.

Obama’s Chick-Fil-A Problem

The chicken sandwich that ended a presidency.

Have you ever been around someone who takes a joke too far?  A comment is made that is inherently funny then gets bounced around by those that hear it producing even greater laughs.  Inevitably one person always takes that joke one step too far; maybe they add an off color comment or something that has been considered taboo.  At that point, the laughing stops and period of awkwardness sets in until one brave soul is willing to change the subject.  Obama has reached that same awkward point in his administration and it's time to change the subject. 

In 2008, when he stormed the country with his idea of Hope and Change, the fun and joy found in his rhetoric was blindly followed by large sections of the American people.  It was bounced back and forth between Democrats and news reporters exending their sense joy in the election of 2008.  (We all remember Chris Matthew’s leg tingle or Nancy Pelosi saying "Nobody can out debate him or out statistic him on this information” in a weird moment of borderline worship.)

However, the fun stopped when Obama began defining Hope and Change within a socialist agenda.  The awkwardness set it when he attacked the successful by assuming the government is responsible for their success.  He took the ideas he ran in 2008 and pushed them beyond the level of acceptance the American people could handle.

Many articles are currently being written about the different groups that were once Obama supporters and are now beginning to turn away from him.  Numerous polls show he is losing some of the black vote, much of the youth vote, the disenchanted liberal base and earlier this year there was an editorial written about Obama not pursuing the middle class white vote.  However, I think the biggest problem he faces has nothing to do with a specific group, but the sensibilities of the American people as a whole.

On Tuesday, Chick-Fil-A had one of its best business days ever.  Reports came in from around the country of restaurants flooded with customers and lines extending for as long as two hours.  In those lines were people from all walks of life and covered the spectrum of American political and cultural beliefs.  People knowingly stood in line even when they were told that the store would close prior to Chick-Fil-A’s ability to serve them.

This entire display of support was sparked by the comments of the CEO, Dan Cathy, of Chick-Fil-A establishing that they were a .  This lead to the reaction of government officials attempting to punish the company for the 1st amendment protected views of the CEO and an outcry within the LGBT community demanding that action be taken against Chick-Fil-A as some sort of civil rights violation.  This comes on the heels of what many are calling Obama’s evolution on the topic of gay marriage as he turns against the majority opinion of the country in order to gain the support of his base.

However, the lines at Chick-Fil-A were not filled with only white middle class men bent on bigotry; rather, a cross section of Americans that represented more than just a stand on traditional marriage.  Included in these lines were people angered by a powerful government attempting to intimidate American business, people fed up with being told by the minority the politically correct way to think and people applying this to Obama’s own comments on success coming from the government.

The problem here is the President and other government officials standing agianst the beliefs within the Chick-Fil-A controversy are positioning themsleves against a much larger portion of United States.  The minority was not in line at Chick-Fil-A on Tuesday, currently the minority is within the Obama adminstration and his supporters.  

This reaction to a fast food company does not bode well for Obama’s chances in November.  The average US citizen is beginning to fight against what liberals assumed was the proper stance for America.  What liberals fail to see (or actively deny) is that the United States is a country where traditional marriage,  the freedom to be successful and most importantly a belief in our own exceptionalism dominates the thoughts and actions of its people.

In essence, Obama's defintion of Hope and Change has been what has brought the conversation of Hope and Change to a screeching halt.  The actions in favor of Chick-Fil-A are a warning that November is the time for the American people to end this awkwardness by changing the subject away from socialism and ending the bad joke of the Obama administration.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

