Convention Bounce for President Obama?

    With apologies to Stewart (the baby below) and his parents:

Baby = Democrats

Ball = Convention / President's speech

Floor = Unemployment still above 8%

    We'll see next week how accurate my prediction was.

Underwater

    From the Huffington Post:

Robert Rubin, Former Treasury Secretary, Falls Into Swimming Pool At DNC Party 

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Bob Rubin, the Treasury secretary during Bill Clinton's presidency, tumbled into a Ritz-Carlton hotel pool Wednesday around 8 p.m. The pool was next to a happy hour party that began 90 minutes earlier and was attended by top White House officials and Wall Street big-wigs.
Rubin, fished out by fellow guests, was said to be in good spirits by a person familiar with the tumble. The pool is on the 18th floor of the hotel.

     Millions of mortgage holders who saw property values plummet when the housing bubble burst have got to be hoping there's video.

The Weather in Charlotte [Updated]

    The weather just isn't cooperating with the DNC in Charlotte.  From a webcam about a mile from the  Panthers/Bank of America stadium and its 70,000 empty seats:

Charlotte, 10:30 AM

Charlotte, 2:20 PM

Charlotte, Now

Source:  wwc.instacam.com

It's starting to clear up.  Tough break.

- - - - - -

Update: Uh-oh!  Rain!  Vindication?

Charlotte, 3:30 PM

Threevolution

    In the spring of 2012, shortly after his hand was forced by Joe Biden, the White House called Robin Roberts to set up an interview to explain President Obama's evolution on the latest social trend in the institution-formerly-known-as-marriage.  I have slightly revised the president's comments in the Robert's interview to project what the president could say to explain a future iteration of his views on marriage:

But I have to tell you that over the course of-- several years, as I talk to friends and family and neighbors. When I think about-- members of my own staff who are incredibly committed, in [polygamous] relationships, [poly-sex] relationships, who are raising kids together. When I think about-- those soldiers or airmen or marines or-- sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf-- and yet, feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is gone, because-- they're not able to-- commit themselves in a marriage.
At a certain point, I've just concluded that-- for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that-- I think [poly-sex groups] should be able to get married.
When I meet gay and lesbian [thruples], when I meet [poly-sex thruples], and I see-- how caring they are, how much love they have in their hearts-- how they're takin' care of their kids. When I hear from them the pain they feel that somehow they are still considered-- less than full citizens when it comes to-- their legal rights-- then-- for me, I think it-- it just has tipped the scales in that direction.

    I wish I could say that I am considering this topic on an entirely theoretical basis.  However, this article appeared recently in the British newspaper, The Guardian:

Three Brazilians in love have their nation up in arms over whether their relationship, now enshrined in a three-way marriage, is legal. The public notary who conducted their marriage says there's no reason the threesome – or "thruple", as the internet has charmingly labelled it – shouldn't enjoy the same kinds of rights imparted upon two people who get hitched. 

Is there anything in Obama's evolution towards same-sex marriage endorsement that could not be applied here?  One who is sliding down a slippery slope begins to pick up speed, and the same is likely to happen here.  Once the definition of marriage is changed, once "traditional marriage" became a pejorative to be mocked, all bets were off.  Just as redefining "life" to not include the unborn has led to the extremes of abortion, even to the point where our current president once rejected legislation that would have outlawed allowing babies who survived botched abortions to die, so redefining marriage will lead to extremes.

    Much speculation exists about what a second Obama term would hold.  Even I doubt that we would see Obama fully embrace polygamous marriage within another four years.  But how much more damage could be done to an institution that is already staggering under the weight of divorce, living together, and now same-sex marriage?  The bottom of that slope is looking closer every day.

When is an Interest Group Not an Interest Group?

    The Twitter feed of the Democratic Convention tweeted this item this week, recalling a quote by Barack Obama from an April speech at the ironically titled "White House Forum on Women in the Economy":

At the forum, surrounded by women, the president went on to say (via The Hill):

“I want to make sure that every agency across my administration considers the needs of women and girls in every decision they make,” Obama said. “There’s been a lot of talk about women and women’s issues lately, as there should be, but I think the conversation has been oversimplified. Women are not some monolithic voting bloc, women are not an interest group, you shouldn’t be treated that way. Women are over half of this country and this workforce.”

As if those words and actions were not self-contradictory enough, clicking "Groups" on the website of the Obama campaign brings up the following:

Let's see: "Supporters organizing around the issues they care about" versus the Answers.com definition of an "interest group": "A group of persons working on behalf of or strongly supporting a particular cause, such as an item of legislation, an industry, or a special segment of society."  So women aren't an interest group, yet the Obama campaign strongly suggests women join... an interest group for women!  I wonder if the Obama campaign sees its other groups as "oversimplified" and "monolithic voting blocs", or if they aren't interest groups either?

