The Economy is Only Cover for Obama’s Real Campaign

Bill Clinton was famous for claiming, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

At that time, the economy was far better than it is now, so one would expect this presidential race to be mainly a question about the economy. In many ways, Obama has made efforts to meet this expectation.

But at the second debate with Romney, Obama showed that he was trying to win votes on a different basis. He continued to talk about the economy, but his rhetoric was obviously aimed at a different set of issues.

When asked about equal pay for equal work for women, Obama decided to launch into an attack on Mitt Romney for proposing to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, and also for allowing that not all health insurance plans would cover free contraceptives. He couched this attack in economic terms, saying that the refusal to provide these “contraceptives” hit a woman in her pocket book. But it was obvious that Obama has decided that this election is about gaining power for the cultural Left. Obama is hoping people will vote for him because he supports abortion and wants to promote consequence-less sex among Americans.

The Left pretends this isn’t true, but the math is inescapable. A woman whose wages are reduced because her employer is forced to pay for contraceptives that she personally doesn’t want is just as much “hit in her pocketbook” as the woman who wants someone else to provide her with free contraceptives. The only reason for the government to demand that everyone be taxed to support the “free” provision of contraceptives is to make it easier for people to have sex rather than choosing not to have sex. The horny immature bed hopper is now the goal of Obama’s national “health care” policy.

This basic fact was obscured by the typical lies. Planned Parenthood provides mammograms. No, they don’t. Women rely on Planned Parenthood for basic health services. But non-abortion related health services are provided by many charitable organizations, including Roman Catholic hospitals. Planned Parenthood has preference among politicians, and gets funding, because they support a sexual Leftist agenda.

Despite all the economic pain the country is in, Obama has doubled down on “sexual liberation.” This is also seen in his flip-flop on homosexual marriage so that he could tell voters during this campaign that he now supports it. The talk about the economy is only cover.

Conservatives need to remind voters about what’s at stake. And they need to raise the question in voters’ minds: Why does Obama and the Left insist on making the choice to prevent children a matter of public policy? Put abortion and the right to life aside and just consider the meaning of fighting for publicly funded contraception. Why not let men and women make their own decisions about whether or not to have children? Why must the government step into that choice?

[js-disqus]