The Anti-Alinsky August 05, 2012 at 05:57 AM
Bren, that's the sad part. Jason is trying to be funny, and JB is still doing it better. $$andNonsense, what are you babbling about with the turtle. If you are going to attempt a comedic tie-in at least have it make sense. And aren't you the pot calling the kettle black? I seriously doubt $$ is your first name.
The Anti-Alinsky August 05, 2012 at 05:59 AM
@Hoffa, $$andNonsense just is not happy with anybody. I bet he chases Girl Scouts off his porch with his cane when cookie time rolls around.
The Anti-Alinsky August 05, 2012 at 06:02 AM
Wow, $$andNonsense liked something. Good going JB, you have performed a small miracle.
AWD August 05, 2012 at 06:33 AM
Finally the America Patriots coming forward unafraid to loudly and peacefully voice their beliefs and opinions. For decades, if not generations, a tiny, loud group of out-of-the-mainstream anti-American Progressives have shouted and bullied their way into press coverage. Conservatives have been cowed into silence, lest we offend the ever-offended and always-offensive! American Patriots now seem to have realized the stupidity of keeping their mouths shut while the Progressive minority rams their beliefs down our throats. We Patriots are finally making a stand, we will not allow the Progressives to hold political correctness over our heads.
Bren August 05, 2012 at 08:52 AM
Mr. Wilson, you are having an extraordinary experience, the memories of a lifetime! And to follow up with Paris as well. Amazing. I've stayed in St. Maurice (southern suburb) and in the Latin Quarter off the Boulevard St. Michel near the Cathedral Notre Dame. The great market is Clignacourt (Marché aux Puces St-Ouen de Clignancourt). I hope you will have time to stroll the Champs-Élysées from the Place de la Concorde to the Arc de Triomphe, and also the Latin Quarter. The river boat tour is also fantastic (just thinking about it makes me long to return!). I hope you will also have a chance to do some people-watching at an outdoor cafe while enjoying an espresso!
Bren August 05, 2012 at 09:01 AM
I'm an American patriot. My Revolutionary War ancestors were on the side of the guys throwing the original Boston Tea Party. They would have called today's Tea/GOP Kings Men or Tories. There was nothing quiet about the launch of the Tea Party, AWD. The Koch brothers and Tea Party Express bused 48 people around the country with blanketed press coverage on Fox. All we hear about in the media is revisionist history (still haven't forgiven Sarah Palin for mucking up the story of my ancestor's midnight ride!), anti-government rhetoric (sedition) and pills between the knees (neo-Puritanism). For being cowed, "conservatives" seem to bellow more like angry bulls than suffer in silence. My ancestors were considered traitors by the Crown and the Kings Men because they had progressive ideas about a republic free of tyranny. I rather like how their ideas worked out!
Keith Schmitz August 05, 2012 at 12:47 PM
On the head Bren. These people pervert history and economics. They would have done everything possible to trip up the founding fathers, because the revolt would have threatened their sense of security.
Dirk Gutzmiller August 05, 2012 at 02:09 PM
Interesting question, which side in the Revolutionary War would the modern day ultraconservative take. The people who love to tout sales tax laws as a way to do away with property taxes or income taxes are definitely following in the footsteps of Great Britain in the colonies. After all, a sales tax is pretty much what the duties that kicked off the American Revolution were. You place a tax on a product to generate revenue for the state so that it can do things like - keep up military spending. Today, the people who call for flat taxes advocate disproportionately hitting hitting the poor and middle class with the same economic disparity as Parliament proposed in the 1760's and 1770's with high taxes on tea and other everyman products of the day. Do you take great pride in the military might of the country? ? Does the power to reach into nearly every corner of the world (Empire) with our military muscle fill you with joy? Do you see no problem with a disproportionate degree of our debt going to pay for costly wars or weapons? The preceding are just a couple of examples of Loyalist principles. There are more, but let's face it. Most of the people today who consider themselves most "patriotic" would have been truly patriotic in 1775 too. By truly patriotic I mean they would have been loyal to king and country and opposed the rabble who were agitating and stirring up trouble for businesses and companies, like the recent Occupy movements, "kiss-ins", etc.
AWD August 05, 2012 at 03:06 PM