The War on Pizza [Updated]

    Here's one more way the Obama administration is harming the economy.  This is from an email I received this morning from Michelle Obama [emphasis mine]:

Jerry --
I know your life is full -- with work, or school, or family -- and yet you still find the time to help out when you can.
You may have a tight budget, but you give what you can afford.
A woman recently told the campaign her family skipped a pizza dinner at their favorite place so that they could make a difference in this election.

Some pizza restaurant out there is one step closer to going under thanks to the Obama campaign.  And the president says he supports small business.

Update: Almost forgot this from July 31st.

Deus ex Platforma [Updated]

    The Democratic National Committee created a stir on Tuesday by releasing their 2012 party platform sans any explicit mention of "God."  Jake Tapper of ABC News reports:

The Democratic Party’s 2008 platform mentioned “God” once, in this passage (emphasis added):

We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential. 

Explaining the removal, a Democratic official explained: “The 2008 platform reference is ‘God-given’ and is about growing the middle class and making America fair, not actually about faith. The platform includes an entire plank on the importance of faith based organizations and the tremendous work that they do. Further, the language we use to talk about faith and religion is exactly the same vocabulary as 2008. I would also note that the platform mentions: ‘faith’ 11 times; ‘religion’ or ‘religious’ 9 times; ‘church’ 2 times (one is a quote); and, ‘clergy’ 1 time.”

Over the past four election cycles, Democrats mention of "God" in their platform has certainly changed:

• 2000 - 3
• 2004 - 7
• 2008 - 1
• 2012 - 0

    While the complete removal of "God" is certainly attention-getting, the unnamed Democratic official has a point.  Substantively, there's not much change from 2008, the first time Barack Obama was their candidate. The change from the 2004 platform, however, is stark.  Here are the seven uses of "God" in the 2004 platform:

• one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
• a common purpose to build one nation under God. 
• all the possibilities your hard work and God-given talent can bring.
• God gave America extraordinary natural gifts[.]
• That is how we will ensure that God's gifts of nature bless all of God's children for generations to come.
• each of us should be as equal in the eyes of the law as we are in the eyes of God.

    In 2004, the Democrats' platform had repeated, clear acknowledgements of God in the founding of America, its blessings, and its continuing success.  But in 2008 and 2012, there appears to have been a conscious decision to move away from speaking of the involvement of God in the affairs of America and towards the more generic "importance of faith based organizations and the tremendous work that they do," as the Democratic official put it.

    Republicans use of "God" and "faith" in their platform has changed dramatically as well, but in the opposite direction with a dramatic increase in 2012:

• 2000 - 1
• 2004 - 3
• 2008 - 2
• 2012 - 10

    So why the fluctuations?  For the Republicans, perhaps the influence of George W. Bush who famously cited Jesus as his favorite philosopher in the 2000 campaign is the reason for high numbers in 2000 and 2004, and the prevalence of economic issues in 2008 due to the financial crisis, plus the relative reticence of John McCain to discuss his religious faith, explains the dip.  But despite the economic concerns grabbing the headlines in the 2012 campaign, the conservative resurgence that began in 2010 has apparently had a significant social impact on the 2012 platform.  Seven of the ten uses are (coincidentally?) the "God-given" words that the Democrats dropped.  Here are all 10:

• Reaffirm that our rights come from God
• May God continue to shed his grace on the United States of America.
• a free people using their God-given talents
• solemn compact which confirms our God-given individual rights
• primary role of government is to protect the God-given, inalienable, inherent rights of its citizens
• defend the lawabiding citizen's God-given right of self-defense
• opportunity to say the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety, including "Under God," in public schools
• taking advantage of all our American God-given resources
• good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country
• based on his or her God-given talent and motivation

    The last eight years have produced a remarkable shift in the language of the two parties.  While no party has a God-monopoly, the process that produces a party platform is far-reaching and broad-based (see Appendix C of the 2008 Democratic platform that lists hundreds upon hundreds of platform meetings state by state,) and therefore gives clues about the grassroots party makeup and leanings.
    It has been said that a camel is a horse built by committee, and perhaps a party platform reflects the same ad hoc process.  But as far as both parties' platforms have moved on this issue in the last four to eight years, it's safe to say the changes were not random or extreme minority views.  Certainly believers should not put their faith in political parties to achieve religious ends.  But members of neither party should overlook the worldviews that the platform changes convey.  And worldview shapes policy.  If rights, freedoms, resources, and blessings are no longer "God-given", then who or what gives them?  Perhaps it's time to take a closer look at the words that do appear in the platforms.

Update: Here's a telling interview Bret Baier of Fox News conducted with Democrat Dick Durbin regarding word choices in the Democratic platform.

Update 2: As of 5:30 PM on Wednesday, via the Huffington Post:

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Democrats have changed their convention platform to add a mention of God and declare that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
The move came after criticism from Republicans.
Many in the audience booed after the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, ruled that the amendments had been approved despite the fact that a large group of delegates objected...
The party reinstated language from the 2008 platform that said "we need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential."