The Democrats' last gasp

The midterm elections are just around the corner. A lot is riding on November 6. The Republicans are hoping to strengthen the Trump agenda. By the Democrats’ own admission, this may be their last gasp at power. Why? Because the prosperity under President Trump is undeniable. That’s evident by the ads being run by Democrat candidates. They don’t put forth any bold ideas. They’re running on fear. Historically, that hasn’t been a wise bet.

We are living in a time of nearly unparalleled prosperity. Unemployment is at a 50-year low. Black and Hispanic unemployment are at historic lows. Unemployment for women hasn’t been this low in 65 years. The tax cuts mean more jobs, more money in the pockets of taxpayers, and an economy that’s on fire. If the Democrats aren’t able to take back the House or the Senate or both and slow down Trump’s agenda there’s no telling how good the economy will be next year. If the economy remains on fire into 2020 it’s doubtful the American people are going to be pushing for change in the White House.

The Democrats need to turn 23 seats in the House to take control of Congress. That’s a hernia-inducing lift by anybody’s calculation. The so-called pundits have picked ten bellwether seats that could portend the results of the election in November. One of them is the eighth congressional district in Minnesota. This is a union-heavy district that has gone to the Democrats all but two years since World War II. At the end of September the Democrat, Joe Radinovich, was leading by one point. In the latest poll conducted by the New York Times, the Republican, Pete Stauber, is up by 16 points! It’s funny, the so-called experts are no longer calling this a bellwether district.

I understand that MN-8 is just one congressional district, but does it give us a peek into November? That question is easier answered by understanding what’s happened in that district since the end of September. Two things: Kavanaugh and tariffs. These were two issues the Democrats were sure they could win with. The Kavanaugh plan was to ambush him with spurious accusations on the eve of the confirmation vote. We all saw how that played out. The Democrats unwittingly handed the Republicans a club with which to beat them about the head and shoulders.

Tariffs were supposed to be the other easy mark for the Democrats. After all, the Republicans are so big on free trade yet they advocate punishing our trading partners with a tax on American consumers. That was supposed to be the narrative. Then came the soybean issue. The Democrats were certain Trump had stepped in it, and the Republicans right behind him, when the EU slapped a tariff on soybeans in retaliation for Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs. The Dems put all their soybeans in one basket and Trump kicked it over. After a general freak-out over soybeans and the European Union, Trump threatened to tariff cars coming from the EU. One can only imagine that Germany, which leads the EU in automobile exports, screamed at the European Commission to do something. Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker was on the first flight to Washington and the next morning was standing beside President Trump in the Rose Garden to announce an agreement to work toward zero tariffs on soybeans.

Voters in districts like MN-8 are loving it. The Dems have underestimated Trump just like they did in 2016. If MN-8 is typical, November 6 could be rough day for the Democrats.

Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, The Phil Valentine Show.

A lesson in tolerance

Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson was the Associated Press Offensive Player of the Year last year in the NFL.  This year he may once again be the NFL’s offensive player but not in the way he intended.  In the ever-growing politically correct climate of professional sports Peterson’s views on gay marriage are being deemed offensive.

The Vikings recently cut punter Chris Kluwe who has been an outspoken supporter of gay marriage which becomes legal in Minnesota on August 1.  Peterson told Sirius XM NFL radio, “I have relatives who are gay.  I’m not biased towards them.  I still treat them the same.  I love ‘em.  But again, I’m not with that.  That’s not something I believe in.”

Peterson was excoriated on Twitter.  One Tweeter wrote, “It’s called equality, bro.  Get with it.”  Another wrote that Peterson was “less demi-god and more semi-troglodyte.”  JustZoe wrote, “He should’ve kept the anti-gay opinions to himself.”  As I’ve often said, the left is always about diversity except for diversity of thought.

They love to make gay marriage into an equality issue.  You’ve seen the equal signs on the backs of cars and posted on Facebook.  It’s as if to say that if you support traditional marriage then you’re somehow treating people unfairly.

Let’s take a look at the restrictions already on marriage.  You can’t get married until you reach a certain age.  Does that mean anyone supporting traditional marriage is engaging in ageism?  (And, yes, that’s actually a word)  There’s a prohibition in every state against brothers and sisters marrying, against having more than one spouse, against marrying your father or your mother.  Does that make those who want to break those rules victims of discrimination?

I know, there I go using logic again.  The simple fact is you don’t see these same gay marriage proponents standing up for polygamists and sibling marriage even though a case can be made that they’re just as much in love as two men could be.

It’s time we had a frank discussion.  It’s easy to think of the gay issue in terms of wonderful, caring neighbors or a co-worker who does such an exemplary job but that’s not being gay.  Being gay is two men having sex.  Let that image sink in for a moment.  That’s not an image that sits well with most people.  If you just cringed when you read those words you’re not a homophobe, you’re not a bigot or someone who hates.  You’re a completely normal heterosexual and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with you.

Heterosexuals have a natural aversion to gay sex.  If you don’t then you’re either bisexual or gay.  Our culture today is brainwashing us into believing that if we don’t completely embrace homosexuality on the same level as heterosexuality that we’re somehow evil people.  We’re not.  There’s a huge difference between tolerance and acceptance.  I tolerate all sorts of things I don’t believe in because we live in a free country.  That doesn’t mean I have to accept everything as being just fine.

That’s not to say that we don’t love people who are gay.  When I learn someone is gay it doesn’t change my love or admiration for them.  But it also doesn’t mean that just because I love them I have to love what they do.  That’s the distinction that needs to be made.

If I’m to accept that you’re a person of worth even though you’re gay then you should be willing to accept that I’m a person of worth even though I don’t believe your marriage should be legally recognized.  Tolerance is a two-way street.