@Dirk, would modern day Tea Party Patriots have been loyal to the British? Stone the crows Man! What are you talking about? In some ways, the situation in the British Empire before the American Revolution resembles what is going on in the United States today. On one side we have the Tea Party Patriots and on the other the Progressive Obama radicals (British) and they have extended their power far beyond constitutional limits. Let me remind you we Tea Party Patriots have been the victims of non-stop verbal attacks—especially considering that unlike the Occupy Movement we Tea Party Patriots have been almost uniformly peaceful and law-abiding. I guess we could take pride in the fact that the Patriots who stood up for freedom before the American Revolution were rewarded with the same kind of mindless abuse as we receive today. Just as in the past we Tea Party Patriots are fighting against corrupt central government. It was London then, Washington D.C. today. The Tories called colonial American Patriots zealots, criminals, violent people and said they hated the country. Sound familiar? Nowadays its the Congressional Black Caucus, President Obama and the radical Progressives using those same terms to describe the Tea Party.
James R Hoffa August 05, 2012 at 03:41 PM
I'll save McBride the trouble of doing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTJj4wbmAhk
Dirk Gutzmiller August 05, 2012 at 03:52 PM
AWD - What powers has the American government extended far beyond its Constitutional limits today? The Loyalists in the Revolutionary War were also attacked by American Patriots for their ultra-conservative stand on being British patriots. "Mindless abuse" received by the modern day Tea Party? You mean when someone just disagrees with your views, and you want them to be forced to stop? King George had the same reactionary feelings about rebellious Colonialists. Isn't the "corrupt central government" partly Republican, or even mostly, as with the House of Representatives and the Supreme Ct.? The most corruption seems to be with corporate lobbyists and rich people buying elections, things you advocate. Just because a group like the Tea Party is criticized does not make it the same as the American Patriots during the Revollutionary War. That same logic would mean anyone grossly criticised is an American Patriot, like Obama and Democrats. Not sure when Obama sor Black Caucus said the Tea Party were "criminals, violent people, and they hated the country." Quotes? I do not expect AWD to have a broad historical perspective to understand that the Tea Party today is not the Tea Party of Revolutionary America. What do your outbursts about the modern day Tea Party being "uniformly peaceful and law-abiding" have to do with the original Tea Party and revolutionary America. They were not peaceful and law-abiding, but the Loyalists generally were.
Bren August 05, 2012 at 04:24 PM
AWD, the tyranny of the Crown a bit more extreme than the 1%'s stranglehold on our economy, but much in the same vein. The Crown could force you to billet the soldiers and mercenaries who were brought in to suppress the growing unrest. The Colonials struggled against a leader who saw their labors and the resources of the land as cash cows to be exploited. The King's Men were afraid of change, of retribution, because there will always be people of little imagination or courage among us; people who need obvious, strong father/authority leadership because their brains are literal-minded, incapable of fathoming abstract concepts or shades of complexity. Instinctively they follow the loudest, most insistent voice without considering where that path leads. (It is excellent GOP strategy in building up candidates as father-figures, "strong leaders." That's why so many left-brain types struggle with the slogan "Hope and Change," because it is an invitation to consider what's possible [abstract] rather than being instructed in what is or what shall be [obvious]. Also why the Christian concept of Jesus as a "Shepherd" leading flocks has gained more of a foothold than the immeasurable/magnificent concept of "I am what I am.")
Bren August 05, 2012 at 04:27 PM
Nuitari, if this isn't a racist statement, why the comment about eating chicken? Looking forward to your reply,
Steve ® August 06, 2012 at 03:17 PM
Love the revisions to the picture Hoffa!
J. B. Schmidt August 06, 2012 at 03:21 PM
Reading this thread only proves my point. According to every liberal on this page, it is wrong for me to hold a view contrary to the liberal one. Of course after I have been belittled with insults of ignorance, stupidity or bigotry; they smugly sigh that I have a constitutional right to believe it (as if depressed that the right exists). This ideal of politically correct 'good speak' or even 'good thought' that the liberals have thrust on this country is what the country is rebelling against. For years they have attacked Republicans/conservatives for their spoken beliefs while their own supporters (Alec Baldwin/Bill Maher) cast disgusting rants against women with no repercussions. Now we have elevated that 'good speak' to be the determining factor in how business can operate. People are tired of being told who to think and speak. Since Obama is the liberal god of choice, he will be held responsible in November. @John Wilson (who is at the Olympics) The legislators that passed SSM legislation were elected, hence 30 states did vote. Better yet, Prop 8. @Keith Schmitz If a president nationalizes a car company, a health care system and believes that success is the product of the nation; it is a socialist agenda. PS - Thank to those who defended me against the intolerant responses of the tolerant liberals.
J. B. Schmidt August 06, 2012 at 04:07 PM
@Dirk Read the declaration of independence. Many of the problems listed within that document are the same objections that the Tea Party is raising. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States." Including such things not passing a budget in three years, even with control of the congress. Passing a healthcare that public doesn't support and with zero transparency. The law included the addition of thousands IRS agents to probe into America lives. EO's that have cancelled out immigration laws that are in place via elected officials. The creation of countless czars that have the abilities only granted to elected officials. Putting political pressure on judges that could effect the outcome of cases. A justice department that preventing states from enacting Voter ID laws approved the Supreme Court. A Justice department not prosecuting voter intimidation. Need I say more.
J. B. Schmidt August 06, 2012 at 04:13 PM
@Bren "My ancestors were considered traitors by the Crown and the Kings Men because they had progressive ideas about a republic free of tyranny." Funny, sounds exactly like the Tea Party of today as the challenge Obama and the democratic party (ie Crown and kings men). Weren't the founders of our countries considered filled with anti-government rhetoric (sedition)? The same labels that you are placing on the Tea Party. You might be on the opposite side of your ancestors.
Dirk Gutzmiller August 07, 2012 at 02:11 AM
Schmidt - Your snivelings certainly do not rise to the level of revolution against a despotic monarchy across the ocean. You are now an American, for better or worse. When things are not going well economically, or we plain do not like the President, should we take up arms and fight against the "oppressors". Your response seems way, way overblown that you are some poor, misunderstood, unrepresented subject of a tyrannical regime. There are elections now, and the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, and a great national history. And the government you abhor is actually composed of your own party, often in the majority. You seem to propose an overthrow of our current government, when there are democratic alternatives within our system, specifically designed to give you and your values voice and appropriate power. Yet, frankly, your goal, by comparing your grievances to those of the American revolutionaries, seems to be treasonous. In other words, you feel the system has failed because the Tea Party is not getting its way, and extreme measures must be taken, similar to the war with Britain to our freedom as Americans. Your comments are really over the top and overreaching. The Tea Party is not patriotic just by comparing itself to 1776. It is just another disgruntled minority within a magnificent system, if not perfect. How dare you compare your Party's percieved slights to our Nation's founding. How pompous.
Dirk Gutzmiller August 07, 2012 at 02:36 AM
This blog was like Chick-fil-A chicken nuggets: A substance with questionable and unsavory composition, but supposedly consisting of a chicken, and nuggets, in this case, nuggets of wisdom from the progressive commenters.
John Wilson August 07, 2012 at 04:30 AM
JB (1) [From the London Olympics] I think it is morally wrong to hold and espouse beliefs that have their genesis in prejudice, hatred, bigotry, and ignorance that deny fellow human beings their full basic rights and dignity, particularily when they are based upon a book that began some 1500BC, had over 40 authors, some anonymous, some lost, but all “divinely inspired.” In America, we enshrine these people and their beliefs in religious institutions (real businesses that contribute no taxes to the Republic and only offer pernicious, retched hate dogma to our citizens) Social change is always excruciatingly slow in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – primarily due to the male-dominated, Christian, conservative, primordial mindset… BLACK MALES got the right to vote [15th Amendment] in 1870. WOMEN finally got the right to vote – 50 years later – [19th Amendment] in 1920. There are major differences between having a state legislature create a law – often at their own peril from the rapacious religious right – having the governor sign it into law – also at peril from the same group, and having a POPULAR VOTE – such as the forthcoming referendums in Maryland, Maine, Washington and Minnesota on November 6, 2012. My post was CLEARLY directed to the asinine assertion that “31 states, by POPULAR VOTE, rejected SSM.” It is apparent that you simply do not understand that major difference...
