Allow me to preface this deeply conspiratorial post by saying that, across the board, I do not believe in conspiracy theories. There are no conspiracy theories, only conspiracy facts. By definition, any plot to affect some outcome executed by a cabal of plotters must come to light by one of two ways – either the plot is successful and the theory become fact, or the plot fails and the theory becomes fact. Either way, there are no conspiracy theories. With all that having been said, allow me to irresponsibly advance one:
Actually, I’m merely adding onto a dog pile started by William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection; his piece asks an uncomfortable question about a January 7 Republican debate hosted by ABC News in which George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney repeatedly (which was curious to all viewers at the time) about state’s hypothetical right to ban contraception methods.
“There was no active controversy over contraception, it wasn’t in the news, and there were far more pressing political issues, yet what seemed like an eternity of debate time was devoted to the subject at the insistence of Stephanopoulos,” writes Jacobsen.
“Well what do you know, about a month later the Obama administration proposes administrative rules under Obamacare which would require free contraception be provided even by religious institutions which oppose contraception on religious grounds,” Jacobsen concludes. “It’s almost as if Stephanopoulos got the memo first. Unless, of course, you believe in coincidences.”
I, for one, absolutely do. However, as all conspiracy theorists worth their salt are wont to do, I must ask just who this move by the White House to force the implementation of this particular provision of the health care reform bill now in the midst of a heated Republican primary ahead of a difficult reelection bid. And the beneficiary is, undoubtedly, the White House.
Immediately after Rick Santorum’s victories in the February 7 caucuses (and Missouri’s nonbinding primary), I wrote that there was something fishy about the timing of this burst of social issues that galvanized social conservatives behind Santorum at a critical time in the primary.
“A December poll of Iowa’s voters, a deeply socially conservative state, showed that 9 percent of likely caucus-goers viewed “social issues” as a top issue for 2012. This lack of traction among social conservatives contributed to Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s failure to win support among Iowa’s values voters (recall the anti-gay marriage, “war on religion” spots that inspired more derision than support). The persistent recession and chronic joblessness across America simply outweighed social concerns – that is, until this past week.”
“…Social conservatives may have good reason to feel overwhelmed by this deluge of bad news. They have good reason to get up and vote, and there is one champion for those issues in this race. Santorum’s socially conservative views were an albatross not two weeks ago; social conservatives disheartened and focused on other priorities while moderates were driven away by his policy positions on cultural matters. Today, virtually overnight, the calculation has been turned on its head and they may be an asset.”
Polling has proven that Republicans have the upper hand with America’s critical “true independent” voters on economic issues but lose that advantage with independents on social wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion.
Why wouldn’t the White House and Obama’s Chicago team want to advance these wedge issues?
Of course, that’s just a conspiracy theory. And I don’t believe in those. The White House must just be very, very lucky.
---
Want to connect with other PoliticOlogists? Continue the conversation on My Ology
Follow Noah Rothman @Noah_C_Rothman
Join today! Ology is where thousands of people share their interests and passions with each other.
Spam Here Not sure where to post that? Spam here, reologize later!
This Makes Me Happy... Post anything that makes you happy. Go!
MusicOlogy A place to gab about all things music.
CelebNews! For all the latest news on YOUR favourite celebrities!
(1)
Comments
Don't worry, we'll never be evil with your information
-or-