Obamedia Watch: L.A. Times buries the lead
Posted in: Barack Obama
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Time Line - Obama’s Opt-Out On Campaign Funding : BigMouthFrog
- BizzyBlog » Things I’d Like To Post About Today ….. (062308)
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Barack Obama
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's drop in popularity and Michelle's handbag controversy
Pundit & Pundette
» Is the tide turning?Riehl World View
» The Three Stooges Now Appearing At HuffPoPatterico
» Democrats Attack the CIATigerHawk
» The Blue Dogs are barkingRiehl World View
» Classless Paid Sarah Palin Assassin Mike Murphy (R)Weekly Standard
» Anchor Men
This way he can BUY his way into office.
Who cares, this election is over. The only question now is how big of a margin it will be.
File this under ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).
Michelle, I think it would be political malpractice to take the public funds. Odumbo can buy Mcamnesty off now.
Obviously you don’t care if your candidate lies. Many people do.
Obama seriously miscalculated not only the amazing amount of public financing his campaign would bring in, but also the anemic totals the Republican candidate would muster. You can call it a lie, but I have a feeling he just seriously miscalculated how much the American people don’t want another Republican in the White House (and yes for those of you who attended the Texas GOP convention, it will still be called the Whote House).
Here is Tim Russert challenging Obama on exactly this topic… Obama is flip-flopping.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELoKGvOwSI4
The spin being put out by Obama is that he opted out because McCain refused to stop the 527’s.
Think about that. First, McCain can’t do a damn thing about 527’s (if he could, they would not be 527’s). Second, it seems that Obama fears free speech (that little Amendment that allows 527’s to exist), so he feels compelled to jump off a level playing field.
Obama has really never had to contend with a level playing field anyway. Affirmative action provided him with a leg up in his Ivy League schooling, and his political career has been distinguished by a consistent history of eliminating the competition rather than encountering the competition head to head: Running unopposed by eliminating the competition from being on the ballot to “benefitting” from the strangely fortuitous timing of the release of Jack Ryan’s sealed divorce proceedings.
When is someone going to ask O about his stance on reparations??? Just wondering….
#1, You can’t buy an election, seriously. Just ask Steve Forbes, Mitt Romney, and especially Michael Huffington.
Never heard of a “whote house” and I’m from Texas.
You call it a “pledge”. BHO calls it an “endust”.
Ah yes- when you lefties think you’ve got victory…all the left wing diatribes about “fairness” and “ethics” go out the window, eh?
Free speech based on the observation of facts is never “derangement”, comrade.
Obama wouldn’t be worth 2 cents without the MSM….It also reveals just how weak he really is..heh..heh…
TOS got one thing right - it will not matter. BHO can say and do about anything and the lemmings will just fall in line.
Don’t underestimate the ability of the Democratic Party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.
It’s a mental block that Democrats have. They know that their 527s coordinate their activities with the political campaigns, and so they assume that the Republicans do the same thing. Classic projection.
So I guess this means “it’s all about the money,” right???
#13
Sour grapes much?
Even this part of Obama’s statement doesn’t let him off the hook in my book. When did he “aggressively” pursue an agreement with McCain to preserve public financing? And when did McCain refuse such an agreement? There’s no way for Obama to spin this as anything but an outright lie on his part.
OtherSide:
I’m an Obama supporter also, but seeing him backout on his pledge is VERY disappointing. He has shown me during the past 3-4 months that he’s just another politician.
Obama’s inexperience is shown by his making the public financing pledge in the first place. He was acting all above-it-all, and spouting rhetoric when it was all just theory. Once it’s go time, he does the typical political thing by flip-flopping and spinning. He shouldn’t have been such an abolutist with his original pledge, and rather should have said something like, “it’s too soon to tell, and I will keep my options open”. Why box yourself into such a corner like he did?
He will have to combat smear tactics, but to a lesser degree, so will McCain. Obama is doing the “smart” thing politically, because he is exploiting his advantage, and I doubt voters will care too much. However, his behavior is “typical” of the politics as usual behavior he aims to set himself apart from.
On a side note, I hope Obama learns from this episodes, and lightens up on the no-drilling under any circumstances talk. He would be best served to keep and open mind, and leave all options on the table. It’s not always smart to box yourself in with absolutes.
Sad, but true. Sad, but true. Hopefully, not this time.
I hate to agree with communist sympathizers, like ‘The Other Side’, but with a friendly media, probably a 3 to 1 ratio of money to spend, and an opponent who does a pretty decent job of annoying what should be his base, Obama will probably win, and this country will be in deep doo-doo.
Talk radio, and the blogs, will do their best to let the public know the truth, that Obama is radically leftist, possibly Marxist, and counts terrorists as his friends. McCain’s best chance is in the debates, to expose Obama for the naive, and radically unpatriotic man that he is, but McCain already has a tendency to come across as cranky, and Obama has a good speaking voice and style that allows him to say complete gibberish and sound statesman-like doing it.
Mistress of Justice
I was reminded of you today, when McClellan was testifying about whether Cheney leaked Plame’s name to Novak.
You had made a similar comment, and it occured to me that most liberals simply haven’t done their research. The MSM is still trying to imply Scooter Libby or Cheney had a role in it, even though anti-Bush State Department official named Armitage. Further, Patrick Fitzgerald, the confirmed bachelor, learned this early on, but continued to investigate a non-mystery until he got someone to contradict themselves, probably due to faulty memory, and then charged them. The whole reason her husband went to Niger was apparently to set up Bush with a claim that the British intelligence was wrong.
Google Armitage and Plame.
But the MSM is happy letting people think that Bush or Cheney leaked Plame’s name. And Dems in Congress, and McClellan, are happy to continue the willful deceit.
Armitage/Plame/Wilson
#22
“Communist sympathizer”, “Marxist”
Nice to see the right-wing strategy of fearmongering alive and well.
In our political system, power goes to those who have the most money. (eg: Jay Rockefeller; John Corzine; John Kerry; et al. Since when has buying an election become unfashionable?
Hmmm. So the candidate that is going to win hands down, with only “how big of a margin it will be” in question, and the “anemic totals” of the Republican candidate, needs even more money?
What for? If the victory is merely a matter of time, why waste the funds of his supporters? By the way, do we have a full accounting of the sources/identities of his funding?
This reminds me of Congressman Richard Neal of the Springfield, MA area. He was running for office in the 90’s, had Clinton come in for a fundraiser etc.
He was running unopposed.
Have you seen the price of arugula these days?
So nice to see how touchy the left gets when you call Obama a Marxist. They don’t even know what Marxism is half the time. I believe it’s time to let the communists have their fun in the sun. In the mean time the conservatives should keep a body count and fire up the steamrollers in 4 years.
You’re right the election is over. But I’m going to be having a blast in the mean time.
Hard to come up with another name for it, when his voting record is to the left of the only avowed Socialist in Congress.
Hmmmm
What do you call state ownership and central control of industry, comrade?
I have a lot of beefs with McCain. However, at least my candidate is not a LIAR. Unfortunately, the libs don’t care if Obama is a LIAR. Hugh Hewitt took calls from libs yesterday to see if any of them cared that Obama is a LIAR. None of them cared, but what do you expect from them.
Well, you have to ask yourself where you draw the line (not in relation to you, but the Democrat party). With all the Democrat talk of socialized medicine, nationalizing the oil companies, letting the UN take over parts of our country’s sovreignty etc., and add to that Obama’s hard left voting record, you have to wonder.
Communist sypathizers, probably not. Socialists in the model of much of Europe (which nowadays seems to be coming to its senses with some recent elections), probably.
On June 20th, 2008 at 5:04 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:
Armitage/Plame/Wilson
I am aware of this info Ed, and I’ve never stated that it’s untrue. I have stated and continue to state that Libby’s conviction, and McClellan’s statements indicate that their could POSSIBLY be more to the story. I don’t want to hijack yet another thread, but I really don’t know what Cheney’s involvement was, and if he had nothing to do with it, he’s been wrongly smeared. If he did have something to do with it, he should go to prison. I don’t know if McClellan is lying or not, so I don’t know what the true is. Why hasn’t anyone called Armitage to testify? That could help. This story isn’t in the top 10 on my political priority list, so I’ll sit back with popcorn to see how it all unfolds. I haven’t written anyone, or joined any marches on this one. Let’s just see how it all unravels, which could take years. Hell, maybe your are 100% right.
It’s obviously highly hypocritical of Obama to refuse public financing, since the Democrats/liberals were the ones pushing for it in the first place. But I have no sympathy for McCain. After all, he designed the system himself.
Ha! Good one! Unfortunately, I have seen the price of everything go up a bit more precipitously than is comfortable, mostly due to bad policy on utilizing our own energy resources by the Democrats.
Everything moves by Diesel, and the cost is passed onto us. I like to call it the hidden Sierra Club tax.
Fearmongering TheOtherSide?
Ya, the neocon black ops right wingers must’ve put snuck those anti-capitalism and income redistribution plans into Obama’s teleprompter. He didn’t really mean to say all those things, repeatedly…
What’s stoppin’ ya? You been going to AA or found religion?
- On the Outer Continental Shelf, 82% of federal natural gas and 79% of federal oil is located in areas that are currently open for leasing.
- Onshore, 72% of oil and 84% of natural gas resources are either fully accessible under standard lease stipulations designed to protect lands
and wildlife, or will be accessible pending the completion of land-use
planning or environmental reviews.
- Between 1999 and 2007, drilling permits for oil and gas development on public lands increased more than 361%.
- Since 2004, the Bureau of Land Management has issued 28,776 permits to drill on public land; in that same time, only 18,954 wells were actually
drilled.
- Oil and gas companies have stockpiled nearly 10,000 extra permits to drill that they are not using to increase domestic production.
- Onshore, of the 47.5 million acres of federal lands leased by oil and gas companies, only about 13 million acres are actually being drilled for oil
and gas.
- Offshore, only 10.5 million of the 44 million leased acres are being drilled for oil or gas.
- Combined, oil and gas companies hold leases to nearly 68 million acres of federal land that are not being drilled for oil and gas.
- The 68 million acres of leased, inactive federal land could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural
gas each day.
- That would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and increase natural gas production by 75%.
- 4.8 million barrels of oil equals more than six times the estimated peak production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
- Development of and production from the 68 million acres currently under lease but not in production would cut US imports of oil by one-third.
Yep those darn dems!
TheOtherSide said:
Why has the price of gas more than doubled since the Dems took Congress?
Can he do both? Announce you intention to opt out, raise a gasillion bucks and create the mother of all donor lists, then accept public financing and keep the loot.
How do you blame the dems for the price of oil tripling under Bush’s (and a Republican Congress) 1st 6 years of office?
If the Dems cared so much why didn’t they jump on the idea of regulating market speculators that fuels the problem of high gas prices we have today. True, such regulation on speculators did exist prior the Bush Administration and disintegrated sometime after Bush took office.
Instead of reinstituting the stringent regulation that existed prior to 2000 the Dems propose the idea of nationalizing the oil industry. Hmmm, such novel ways to fix things knowing all industries that have been nationalized tend to impoverish people and/or collapse completely.
#42
GK,
You can blame McCain’s right-hand man Lindsey Graham for the removal of those restrictions. But you are correct, the dems should be working in that direction rather than any talk of nationalizing. I have faith that you will indeed see the former happen rather than the latter.
Only 12 percent of Americans now have confidence in Congress, a new record low. (The 12 out of 100 people who approve of Congress were mentally disabled and/or smoke an ounce of marijuana per day.)
I guess you could blame Bush for that.
The linked article from Patterico is the most frustratingly perfect example of how print media bias works in Democrats/B. Hussein Obama’s favor.
It also confirms what many of us have suspected all along - that print media editors have a greater bias for liberals-B.H.O. than even their reporters.
lmao @ theotherside of his brain…
Everyone also thought it was a slam dunk for el skanky and look what happened to her…
Odumbo’s goin down next.
Blame the dems, blame the media, blame liberals, blame professors….so much for the party of personal responsibility.
Obama’s drawn up a new “Great Seal” - from the NYT “political caucus blog”:
The Great Seal of Obamaland?
No offense, but given that you didn’t cite the source of these claimed statistics, they’re a little hard to evaluate beyond noting that much of the land that has been leased turns out not to have commercially viable quantities of oil or gas, or have deposits not exploitable by current technology.
Peep, I thought this was his seal????
odumbo seal
txvet2,
Source: House Committee on Natural Resources
Furthermore, regarding the oil trading speculation and regulations. Michael Greenberger, a law professor at the University of Maryland and former head of the CFTC’s Div. of Trading & Markets testified at a Senate hearing “The only way to permanently deflate the [commodities] market is to ensure more aggressive oversight. If the CFTC took the next step of requiring all U.S. crude trades to be subject to CFTC regulation and trading limits, oil prices would drop by 25% “overnight,”
Note to Anyone Trying to Reason with TOS:
It won’t work. He doesn’t understand the basic principles learned in Econ 101. He believes that oil companies are earning record revenues by not selling oil. Rather than sell oil at $130/barrel, he believes Exxon will earn more by not selling it. He doesn’t realize Exxon has these entities called shareholders who would chuck out the management team were that the case.
And he proudly links his screen name to…The Village Voice!
txvet2,
also part of the linked report:
Easy. Every time the Republicans proposed opening up ANWR and the offshore area for drilling the Dems filibustered it. A weak dollar has played a significant part as well, which is to a degree the fault of both parties, and the fault of neither. And, of course, the phenomenal growth of India and China, as well as much of the rest of the third world, has increased demand far beyond anyone’s estimates. BTW, the price of oil has far more than tripled. It was selling for 10-12 dollars a barrel in the late 90s, which was one of the reasons not much exploration was going on. That’s how free markets work. When the price goes up, the producers increase exploration and production to bring more supply on line and push the price back down. When the price drops too far and they can’t get back their production costs, exploration decreases, especially for the more difficult and expensive oil (and more difficult and expensive to refine, also), supply levels off, and demand pushes the price back up. It’s called a free market, and it’s why the Dems are to blame. They just can’t help sticking their fingers in and screwing everything up.
And these same shareholders would have chucked out the management team if they sold it at $110 instead of holding onto until it hit $130. See, the is no shortage of oil right now…they can afford to hold onto what won’t be bought anyway. The sell what needs to be sold to keep up with current demand and hold onto the rest to sell at a higher price.
What, AJ? No Pooh on either seal? And shouldn’t Obama use a hen laying an egg on his seal instead of an eagle clutching arrows?
Back to the days of Christopher Robin….
What, AJ? No Pooh on either seal? And shouldn’t Obama use a hen laying an egg on his seal instead of an eagle clutching arrows?
Back to the days of Christopher Robin….
txvet2,
Regarding ANWR,
From the U.S. Department of Energy Report May 2008
Ooops, I dittoed me-self there! I blame it on it on a touch of Obamamania.
(At least I didn’t swoon or faint.)
Ooops, I dittoed me-self there! I blame it on it on a touch of Obamamania.
(At least I didn’t swoon or faint.)
No, I’m specifically blaming Obama for putting money over principle. Turns out he’s a liar, and not the shining knight that didn’t want politics as usual.
As for oil, oh wait, that’s not even this thread…
Let me point out that XOM is the 12th largest oil company in the world, not the largest, and controls a total of about 1% or the world’s oil reserves - hardly enough to manipulate the price. In fact all of the major private oil companies control only around 6-7% of the world’s oil. The rest is controlled by national (i.e. government owned) companies, the largest being Saudi ARAMCO, which controls about 20.5%.
Hey TOS, I owe you a favor for outwitting you. I’m going to double your yearly income. Here’s how we do it. Instead of going into work on Monday, stay at home. Stay at home for 90 days. When you go back to work your wages will have doubled to $10/hour. Then you’ll be rich, richer than Croesus, I tell ya!
Plus, that’s 100 gallons of vegetable oil that could go into the production of bio-diesal rather than french fires…
fires = fries of course…
ok,ok more spelling errors….
Regarding ANWR, if it had been open for exploration previously, (for instance, when Clinton vetoed a bill to open it in 1995), the oil could already be on line, and would be helping to suppress the current price. Same for offshore. As far as the figures cited in that report, I can give them absolutely no credence, given that the Democrats even as recently as the last few months have legislated a ban on the development of oil shale in the Green River formation.
I’m not arguing that if all of this were open to exploration that the price of oil would return to 10-15 dollars a barrel. It won’t. Worldwide demand and the collapse of the dollar have much to do with the current price, and won’t be completely alleviated by increased supplies at least in the short term. On the other hand, much of the increased price has to do with the instability of the Middle East, and every increase in domestic production, whether it lowers the price or not, benefits our national security. ANWR, for instance, even though it might not affect the price that much, could in effect replace what we import from Saudi Arabia.
They’d be thrown out a helluva lot faster if they didn’t sell it at 110 and the priced dropped to 90. It just doesn’t work that way, and as I pointed out, they don’t control enough of the supply to manipulate the market. While there is no indication that this is true of XOM, it is definitely true of the national oil companies, most notably the members of OPEC, and our only way to break that is to increase our own production. This seems to me to be such a basic concept as to be undeniable.
DHD, ever hear of cornering the market?
txvet2,
We are really not that far apart on this…I would love to see more oil production stateside, however it seems there is sure a heck of a lot of untapped leased land not being drilled. Why would the oil companies purchase these leases if there was nothing there? Let’s resolve that issue, plus install regulation on the energy commodities markets. Couple that with a more aggressive approach to alternative energies and we can stop sending our money overseas to a hostile Middle East in 20 years time. And I 100% agree that the devaluation of the dollar has been a big factor in all of this.
This is somewhat debatable, if internally inconsistent (after all, if they can’t sell it, they’re stuck with it whether they want it or not) although it is true that the OPEC countries could produce more, as evidenced by the Saudis promising to increase shipments. (They frequently announce increases or decreases, however, without actually doing anything - that’s price manipulation). On the other hand, I’m not sure they want the price to go much higher, or even stay at these levels. They don’t want to collapse the world economy, and in fact were starting to be concerned about that when the price went over 60. Another consideration, and another argument for opening up as many areas as possible for exploitation is Venezuela, another of our largest suppliers. Chavez is not completely rational (not many Marxists are, or they wouldn’t be Marxists, to somewhat paraphrase Ann Coulter) and could easily decide to cut off all exports to the US. Not only that, but as I understand it, the offshore gulf oil is a better grade than Venezuelan heavy crude anyway, which makes it easier and less expensive to process, thus dropping cost and hence price.
Sorry if this is a little disjointed, I keep throwing things in as they come up.
The formula is simple actually, all the other BS the media, oil and Congress critters are laying on us is just that BS. As soon as the stimulus checks were announced the price of gas started it’s climb and is still going, oil execs are laughing all the way to the bank with their piece of the stimulus pie.
As I already said, you don’t know if there’s anything there until you lease the land. A lot of the time there isn’t. Another thing - many of these leases are held by small wildcatters. They may not be able to explore them for any of a variety of reasons - no financing, inability to reserve a rig, government regulations, whatever. And a lot of the land that is available that hasn’t been leased doesn’t contain oil or gas bearing formations, according to previous seismology, location, etc. (The Texas Hill Country is probably 100% available for leasing, but there isn’t a drop of oil anywhere under it). It’s true that the technology keeps improving and the ratio of producing wells to dry holes is increasing, but that doesn’t mean that a large percentage of the wells don’t pay off - in fact, they’re not expected to, if they are drilled to determine the size of a formation. Of course, there are other factors as well. One company I know of had a couple of promising leases, and just couldn’t get to them to exploit them before the lease ran out. Things happen.
Probably one of the least accurate statements I’ve ever seen you post.
Chomsky wrote a book “Manufacturing Consent” about how the media forms public opinion. This is how liberals think. So when they have the chance, they will “shade” the news. While I honestly believe conservatives prefer to tell the truth, regardless. We have a special affection for the truth. For liberals, the ends justify the means — if you have to shade the truth to accomplish something good, do it. That’s how they think.
Sounds as good as all the other smoke that’s been blown up my rump.
Yes. Did you ever hear of backing your conspiracy theories with evidence?
If you’d bothered to read past the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article you linked to, you’d see that the attempts to corner the silver and copper markets failed miserably.
Care to comment?
Every sane analyst on the planet attributes the increase in crude prices to increased demand from China and India due to industrialization in those two nations.
Please reveal your facts that contradict the world’s analysts.
I watched it happen, but I still can’t believe it.
I understand what happened, and how it happened, but I still can’t believe it.
The GOP couldn’t field someone better than this fly-weight?
A man who has accomplished less than nothing. A race baiting hate monger, married to a race baiting hate monger. A liar, even amongst politicians. A man who associates effortlessly with murderers and other felons, all while giving the impression that he’s at a grand ball.
*This* is what our next president will be? Ray Nagin, on a bigger stage? A black JFK, only dumber?
Yes. Yes, it will be.
All because the GOP couldn’t field anything better. Unbelievable.
At least Obama lies with class. He’s a smooth operator. The lies just roll off his tongue.
Watching McCain “change his mind,” or “re-think a position” is just painful. He’s as smooth as a porcupine, and twice as smart…
DHD,
Your original premise against my comment in the other thread was that my economics was wrong in just 1 part of my premise. Nowhere, have I claimed that this was the sole driving force of the current oil market but only a possible part. I have given you example after example of known cases where this has been attempted. Sure, most of been unsuccessful, but it they are so unsound ecomonmically and unsuccessful, why are they tried time and again. Answer: the potential capital gain outweighs the risk.
TheOtherSide,
answer this: Do you support the nationalization of the oil industry? If so,How will nationalization of the oil industry help America?