J. B. Schmidt August 07, 2012 at 04:31 AM
@Dirk Not unlike the other liberals here on patch and country wide, you are unable to argue a point without inserting false accusations in order to prop up your already weak stance. Please find for me any quote I used that would suggest I was in favor of "overthrow of our current government" by not using "democratic alternatives within our system". Also, please find within this blog or any other blog which I was suggesting "we take up arms and fight". Were the Founders upset with the system or the tyrannical rule of the king? As you would understand by reading, they were upset with the abuses of the king under the British system. If you could read, you would understand that I am not against the system, but rather the abuses of the president against the system. The Tea Party is the same way, it loves the system but hates those currently in charge of its destruction. Unlike the occupy movement, the Tea Party is not built on anarchy. I love the Bill of Rights, let see how the liberals feel. 1st amendment - Libs introduced the Fairness Act to restricted speech. 2nd amendment - Which party is anti-gun, mine or yours? 4th amendment - Obama in favor of drones spying on US citizens. Then we could go on to the republican passage of the 14th, but my point is proven before we get that far. Lastly, no Tea Party has come against all taxation; reduced, yes. Rather, they are anti-spending. Please make note of that difference, you look foolish otherwise.
John Wilson August 07, 2012 at 04:33 AM
JB (2) [From the London Olympics] The fights in the four states will be taking place against the backdrop of Supreme Court challenges to DOMA – a law that presents severe complications to state-based laws. There will also be the challenge to California's Proposition 8. [Passed by 504,479 out of 10,271,399 votes on November 5, 2008] A response to the petition from the Supreme Court to review Prop 8 is due August 31, 2012… The trajectory of the Pro-SSM curve is clearly against the Pre-Neanderthals… Further, the only real objection to SSM is a religious one – find a true SSM opponent who does not also believe SSM is SINFUL, according to their religion – which is an entirely inappropriate basis for laws in a free society… Moreover, most bans were passed when opposition to SSM was much stronger, and SSM opponents had targeted constitutional amendments for votes in states where support for SSM was weakest. Ever feel like an analog watch in a digital age?
J. B. Schmidt August 07, 2012 at 05:19 AM
@John Wilson [Insert flaunt of choice here] You started out your 2-post rant with "I think". That is great, I am happy that you are able to have your views. The rest of your rant attempted to tell my that I cannot have mine and if mine doesn't line up with yours then you " find a true SSM opponent who does not also believe SSM is SINFUL". That is very tolerant of you. You obviously believe the freedoms of this country. In past blog posts I have stated very plainly that the destruction of marriage and the nuclear family as traditionally known has lead to server problems in the social dynamic of this country whether you are religious or not. We have already accepted this idea of living together outside of marriage as the norm and it has caused considerable pain the younger generation and their offspring, again whether you are religious or not. To further reduce the role of a nuclear family by way of traditional marriage through legislation that opens the doors to marriage with any sex or species (please explain why a man can love a man, but a man can't love a dog), it will only cause greater issues for our culture, whether you are religious or not. Isn't the biggest problem of the inner city, dysfunctional families built around lack of partner stability(ie successful marriage)? Wouldn't propping up that institution help the inner city? Does allowing free-range marriage make people think of it as worth while or Vegas style?
J. B. Schmidt August 07, 2012 at 05:19 AM
@John Wilson (cont) [Insert boastful statement here] Please point out the ‘right’ marriage the United States offers. If I am not correct marriage as a contract of law is a privilege. There is no inherent ‘right’ to marriage. You are arguing strictly from an emotional stance. Not unlike the gay movement. The younger crowd stands for it, not because they have evolved in understanding and wisdom, but because they use their emotions to drive decisions. If the support is so great, why did like 100 people turn out nation wide for the “kiss in”? I also wasn’t aware that a piece of legislation needed a certain number of votes above 50% in order to be considered valid. How many votes did prop 8 need to be valid? You can continue to call me names. You can continue to assume that gay legislation must go to popular vote to be valid and you can continue to believe that it is either liberal way or nothing because of your immense wisdom. My point stands, the US public is tired of the liberals creating different rights and limitations never mentioned in the constitution and November will prove me right.
Dirk Gutzmiller August 07, 2012 at 04:43 PM
Schmidt - Of course you are not stating expressly that the Tea Party should revolt violently against the evil American President. You're too cautious and vague for that. But direct quotes are not necessary, courts have convicted on circumstantial and inferential evidence for centuries. We have a bunch of Tea Party members stockpiling weapons and ammunition and bloggers comparing their Tea Party grievances to the Colonists case against the King in declaring their independence from that government ruling America at the time. The Revolutionary War was actually more a civil war, with citizens rebelling against their rulers, and the nation split into pro-British and rebel contingents. We have bloggers right here on Patch believing citizens should have equal access to any type of heavy weaponry the government chooses to have in its arsenal. We really are becoming knee-deep in gunpowder, and bloggers and commenters stiking flint to steel. And if people are not affected by bloggers and commenters, then what is everyone doing on Patch, talking to themselves?
Bob McBride August 07, 2012 at 04:51 PM
And if people are not affected by bloggers and commenters, then what is everyone doing on Patch, talking to themselves? ***************** Pretty much.
J. B. Schmidt August 07, 2012 at 04:52 PM
@Dirk Again nothing but accusations based on zero facts. You addressed nothing I asked and instead continued on with your fear mongering and hate. Only proving my statement I made that you are unable to argue your point based on the facts at hand. I understand your position though. Liberals must lie to themselves in order to accept their own political stance.
James R Hoffa August 07, 2012 at 05:01 PM
@Dirk - Most of the commentators here are advocating for a revolution, or change, via the exorcizing of one's right to vote in the upcoming elections. You can assume and infer whatever you wish, but it only ends up making you look like the ass in the end! Good day!
John Wilson August 08, 2012 at 05:21 AM
JB [From the London Olympics] You do not have the right to have your convoluted, mind-numbing, and biased verbiage go unquestioned and unchallenged… [Rafalca – an annual $77,000 tax deduction – finished 28th today, well out of contention for anything… just like Robme on November 6th] Marriage is, indeed, both a social and a legal contract between (2) human beings, recognized by the state as being capable of VOLUNTARILY entering into a legal contract; given that, it is somewhat dubious, if not psychotic [aka: Rick Santorum] that your pet gerbil would ever be seen by the state, as being capable of entering into a voluntary contract, much less a marriage contract. Consequently, your moot argument (bestiality diversion) – where hate-mongering, religious, conservatives always go to stir the emotional pot – is dead. Further, you will not find many of the rights that we enjoy today explicitly enumerated in our 4-page Constitution , as many of our rights are, what the Supremes call “implicit” rights. The Supreme Court has historically ruled that marriage is a civil right Loving v. Virginia, (1967-unanamous vote); the Constitution guarantees that right, at least, under the “equal protection clause” and under the “due process clause.” November 6 will give us a president; it will not resolve the SSM issue: the Supreme Court will. I somehow feel confident that YOU thought the Supremes would find the PPACA unconstitutional too…
J. B. Schmidt August 08, 2012 at 01:37 PM
@John Wilson You however are not challenging my thought you are insulting me and my beliefs as being sub-human in an attempt to shut me up with out having to prove your point. The Supreme Court also said in Maynard v. Hill that "Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature." Also, the judges of the 1960's wrote Loving v. Virginia to stop states from banning interracial marriage and I can easily assume that those men had no intention of also including gay marriage in their judgement. I enjoy how took up the animal rights argument. By blowing it off only shows your complete inability to make a logical argument. Our history is full of things that weren't acceptable and now are (ie homosexuality); yet, all of a sudden animal rights are completely impossible. Why? A judge in Cali just took a case for animal rights, PETA v. Sea World. While the judge ruled in favor of Sea World, the fact that it was heard is a start for animal rights. Just like how all other unacceptable issues move their way through our courts. They just need a willing judge. Yet, you ignored the rest, most likely because you have no ability to defend the social aspect of the destruction of marriage and nuclear family. Did you believe the Supreme Court was all-knowing and wise when they ruled that corporations were people?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »