Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

From the Right: Voting for Obama too great a mistake to make


Published: Friday, November 2, 2012

Updated: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 15:02


The American university campus sits in the American subconscious as a place where young adults are supposed to make mistakes, try new things, and find themselves (whatever that means). Indeed, the American university is a place where underage drinking, sexual promiscuity, illicit drug use and public intoxication are so common that criticism of these practices has become passé. And yet, there’s one mistake that college students make again and again which is far more self-detrimental than trying marijuana: voting for shyster liberal politicians on the basis of frivolous social issues.

 In the early months of this year, the Obama campaign and their small band of pathetic true believers attempted to swindle the youth vote for a second time using the rhetoric of hope and change. Unfortunately, 18 -25-year-olds just weren’t buying it … even after the campaign got cardboard cutouts of Barack and Michelle Obama! With one in every two recent college graduates unemployed and one in every four young adults moving back in with their parents, the idea that President Obama had kept his promise to the young supporters who put him in office was a pill too big for most college students to pop. Yes, it’s true that most college students don’t have a comprehensive understating of economics, but we know bad fiscal policy when we feel it.

 President Obama’s ministry of public enlightenment has now resorted to the politics of fear. The president’s agenda for the next four years can be best summarized as, “let’s give it another go and see how it turns out.” So, naturally, the only way to retain his fleeing base is to frighten them into voting for him. Women: “Romney wants to take away abortion!” Gays: “Romney is a homophobe!” College Students: “Romney wants to take away financial aid!” The discourse of today’s Democratic Party might best be summarized as a series of scare tactics designed to keep their voters in line.

 On the issue of abortion, the Obama campaign is constantly touting a fabricated war on women. Roe v. Wade, the average Obama voter seems to think, will be the first thing Romney “overturns” when he gets into office. Let’s ignore Civics 101, which would dictate that only the Supreme Court can overturn Roe v. Wade and that the most Romney could do is appoint justices who would be more sympathetic to seeing it overturned (no one seems to be interested in the fact that abortion would not be illegal even if the court did overturn Roe v. Wade, since it would then be a matter for the states to decide).

What Romney has said is that he wants to see Planned Parenthood defunded. This is a small price to pay for an organization which has repeatedly covered up incidents of sexual abuse and statutory rape while bullying a nonprofit cancer foundation for funding (see Susan G. Komen controversy). I think Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger put it best when she said, “Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” Oops, wrong quote!

Sorry President Obama, being against taxpayer-funded contraception is a little different than being “anti-choice” or “anti-women.” You know what issue I think women would really be interested in talking about? Why, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of women out of work has increased by 15 percent since you took office … must be Bush’s fault.

As for the gays, I can tell you from firsthand experience that gays have a tendency to make everything about them. That’s why we now have a group of gay and lesbian Obama supporters attempting to guilt their heterosexual friends into voting for the president because, you know, Romney would make them second-class citizens! Yeah, okay. So Obama has a “sincere” (which I am beginning to think is a liberal code word for “politically convenient”) conversion on the issue of gay marriage in May and now anyone who votes for Romney is endorsing the mass exile of all homosexuals to Siberia?  In what world does that work?

Sorry President Obama, the economy is bad for gays and lesbians too. Who among us would not prefer nice china at his commitment ceremony? I don’t mean to be flippant on this matter, but it is difficult for me to believe that the disproportionately successful and well-educated members of the gay community do not see the president’s “evolution” for what it is: shameless political pandering.

Finally, I keep hearing all these College Democrats talk about how inspiring the president is because, you know, we owe him so much for making more financial aid available for students. They’re right in one sense; President Obama has increased Pell Grants. For evidence of this, consider the fact that the average cost of tuition has increased by 25 percent since he took office.

You see, when the government subsidizes college education, the cost of tuition increases. Higher education is a bubble and when it pops, it will all depend upon how much the government is willing to pump into it and for how long. I won’t digress into how this contributes to the national debt.

To put it simply, if you are a college student today, the most important issue in this election should be the economy. If Mitt Romney is elected president on Tuesday, abortion will still be legal (Romney can’t do anything to change that and there will be resistance from within his own party if he ever does). Likewise, gay marriage will continue to become law state by state (Mitt Romney may be for traditional marriage, but he’s for federalism first). If these things sound good to you and you would like to have a job when you graduate, the choice is clear.


Nick Mignanelli is a senior political science major and a former intern at the Heritage Foundation. 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you


Sun Nov 18 2012 13:27
I voted for Mitt Romney. I am a Republican. I believe re-electing Obama is a big mistake. But I strongly disagree with the tone of this piece and find it disgusting. It was clearly written out of frustration and not intelligence. I, like many Republicans, were very frustrated with Barack's inevitable re-election. No need to take it out on gay people and liberals. As an alumnus of the University and the political science department, I know that you did not learn such ignorance in the classrooms of UNH. You are everything that is wrong with the Republican Party. Narrow mindedness will not help conservatives win elections. It will not encourage young people to join our party. You simply cannot paint gays or liberals with such a broad brush. I agree with many of the points you made. However, I find your tone to be condescending and arrogant. Reasons why the Democrats are in power and will be until the Republicans begin to speak to the people and not just talk at them.
Tue Nov 13 2012 10:06
for once I actually agree with something you said. not all of it but its a start.
Mon Nov 12 2012 17:51
As for the gays, I can tell you from firsthand experience that gays have a tendency to make everything about them.

If I were an employer and Googled your name and found this quote, I couldnt dismiss you faster. I see you are a political science major. In any point of your studies did they teach you to paint with broad brush and stereotype people?

I'm saddened to think I share my campus with you

Thu Nov 8 2012 23:08
" In the early months of this year, the Obama campaign and their small band of pathetic true believers..." My God. Don't you have anyhting better to do with your time than be a hater? Do not insult people just becuase they do not aggree with you. The only pathetic thing here is your article. It should have been titled: Reading this article is too great a mistake to make.
Mon Nov 5 2012 11:41
Yea but those College Democrats chalk better than you lol
Charlie MacCall
Sun Nov 4 2012 14:54
"As for the gays, I can tell you from firsthand experience that gays have a tendency to make everything about them."

What kind of point is this? Do you mean to say that every gay person wants to make "everything about them"? I get annoyed with the pity campaign too and find it over dramatic but who are you to define an entire group of people like this? If you had used this argument and inserted the word "women" instead of "gays" for your section discussing abortion rights, do you think that would be an acceptable argument? The only "firsthand experience" one should have in this issue would be if you were gay yourself, and if so, why should we trust anything that you say? Wouldn't you then be saying all of this because you only care about you?

Sun Nov 4 2012 13:46
Have you ever watched anything other than Fox New? My god ....
Sun Nov 4 2012 13:45
Thanks, Glenn Beck.
On the other hand, have you taken English 401 yet? Your grammar is atrocious.
Sat Nov 3 2012 18:13
Your entire column reeks of heterosexual, white male privilege. That you minimize the very real threat a potential Romney Presidency would have on women, the gay community, etc. speaks volumes about you and the Republican Party. The Presidency is the nation's most effective bully pulpit - Obama has finally come foward in favor of gay marriage (I suspect he has always been in favor), began the process to end DADT, and has stopped defending DOMA in court. Romney would have done none of that. You may think these issues are unimportant but they matter to millions of Americans. On women's rights, it's clear that Romney would appoint justices who if presented with a case, would do whatever they could to curtail access to an abortion. Roe v. Wade being repealed would not make abortion illegal, but you are completely clueless if you don't think a number of states would greatly minimize a woman's right to choose in the aftermath considering what has already happened.

This column just reinforces that the only people who will continue to call the Republican Party home in the future if they don't change are middle-America and southern whites. Good luck with that.

Sat Nov 3 2012 17:02
I am an obama supporter, and also a supporter of equal rights for my gay and lesbian friends, your rant on "the gays" is disgusting to me. You're right, he won't be able to tell the states what they can and cannot do about gay marriage (or abortion for that matter) but he can definitely attempt to persuade things one way or another. My biggest thing about Mittens, that you failed to touch on is his overt religious bias. He's got his religion, and that's awesome for him, however I don't believe in the same things that he does, and that, combined with the insanely religious Paul Ryan is enough for me to shy away from giving them my vote, and quickly. (note: not because we are different religions, but because they are quick to rule based on their experiences and religious beliefs, which I do not agree with).
And yes, maybe planned parenthood has hidden sexual abuse or statetory rape, but not because they wanted to, but because the "victim" wanted to, for whatever reason. I feel like the organization has done TONS to help young women who had no other way to get the help they needed. That coupled with the "rape is a legitimate form of pregnancy and an abortion should not be allowed" (and support of similar statements) is amazing to me. I honestly do not understand how women can even think about supporting the Romney ticket, at all
Sat Nov 3 2012 17:01
Perhaps your point would be better served if you didn't write in such a smug, self-satisfied manner. For the record, I'm not one of those crazy liberals, I agree in essence with what you are saying but Christ, you do yourself a disservice when you come off like O'Reilly.
Sat Nov 3 2012 13:11
"As for the gays, I can tell you from firsthand experience that gays have a tendency to make everything about them. That's why we now have a group of gay and lesbian Obama supporters attempting to guilt their heterosexual friends into voting for the president.."
I agree "the gays"are annoying and whiny, they just go on about equality and fairness. I know they guilt tripped me into voting for Obama by saying he was on their side. What won't "the gays" snoop to?
Fri Nov 2 2012 12:35
Fri Nov 2 2012 02:57
I've already voted absentee for Mitt,and I still would,but he should be talking a lot tougher on foreign policy,and he should be asking loudly and insistently-we all should be asking loudly and insistently- what did Barack Husein Obama know about Benghazi and when did he know it?

log out