Not quite. The perceived gain outweighs the anticipated risk. George Soros really, really thought that he was rich and powerful enough to bankrupt the Bank of England. In hindsight, it wasn’t even close. I think the operative word here is “hubris”.
Look. You can’t use failures to explain successes. No U.S. oil company controls a sufficiently large percentage of reserves to affect global pricing. For Pete’s sake, more than 60% of domestic petroleum delivery is from overseas.
For the same reason Kramer and Newman thought they could make money on Michigan bottle deposits: some people are foolish.
Yikes. We are so OT.
They don’t look as foolish as some politicians though…
BO is a compulsive liar.
His wife is a real beeatch.
Both use religion to manipulate others and for cover. Neither ever demonstrates true spiritual devotion.
He was reportedly abandoned by his father, is very smart, and makes the ladies swoon.
He has limited political experience but a belly full of greed and hungers for power.
They have a circle of “friends” that are composed of felons, crooks, the mentally disturbed, and of course the very, very rich.
He is a mulatto Bill Clinton.
Everything BO says is a lie or will become a lie.
No law or regulation will be either too large or small for his administration to violate. The USA will be for sale again and a new “Presidential library” will need to be funded, a pyramid scheme grander than the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt. The media are doing everything in their power to hide as much about BO from decent people as they can. They know he is a really bad one but stopped caring about this nation long ago. All the major politicians and institutions of our government are fully corrupted. The Constitution means nothing, the Supreme Court daily pissing on it and us, the leaders of Congress are swine, our President stands pathetic before the onslaught of malice directed at him and at any honor left in this country.
And then their is McCain. A “man” who can easily see himself as BO’s VP. Meanwhile our external enemies watch and wait. Taiwan will fall first. I feel so bad for my children. What a world we have left for them.
“How do oil company profits go up if they cut supplies from the market?” somebody asks. How do tax revenues go up when the government cuts tax rates?
Oil companies are selling a commodity. They only make money by selling. Why do stores put items on sale? 1) to create traffic and increase sales of non-sale items and 2) to sell more of the item, thereby making less per unit, but more in the aggregate. Depending on the type of tax you’re talking about, governments make money on economic activity. The less the government takes out of a transaction, the greater the reward for the activity, hence the more activity and the greater the revenue to the government.
Not a bad question. Just as tax revenues would fall to $0 from marginal rates of 100%, BP’s revenues from the sale of gasoline would fall to $0 if they priced gasoline at $14/gallon.
Why did McCain ever believe Hussein Obamessiah any way? Can anyone even remember the last time a democrat told the truth?
Anyone? Come on now all I hear is crickets
Would it kill the Democrats to nominate a prez candidate who was raised with a father in the house? First Clinton, now Obama. They’re both adored by their mothers, the “golden boys” of the family. They miss what a father would have provided.
I think that you are on to something profound here, friend. Black males have long been on the decline as a force in raising the next generation. Now, it is also happening among whites, although for somewhat different reasons. Many black males have been irresponsible, been too young for their fatherly roles, landed up in jail, or otherwise abandoned their families many of which were created by the “single moms” as an entrée into welfare.
Of course, we have some of all of that with white males (and Bill Clinton is from that type of environment), but we also have large numbers of “successful” white males abandoning a traditional male role. Many who have not swung all the way to the open homosexuality, have become femminized “metrosexuals.” So any way you cut it, strong, traditional male participation in child rearing is seriously on the decline. “Single mom” has gone in a couple of decades from being a badge of shame to being badge of honor. All this is showing up in our politics, both in our candidates and in our voting patterns.
When South Carolina elects a swisher like Lindsey Graham, that says a lot.
Further thoughts on the feminization of politics:
Although we are blessed with some powerful female voices on the right including our own MM, Laura Ingraham, Kathryn-Jean Lopez and numerous others, it is an obvious fact that — on the whole — the political instinct of women is to think short-term and close-to-home. They want to provide relief or benefit for their families RIGHT NOW. They are much less inclined than men to take the longer and broader view. An obvious example is their greater reluctance to see their children go to war, however compelling the case may be. They tend to want to keep their children safe at hearth TODAY and worry about that far-away threat TOMORROW.
All of this, of course, makes them a natural Democrat constituency. They want better schools, daycare, healthcare, and every kind of government amenity that they see as prospering their family enterprise. They tend to be much less interested than men in long-term economic impact, unintended consequences, dangers of a growing government, etc.
Bill Clinton’s father died, but the end result is the same.
Good read
Why Do We Call Them Democrats (when they are Socialists)?