.

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.

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 »