."
In a statement just prior to the vote, Senate Minority Leader Tom Bakk decided to give Minnesota a history lesson, essentially saying that blacks were given the right to vote, but now civil rights may be taken away from gays.
A couple things in response. First, marriage is NOT a "right." It is a religious exercise, one in which government should not have meddled in the first place. And since marriage entails making a covenant before our Heavenly Father, He sanctions only those vows according to His word (aka the Bible): the covenant between one woman and one man.
Secondly, we traditional marriage supporters were constantly lectured by many Democrats and other "gay marriage" advocates that the need for a Constitutional amendment seemed like overkill since same sex marriage is already illegal. Well if that's true then what in the hell is Sen. Bakk talking about when he says "rights are being taken away from gays?" How can that "right" be taken away if same sex marriage is indeed illegal? Because you and I know darn well that some activist judges will someday get a wild hair and declare that law unconstitutional, thus making such unions legal via judicial fiat (like what happened in Massachusetts). So the rationale for the vote is simple: It's kinda difficult to declare something unconstitutional if it's an actual amendment to the state constitution.