Election '12: The one thing that can be concluded from President Obama's sudden "evolving" support for gay marriage ahead of a big Hollywood fundraiser is that money talks. It's how he governs. Just don't call it democratic.
Politicians are often rightly criticized for twisting with the winds of polls. Obama is different, and not in a good way. Instead of making decisions based on principle — which might occasionally go against polls — Obama's decisions are based purely on who donates the most money.
His sudden shift on gay marriage this week proves it.
He changed his stance ahead of a $40,000 a plate fundraiser at the Beverly Hills home of movie star George Clooney where wealthy gay- and gay-oriented donors had threatened to withhold donations, according to a Washington Post blogger.
The Post also reported that one out of six of Obama's campaign bundlers are gay and, as Obama declared his support for gay marriage against his previous vague stances, it was their big money that was talking.
Now, on principle alone, it's a given that Obama has probably always favored gay marriage based on his far-left orientation. But his most loyal constituents — including African-American and Latino voters, along with the majority of the voting public — are dead-set against it. That would explain why he's always hemmed and hawed about the issue, effectively voting "present."
In coming out for gay marriage, Obama showed that something's even more important to him than voter sentiment — campaign donations.
This week's resounding vote against gay marriage in North Carolina, the state that will host the 2012 Democratic convention, would seem to be reason enough for a politician on the fence to support the voters. North Carolina's rejection of gay marriage is nothing special in itself — 32 gay marriage measures have been put on state ballots, and all have failed.
That Obama didn't heed this says a lot about how he governs. Whoever gives him the most cash gets his agenda through, no matter what the public thinks of it.
And this isn't the first time.
Polls show that two-thirds of the public favor building the Keystone XL pipeline to bring Canada's tar-sands oil to U.S. refineries, a move that would seal U.S. energy security for years and create 20,000 jobs.
Obama, who takes big money from environmental groups and wealthy activists in favor of the same, is willing to buck the public to please those donors.
The same holds with the so-called feminist agenda, supported by big-dollar donors in places like San Francisco. Obama's move to let taxpayers pay for birth control under ObamaCare was unpopular with the public.
When a showdown with the Catholic Church occurred over whether it should be forced to pay for it in violation of its religious principles, Obama refused to budge. To him, his wealthy donors' cash is more important than the size of the Catholic vote.
And don't forget Big Labor and its agenda.
Polls show the public detested the Card Check bill, Big Labor's effort to force unwilling workers into unions by ending their right to secret ballot. Obama supported the unions. Why? Big Labor gave $400 million to elect Democrats in 2008 and a similar amount in 2012. Only a poll-driven Congress stopped him.
In all instances for Obama, the campaign money trumped voter sentiment. That's how he rolls.
Is that democratic? Hardly. Instead of consent of the governed, Obama's decision making amounts to rule by plutocrats, whose desire prevails no matter how outrageous their agenda is to the voters.
It also suggests a cynical view of elections — that whoever has the most money necessarily wins, regardless of his political agenda.
And it represents open contempt for the voters — a certainty that they will vote for Obama no matter what distasteful decisions he makes. Interesting.
Whatever comes of his gay marriage stance, one thing is certain — this is how Obama governs: He who has the most money wins.
It's a tad ironic, given Obama's nonstop class-warfare stances supposedly in favor of the 99%. Actually, nobody is more devoted to the 1% than he is.