Radio shows

by Jen Green

This weekend finds us forming uneasy, yet strangely agreeable, alliances with some “old friends.” Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

But first, the big news of the weekend is the Secret Service scandal. Completely true to form, the Obama administration is upset–not so much at the scandal, but of the media coverage of it.

The long and the short of it is that a dozen secret service agents and now five members of our military have been sent home from duty in Colombia or have been told to remain in their quarters while the investigation into their use of prostitutes is conducted.

If you listen to just the mainstream media, it seems as though the whole thing has been contained. But, if you read this fascinating article by Robert Kessler at Newsmax, there’s a whole lot more to this story than meets the eye. It’s a national disgrace, of course, but it also represents a very real threat to national security. And according to Kessler, it’s endemic of a organization that has been falling apart for a while.

On This We Can Agree . . . 

Most vice presidents are simply book marks, decorative essentially, chosen to shore up a certain voting bloc from the right U.S. geography. That can’t be said about Dick Cheney. He was arguably one of the most powerful vice presidents this country has seen.

Just weeks after receiving a new heart at the age of 71 (and after waiting for two years), the former Veep made his first public appearance and gave a speech. In it he had a few choice words for our current President, “He has been an unmitigated disaster to the country. ”

On that I can agree.

Now that the establishment has “their man,” who is a RINO at best and does absolutely nothing to engender any confidence, pride, enthusiasm, excitement, or heck, even warm fuzzies in the base, look for more of their type trotting out the “have to beat Obama” argument. It’s really the best one they’ve got, too. If they make it about Romney they’ll lose. If they make it about Obama, they might have a fighting chance.

Some Not Giving Milk Away for Free

Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, said this week that social conservatives are troubled by some of Mitt Romney’s past positions (and he’s had several!) on marriage and gay rights. Earlier in his political career, Romney courted the homosexual community by promising to “champion” their “rights”, including supporting ENDA–the employment non-discrimination act. That is a promise he underscored at a Presidential debate in New Hampshire. Perkins said social conservatives may eventually grudgingly support Romney, but added that “the question is the level of enthusiasm and intensity.”

In fact, Perkins says many social conservatives will now probably focus “down ticket” in 2012, trying to get conservatives elected to the Senate instead of getting involved in the presidential race.

Perkins is probably very right to be worried about Romney on social issues like marriage. This next story will tell you why.

Follow the money, not the principles . . . 

Some major donors to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign are also key backers of efforts to legalize marriage for homosexual couples, but the National Organization for Marriage is warning Romney not to go “wobbly” on a strongly worded pledge he signed to support NOM’s goals. I wonder why they have to warn someone they consider a “strong champion” for marriage?

Probably because most pundits don’t think Romney is likely to press for a constitutional amendment to ban “homosexual marriage” even though he signed the pledge.  Homosexual groups like GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans have advised the candidate that opposing marriage rights for same-sex couples isn’t politically wise.