No matter which of the four remaining doofuses (or is that doofii?) survives the spring primaries to emerge as President Barack Obama’s GOP opponent in November, my vote is going to Obama.

Not because we share a political party, or even because we share a skin tone, but because he is simply the best man for the job. Better than that, Barack Hussein Obama is the coolest guy ever to walk planet Earth. Cooler than the Rat Pack. Even cooler than Steve McQueen, if that’s possible.

Here’s a guy who mercilessly ridiculed Donald Trump at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner — and I mean he lit into ol’ Helmet Hair with such ferocity that the loudmouthed television host immediately abandoned his wild talk about securing the Republican nomination — then calmly went back to the situation room and ordered the Navy SEALs to put two slugs in Osama bin Laden’s head.

This same guy stood before Congress and the nation for an hour and five minutes Tuesday night and delivered one of the most passionate, well-written State of the Union speeches I have ever heard. Meanwhile, what he knew, and we didn’t — was that he had ordered that same SEAL team to storm a compound in Somalia where American aid worker Jessica Buchanan and Poul Hagen Thisted, a Dane, have been held hostage since they were kidnapped at gunpoint by Somali pirates in October.

The SEALs safely rescued the pair, and killed all nine of their captors — all while their commander-in-chief nonchalantly laid out his case for a lasting economy and an end to obstructionist partisan bickering.

That is too cool for words. We should replace the tune they always play when the president enters the room, “Hail to the Chief,” with Isaac Hayes’ theme from “Shaft.”

(I can almost hear it now. “You see this cat Obama was a baaaaad… shut yo’ mouth.”)

The only clue he left, and purely accidentally, was when microphones picked up his congratulations to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as he entered the House chamber. Obama pointed his index finger in a “You da man” gesture at a smiling Panetta and said, “Good job tonight. Good job.” Enterprising reporters descended on the Pentagon to find out what the president meant, and were then told about the rescue operation.

The State of the Union speech itself was a classic, on par with Bill Clinton’s historic final speech to Congress — and almost as long. Obama covered a lot of ground — from jump-starting the economy, to green energy, to the widening gap between the haves and the have nots — with the ease and deftness of a master orator.

To be fair, even for Democrats, there are many reasons to question Obama’s policies, especially when it comes to capitulating to GOP demands in the name of compromise. The Republicans have proven time and again that their only goal is to bring down his administration, and aren’t interested in anything that doesn’t help them accomplish that goal. Yet he continues to seek the high road, to reach across the aisle in search of common ground — and to vainly attempt diplomacy and negotiation with people who can’t spell or define either word. I suppose you could argue that those are good qualities, but I have to admit it’s starting to get on my nerves.

The time has come, Mr. President, to fully implement your most progressive, liberal agenda — intact and undiminished — and let them cry about it later. That is exactly what the Republicans do when they gain power, and how they get things done. Sign the executive orders limiting greenhouse gases, and double our investment in alternative energy sources like wind and solar. Take care of veterans and seniors, and hold corporations and greedy bankers accountable for driving us off the cliff in the first place.

This president has more than earned a shot at a second term. He has proven himself the smartest, most visionary and forward thinking president we could ask for, and stands head and shoulders above the illiterate boob who last held the office. He’s got more family values than Newt Gingrich ever had, more compassion for the middle class than Rick Santorum could ever muster; could never be the entitled elitist Mitt Romney is, and unlike Ron Paul, is completely sane.

At next year’s State of the Union, the entire audience should stand and sing his new theme song in one gravelly, funky voice, “Who’s the cat who won’t cop out, when there’s danger all about? Damn right.”

Can you dig it?

Daryl Gale is the Philadelphia Tribune's city editor.

Flipping through the channels Tuesday night, I stumbled upon the Republican presidential debate, live from Las Vegas, of all places. Being the fifth such debate in six weeks, I had forgotten all about it. But I also didn’t expect the party of pious morals and upright family values to hold a serious political event in a place known as Sin City.

Turns out though, that Vegas — America’s entertainment capital — was the perfect venue, because that debate had more sheer entertainment value than all the others combined. I’m glad I tuned in — it was comedy gold, worthy of being saved for posterity and the benefit of future generations of Americans who may want to pinpoint the exact moment the Republican Party officially went off the rails.

Business guru Herman Cain, the newly crowned GOP front-runner, found himself in the crosshairs early. Mitt Romney, the man of the perfect teeth and the empty suit, joined Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the man of the empty head, in hammering Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan.

Cain’s idea would set income and corporate taxes at nine percent, and add a nine percent federal sales tax. Sounds simple, but a study released by the Tax Policy Center this week said that Cain’s 9-9-9 proposal would raise taxes on 84 percent of Americans, with low- and middle-income families being hit hardest.

Cain tried to defend himself, countering that only lawyers, lobbyists and his ignorant onstage colleagues would argue in favor of the present tax code, which he called “a million word mess.” But between Romney and Perry ganging up on him, coupled with the incoherent babbling from Newt Gingrich and punctuated by occasional condor-like screeches from Michele Bachmann, Cain never had a chance.

The part that got me, though, was that even while bashing his proposal, Perry more than once referred to Cain as “brother.”

I don’t know about you, but few things make me want to punch a white man in the mouth more than that patronizing, condescendingly familiar way they call you “brother,” or even worse, “my main man.” Sometimes I think they do it because they don’t actually have any Black acquaintances and this is their awkward way of being friendly; and sometimes I think they do it just to see how far they can push you before you haul off and punch them in the mouth.

In Perry’s case though, I suspect the reason was overcompensation — a feeble attempt to clear up the recent controversy surrounding the former name of his hunting ranch by publicly reaching out to the only Black man he knows who isn’t one of the domestic help.

Even kooky old Ron Paul showed he still has a few chuckles left in him when he spoke in favor of the Occupy Wall Street protestors, defended the middle class from the excesses of the super-rich, and — get this — freely admitted that the recession, and the resultant lousy economy, is a direct byproduct of the short-sighted policies of the Bush administration. You can imagine how well that went over with the GOP faithful, but the oblivious Paul clearly has no idea that his chances of the nomination fade a little more every time he completes a sentence.

The best part, though, was when Perry and Romney grew tired of attacking Cain and turned on each other like a couple of pit bulls.

Perry brought up the illegal immigrant story that haunted Romney during the 2008 primary, calling it “the height of hypocrisy.” Several years ago Romney hired a landscaping company whose managers weren’t too vigilant about checking employees immigration status, and it’s hung around his neck like an albatross ever since.

Romney countered with a dismissive line about how Perry should be forgiven because he’s been losing ground with each successive debate, and the rumble was on.

Back and forth they went, the volume — and the tension — rising with each snide interruption and catty retort. I thought for a minute there it might come to blows, and found myself sitting on the edge of the couch eagerly anticipating the first wild left hook.

That punch was never thrown, but plenty of equally damaging verbal shots landed cleanly, with Perry once again forced to repudiate his friend, the pastor who called Mormonism a cult, and Pennsylvania’s own Rick Santorum once again forced to justify his own relevance.

I sure hope President Obama was watching. Seeing the caliber of the best that the GOP hopes will unseat him must be quite comforting — and funnier than anything else on television.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s recent statement, “I’m not concerned about the very poor….We have a safety net…. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it,” has caused once again considerable debate about poverty in America. But for millions of impoverished Black Americans the focus should be on encouraging education, self-empowerment and economic development as a means of getting out of poverty rather than waiting on some non-caring presidential candidate to patch a gaping hole in the so-called poverty-prevention safety net.

In a democracy all citizens should have the right to run for President. Of course qualifications and experience are factors that voters should weigh when making a decision about who to vote for and to support. For over 45 million Black Americans, the 2012 elections are extremely important. We cannot afford to sit on the sidelines and to take the November 2012 elections for granted. I keep emphasizing that it is counterproductive for Black people in the United States to be cynical or non-involved in the national political debate concerning the issues that affect the quality of life in the Black community across the nation.

Mitt Romney’s confession did more than expose his seemingly insensitivity toward the poor. It revealed Romney’s comfort with a certain percentage of the population that will according to his logic always remain in poverty in need of a safety net. Romney rhetorically joined the likes of Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly who condescendingly reminded a national television audience that in the Bible it says, “The poor will always be with us.” African Americans do not always have to be poor! Again, what Romney said or what O’Rielly said should not come as a shock. Those statements just remind us that if we do not get ourselves up out of poverty, there will be no others that we should depend on to change the situation of poverty that too many continue to face in our communities.

Noted scholar and author Earl Ofari Hutchinson raised an appropriate question with respect to the absence of Black Americans who have some noticeable role in the Romney presidential campaign staff or support. Hutchinson observed, “The scorecard then reads like this: Gingrich, Santorum and Paul, all have asked for and gotten endorsements and support from African Americans. There is no record or evidence that the supposed more moderate Romney has asked for or gotten any Black support or even taken a photo-op with some dutiful Blacks. The question that will loom even larger as Romney closes in on the GOP nomination is. Where are Romney’s Blacks?”

Romney’s comments on poverty, therefore, were not a mere slip of a politicians tongue during the heat of a tense campaign. He is not in touch with the reality that most Americans have to endure in 2012. And in particular, Romney is so far out of the loop of reality when it comes to Black Americans’ state of existence, that it is cause for serious concern. The fact is for Black children and youth the poverty rate is nearly 40 percent as a direct of the systematic underdevelopment of the African-American community during the last 50 years. Too many African Americans live in poverty today at a rate greater than one out of every four persons. Of course our economic and social predicament is not the result of statements by Mitt Romney. The point here is, however, that for the vast majority of Black people in America and throughout the African world, the candidacy of Romney for President raises serious implications about his stated sense of inclusion and of ‘caring’ and empathy for poor people in general and for poor Black people specifically.

Regardless of who emerges as the Republican nominee, Black Americans have to take a proactive responsibility to ensure the largest voter turnout in American history come this November. To all of the “playa haters” some of whom are white and Black who are trying to seduce Black people into the self-destructive lethargy of not voting, copping out and non-civic engagement: “We will not be put asleep. We will remain wide awake. We are going to mobilize voter participation in record numbers in the face of voter repression in more than 30 states across the nation.”

Please do not underestimate the power and the importance of every vote this year. We have to join with others who share our interests for a better future for ourselves and for all people. The worst form of oppression is self-destruction and the fear of liberation. Mitt Romney has made clear where he stands. Where do you stand? How will you vote? — (NNPA)

Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis Jr. is president of the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network and Education Online Services Corporation and can be reached at www.HSAN.org.

It’s a question that comes up every time you hit the home page of the Republican National Committee’s website: Where are all the Black Republicans?

Only a year after celebrating the last days of its first African-American chair, the RNC is fairly light on Black faces these days. What was once, especially during the ’90s, a fairly aggressive photo-op promotional strategy strung together by a small network of die-hard Black political consultants, former elected officials and partisans, is all but dead. While it did little in the way of yielding any results comparable to Democratic counterparts, there was a sense — leading up to the election of Michael Steele as party chair — that some progress had been made in mending the often bitter relationship between African Americans and the Republican Party.

Now, as a bloody Republican primary carries on, the GOP appears smitten with the Latino vote. Presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are bending over backwards, and breaking the bank, to connect with Latinos — looking for every conceivable angle to attract skeptical Brown voters turned off by a wave of anti-immigration sentiments. And the RNC happily trotted out a Director of Latino Outreach in January, eagerly announcing the move in a gritty effort to snatch Hispanic voters away from Democrats in what observers expect to be a grueling November election.

“The RNC will place staff on the ground across the country to coordinate the GOP’s Hispanic effort as part of a program to make sure Barack Obama is a one-term president,” said RNC Chair Reince Preibus when introducing Betinna Inclan as the point person for Republican Latino strategy. “Latinos play an integral role in our communities, and the Republican Party believes it is essential to involve Latinos at every level of our Party’s efforts in 2012.”

Meanwhile, the move angered a number of Black Republicans who were already feeling left out in the cold following the abrupt downfall and forced removal of Steele in 2011. Many continue to express disgust at the GOP love fest for Latinos, some out of concern that they have no other political home to turn to.

“You have no Blacks on staff at the Republican National Committee — or any of its other committees — and there are no Blacks on staff of any of the presidential campaigns,” snorts longtime Black Republican strategist and marketing expert Raynard Jackson. “But maybe after a few more electoral loses you will awaken to the most loyal customer you have ever had.”

Most politically active and prominent Black Republicans — and there are only a few compared to Black Democrats — are not as vocal about their displeasure with the GOP’s intense focus on the Latino vote. Most are quiet, some out of fear they might anger RNC bosses who are already stressed trying to keep a fractured party intact. But many are seething over what they view as a combination of betrayal and intrusion, a knife in the back from a Republican Party that was theirs from its Abraham Lincoln beginnings.

However, a source tells the Tribune that focus could shift back to Black outreach as the Romney campaign prepares to hire a senior advisor for that exact purpose. While the source would not give details on the timing of an announcement, it was clear the embattled former Massachusetts governor is thinking ahead to the general election. “We’re finalizing the details,” said the source. “But, we’re not completely there, yet.”

The reason behind that reluctance could reflect a larger sense of caution surrounding the primaries. There are still many more states to go, with the delegate-rich “Super Tuesday” on the horizon for March 6. With the Romney campaign nervously gauging the rise of Rick Santorum while smarting from triple losses in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota, it may be difficult to start thinking about the national scene while you’re still engaged in state-by-state trench warfare. Plus, finance reports are showing a Romney campaign low on cash and near tapped on donors. Do they even have enough to go the distance?

In terms of the Black vote, it’s much more complex than that. Much of it has to do with pure numbers — only 10percent of African-American voters, on average, vote Republican during any given presidential or congressional mid-term cycle. The only Republican in the 21st century to slightly defy that trend was President Bush in 2004 when he won just over 11 percent of the Black vote against Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. In statewide races, Republicans tend to garner 15 percent of the Black vote on average. In 2006, then Lt. Gov. Michael Steele was able to capture more than 20 percent of the Black vote in Maryland’s U.S. Senate race — but that was still very negligible for a Black candidate with extensive local roots and who never shied away from his Blackness.

Many Republican strategists and candidates alike are quick to attribute those dismal ratings to Black dismissiveness. “It’s hard. We get called ‘racists,’ but we’re expected to go out and do outreach with these people,” complains one veteran white GOP campaign expert who wanted to speak off the record. Visibly angered by the question, the senior aide to numerous Republican campaigns accused Black voters of “setting unfair expectations.”

Hence, Republican insiders point to the math in recent primaries. For example, only 2 percent of Black voters in South Carolina are registered Republicans. To make it worse, only 1 percent of South Carolina primary voters in January were Black — and that was in an “open primary” where voters of all partisan stripes can vote. In Florida, it was the same: only 1 percent. And, in Iowa (where there are sizeable pockets of African Americans living in such cities as Des Moines), Black votes didn’t even register on a significant scale.

The problem is two-fold. The Republican Party’s southern strategy in the 1960s alienated Black voters in the race for southern white and segregationist votes. This has led to the prevailing image of a political party either constantly attacking major Black policy priorities, or serving as the face of institutionalized political racism. But there is also the problem of African Americans refusing to force the two major political parties to compete for their voters. Most are fiercely loyal to the Democratic Party to the point where such affiliations are based more on personal considerations than political interests.

In contrast, Latino voters only lean 60 percent Democrat on average. In key primary states like Florida and Arizona, they represent 12 percent of the Republican primary electorate — a significant presence that warrants the attention of campaign strategists battling for every vote they can get. And a recent Cooperative Congressional Election Survey found 14 percent identified as Republican and a significant bloc, 19 percent, identified as “Independent.”

It’s that 19 percent that gives Republicans reason to believe they can compete for Latino votes in the general election against Barack Obama, despite recent anti-immigration rhetoric and legislation. The survey also found Latinos are more inclined to vote by race than party. With scores more Latino Republican elected officials than Black, Republican elected officials (there are no Black, Republican elected officials under the age of 40), the GOP figures it has a better chance chasing after Brown votes than Black ones.

Political strategist and former congressional candidate Princella Smith argues that because African Americans vote “lopsidedly Democrat — 80 percent to 90percent of the time,” the Republican Party fails to see any prospect of a return on the investment. “Why should I campaign to a community who will reject me as soon as I get to the front door?”

Ron Thomas, a Black Republican and former senior advisor to Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s, R-Minn., failed presidential bid, agrees, quickly arguing that the GOP’s enthusiastic focus on Latino voters should be something for Black Republicans and African Americans in general to worry about. “I have a bottom line philosophy: You have to have tensions on both sides of the aisle. We’re the only culture where we don’t make the political parties compete for our vote. Until we decide as a people that we’re going to do that, we’re going to stay in the same situation we’re in right now.”

The Republican presidential candidates continue to reveal themselves not to be fit for the most powerful position in the world.

Front runner Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, is a serial flip-flopper. Businessman Herman Cain is dropping fast after allegations of sexual harassment and after his stumbling responses to basic questions on foreign policy. Former senator Rick Santorum is way too angry and too socially conservative. Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is also too extreme and too loose with the facts. Texas governor Rick Perry is awkward and inarticulate in debates.

Texas congressman Ron Paul and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman will never be accepted or trusted by most of the Republican Party because they do not always follow the party line.

The failure of these candidates is one of the reasons why some Republicans have desperately turned to Newt Gingrich, the 68-year-old former House of Representatives leader who is now rising in the polls.

Gingrich is rising because many Republicans refuse to accept Romney as their nominee to challenge President Obama. Romney’s frequent change in positions causes many conservatives not to trust him.

But Gingrich is a questionable choice for anyone to put their trust in. He is a man full of contradictions. His multiple marriages and extramarital affairs make him an unlikely presidential candidate for a conservative party that espouses family values.

Gingrich was fined $300,000 for giving misleading information to investigators during a congressional ethics probe. In 1998, facing legal challenges and ethics questions, he decided not to seek re-election.

In addition to the contradictions in his personal life and ethical problems, Gingrich has contradicted himself on policy.

It was revealed this week that Gingrich received $1.6 million from consulting contracts with the mortgage agency, Freddie Mac, from 1999 to 2008.

Gingrich had criticized Obama in 2008 for accepting campaign contributions from executives of the federally backed mortgage companies Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. He suggested that Obama should return the contributions he had received from the two mortgage giants.

As usual, Gingrich does not see the hypocrisy of his sweetheart deals.

Calling a politician out for being a hypocrite is so easy, there’s just no sport in it. It’s almost redundant — as Martin Sheen’s character famously said in “Apocalypse Now” — like giving out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

But once in a great while, some propped-up empty suit of a candidate goes so far over the hypocrisy line that you just have to say something, out of a sense of sheer decency. Your intelligence can only take a finite number of insults, after all.

Thus is the case this week with presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the Republican Party who backs him and the plight of working women.

But, back to the beginning. It all started last week when someone asked Romney about the struggles of working women, and he deferred to his wife, Ann, saying he’s talked to her, and she gave him insight and practical advice.

That tidbit was seized upon by Democratic pundits, whose eyebrow-raising bemusement was voiced by strategist Hilary Rosen, who questioned Mrs. Romney’s bona fides on the subject, saying, “Ann Romney never worked a day in her life.”

Rosen’s point, that the born-rich, married-rich and still-filthy-rich Ann Romney is a poor choice of advisor on the day-to-day tribulations of working moms, was lost in the resulting brouhaha, as the GOP launched into full outrage mode, saying that President Obama, who somehow became an extension of Hilary Rosen, has no respect for women who work inside the home.

“I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys,” Ann Romney tweeted huffily. “Believe me, it was hard work.”

Yes, raising children, especially five boys, is a handful for any mom. Most mothers, though, don’t have the advantages Mrs. Romney enjoyed — specifically, having a small army of maids, nannies, an au pair, housekeepers, cooks and gardeners to do the hard work for them.

Raising five boys was such hard work, Ann Romney hardly found time to ride her dressage horses or attend yachting classes.

Think of all the hard working yet struggling moms you know. Any of them own dressage horses, or even have the slightest idea what dressage is? Probably not. They’re too busy washing and ironing clothes, cleaning the house, helping with homework, paying the bills and stretching the meager grocery budget as far as it can go.

Mitt, God bless him, waded into the fray with this tidbit, “All moms are working moms.” It’s a nice sound bite, and certainly applies to the vast majority of moms in America, but not necessarily the ones who take weekly yachting classes.

Just a few weeks ago, this same Mitt Romney defended the welfare-to-work program he signed into law as Massachusetts’s governor by saying low-income moms on the public dole “need to learn the dignity of work.”

Wait a minute, you say. If poor moms need to learn the dignity of work outside the home, how come rich moms don’t? Don’t they deserve the same dignity, or could it be that the work ethic of the wealthy should remain unquestioned, while that of the working poor should be attacked at every turn?

The worst of it is that the whole supposed controversy was completely made up, and played like a violin by the GOP. Ann Romney admitted as much herself, when she giddily described Rosen’s comments as “an early birthday gift” in an interview with ABC News.

See, the Republicans know full well they’re anywhere from 16 to 20 points down among women voters, according to recent polls. This, by the way, is entirely their own fault.

From criminally invasive abortion requirements, to their opposition to the Family Medical and Leave Act, to the asinine attempt to limit women’s access to birth control, to Romney’s own refusal to support the Ledbetter Act, which ensures women equal pay for equal work, the GOP record on women’s issues has come into sharp focus in recent months.

But rather than admit their own policies are hurting them with the single largest voting bloc, they’ve tried to somehow shift the woman-hater label onto Obama — which is ridiculous on its face. Obama, who elevated two women to the Supreme Court, has long been a champion of women’s rights. In fact, the aforementioned Ledbetter Act was the first bill he signed into law upon taking office.

The GOP is afraid. They should be.

They’re hoping that those women who need to learn the dignity of work don’t also discover the empowerment of the voting booth.

Daryl Gale is the Philadelphia Tribune's city editor.

Right on the heels of North Carolina becoming the 31st state in the Union to pass a ban on homosexual marriage, President Barack Obama announced his support of matrimony between same sex couples.

The president’s public support of same sex marriage could either be a boon or a curse for his re-election campaign; it’s too soon to tell, despite the fact that he’s just received a million dollars in campaign contributions. But one thing is certain; the president’s public stance in favor of homosexual marriage has drawn a dividing line among voters. Will it have an affect among African-American voters, some members of the Black clergy think it will.

“I think it will to some extent,” said Bishop Ernest C. Morris Sr., Jurisdictional Prelate for Koinonia Jurisdiction. “A large percentage of Black Christians believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. What he may be banking on is the African-American community’s love for the first Black president but he should consider that large numbers of Black churches won’t agree with this. There are too many passages in Scripture that denounce homosexuality and I can’t see how to fully justify it from the Word of God. Don’t misunderstand me; this is not about hatred of homosexuals because we are all sinners in need of a savior and God is so gracious. It is the continuous practice of this that the Bible is against. I also think that as the nation’s first Black president, he’s seen not just as the political leader of our country but as more than that. Many people see him as a moral and spiritual leader as well.”

On Wednesday May 9 President Barack Obama took what some political experts are saying was a risky move — especially during an election year — and voiced his support of same sex marriage. Like the issue of legalized abortion, same sex marriage is one of those hot button issues that draw a clear division between those who support it and those who oppose it. Republican presidential front runner Mitt Romney said he opposes same sex marriages.

“Well when these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name,” Romney said in a published report.

A bill that would have allowed civil unions for same-sex couples in Colorado died in the legislature this week. The president’s public endorsement of homosexual marriage followed a vote in North Carolina where constituents came out in favor of a ban against same sex marriage. North Carolina is now America’s 31st state to enact legislation against it.

In a prepared statement, the president said he was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer regarding same sex marriage.

“I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry,” the president said. “I’ve always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution. But over the course of several years I’ve talked to friends and family about this. I’ve thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are raising kids together. What I’ve come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, and the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens. So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.”

The president also said that he respected the beliefs of others and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines but he said that he believed that in the eyes of the law all Americans should ne treated equally and no federal law should invalidate same sex marriages in a state that enacted it.

Reverend Clarence James, a Black minister based in Chicago said he definitely believes the president’s move is going to hurt him among African-American voters, many of whom oppose same sex marriage.

“Many of us oppose this in every form and may decide to vote against the president because of this,” James said. “From a medical and psychological point of view homosexuality is a mental illness; for male homosexuals anal sex is medically dangerous. The president is coming at this as a civil rights issue but there is no correlation even though the homosexual community is trying to make it one. The Civil Rights Movement was about freedom and equal rights, this is a moral issue. For the president and other elected officials it’s easier to go along with popular opinion rather than to do what’s right.”

But some members of the African-American clergy have a different point of view regarding this issue. They believe the African-American community should find ways to address same sex relationships and that there can be reconciliation between sex and spirituality.

“If every gay person in our church just left or those who have an orientation or preference or an inclination, or a fantasy, if everyone left, we wouldn’t have — we wouldn’t have a church,” said Bishop Carlton Pearson who heads Chicago’s New Dimensions Ministries in a published report. “Homophobia is hardly unique to the African-American community. It’s a social malady that’s due largely to the influence of fear based-theologies, particularly fundamentalist Christianity, Islam and Judaism, all of which grow out of the Abrahamic tradition. The African-American church has traditionally used a kind of ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ approach toward homosexuality.”

Dr. Janice Hollis who heads Progressive Believer’s said the African-American community should look at the president’s record not just on this issue but on others and determine if the quality of their lives has improved.

“I think it’s an insult for the president to intellectualize on morality as if the Church doesn’t already have a mandate from God on this,” she said. “This is a political move and even though he may not see it, he’s only a fleeting moment in history; God has always been there. I think the president is promoting a way of life that deters people away from the Word of God.”

Reverend Bill Owens, a minister with the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) and who is based in Memphis, Tennessee, said there’s no doubt that the president’s endorsement of same sex marriage is going to hurt him among Black voters.

“Absolutely it will and especially among the Black churches where the conviction against same sex marriage is so strong,” Owens said. “I think many Black Christians feel somewhat betrayed by the president on this — this is something that Black churches have always stood firmly against.”

ANALYSIS

Cain may be rising to top of polls, but Republican party has other plans

Right now, it’s easy to see why all political buzz is businessman and pizza icon Herman Cain.  His climb in the polls has been short of meteoric and legendary in recent weeks.  It’s a fascinating story in that Cain can’t be written off like Iowa straw poll runner-up Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) – nor can he be taken as seriously as either big machine candidates former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney or Texas Gov. Rick Perry. 

Still, prognosticators have an irritating habit of picking early winners and unfortunate losers.  And, predictions point to Romney taking it all.

Even Cain acknowledges it during a recent National Journal interview with little hesitation when asked about the possibility of running mate status.

"I would not say no to being vice president of the United States. But it would depend upon who got the nomination. I will support who gets the nomination,” Cain said. “I know I have said that there are some people right now who I cannot support, but I wouldn’t say no to it. I could say yes. But it has to be someone who I believe I can complement them in their job by being able to bring my skills to the table."

If the sudden political star and straw poll barnstormer was that convinced that he would be the next Republican nominee for the 2012 Presidential election, he wouldn’t be saying that.  Ego plays a significant role in the decision to run for President – it continues to mold the race from the announcement phase, engorges itself during the campaign phase and finds its biggest test on election day. 

During his well-orchestrated press conference to announce, among other things, that he wasn’t going to announce, heavyweight political lover across the Franklin Bridge Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) kept it straight with little chaser on the question of ego: “The fact is, I don't think there's anybody in America who would necessarily think my personality is best-suited to being No. 2.”

But, while the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO continues to surge in polls and in notoriety, many insiders are convinced that Cain is merely posturing for the No. 2 spot.  Signs point to a growing resignation within the Republican Party that its establishment bosses are beginning the process of winnowing down the very crowded field and paving a clear path for Romney. 

Signs of a political attrition game are clear.  While Cain was tying second place with Perry at 16 percent in a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll and then zipping ahead to 36 percent in first place in a subsequent ABC News poll, his Communications Director Ellen Carmichael was making an exit.

“I have resigned, but the paperwork’s not final,” Carmichael told CNN early last week, packing up her bags and taking assistant Francis Boustany along with her.

It raised few red flags regarding Cain since he was drowning in poll time adulation.  But, to observers there were questions: why leave now when your candidate is now flavor of the primary month?  Did something happen?  Did Cain do or say something?  Carmichael had played the critical role in Cain’s emergence as an overnight party sensation.

“We’ve had ups and downs. We’ve had tons of money and very little money,” said Carmichael. “And I’ve stuck through some very difficult and some very rewarding times on the campaign. And it was just time for me to go pursue other professional opportunities.”

The money is on the money.  Many longtime party insiders, speaking on background, point to the start of a trend where Republican gurus will pluck candidate staffers away from key positions in their campaigns, enticing them with cushy job offers to work for the party or affiliate firms. Others may pop up during convention time as key operatives putting final touches on a general campaign roll out. 

“The party saw Cain as being an issue, someone who didn’t have much to lose politically and could have staying power against a presumptive nominee like Romney,” says one GOP party official speaking on condition of anonymity.

Other candidates are also running into either trouble or a bad case of irrelevance.  Paul has continued to watch his numbers go flat below 8 percent since nearly edging out Tea Party queen Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) in the Iowa straw poll.  According to the Real Clear Politics polling averages, former Keystone State son Sen. Rick Santorum can’t seem to break through 4 percent.  And while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is flirting with 10 percent, it’s nothing compared to Herman Cain who has seen a 12 percent increase since September.

And the big political burnout of the season is Bachmann, the one hit Iowa wonder who now teeters on the brink of full implosion.  She lost her campaign manager and top gun legendary strategist Ed Rollins (who ran Ronald Reagan campaigns of lore and graced CNN with his expert analysis) in September.  Since then, she’s been hassled by vendors blowing up the phone for payment and a long string of resignations, from her pollster to her senior adviser.

Part of the problem is Bachmann’s notorious reputation for being afraid to fundraise.  In keeping it grassroots, the Minnesota Congresswoman has relied on the small donor give-me-what-you-got strategy, a move that has found her nearly a half-million dollars in debt.

But, the other side of the story is that the party establishment could be rallying around its chosen one.  With major GOP operatives like Karl Rove and the Bush political family having personal axes to grind with Perry, forces of political nature in the Republican Party are pushing someone not as unpredictable, gaffe-prone and irascible.  Romney fits the bill.

Even in most hypothetical polling match-ups, Romney comes within an inch of potentially beating Obama.  Real Clear Politics averages Romney ahead of Obama by 0.5% in a possible electoral cage match.  Perry misses that mark by 5 entire percentage points.  And, Cain, forget about it: while he might be Black conservative poster boy for a restless Republican base looking for a hero story, he’s nearly 10 points behind Obama in a 2012 match-up. 

But, he fares better than either Gingrich or Bachmann.

“Sorry, conservatives: winning the White House cannot include a political purity test this go-‘round, so if all things stay as they are in the GOP nomination process, Romney will end up having to be the guy,” says Republican party strategist Lenny McAllister, a regular analyst for CNN and a Contributor to Politic365.com. 

America tuned in recently for the ninth GOP presidential primary debate. With tea party favorites Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, Jeb Bush and Mitch Daniels (all current or former governors, by the way) opting to sit on the sidelines in the secret hopes that their real chance to win the White House will be in 2016, the overall field is in place.

In watching the ninth straight debate (yes, I am a dork and have watched every single one from beginning to end), I have come to the conclusion that the candidates have solidified their narratives — or niche — thus far in the debates. Before the most recent debate, I wrote down a few sentences predicting what they would say based on their previous debate performances. They reaffirmed their narratives during the recent debate, as predicted. Let me explain:

Michelle Bachmann —– as the only female in the race, she has consistently mentioned her background as a mother and wife. She believes that her gender and unique experiences endear her to what working families are going through as they navigate the tough economic reality that many families find themselves in. As a tax attorney, Bachmann has also positioned herself as the only candidate who understands the tax code and the need to simplify it. No matter what the question is, Bachmann goes back to her niche and answers with some type of response that includes being a mom, repealing “Obamacare” and simplifying the tax code. I’m not sure where Bachmann goes from here, but she’s defiantly made herself a household name.

Rick Santorum – the only Catholic in the race and the only candidate who champions himself as the “defender of the family.” Santorum, a father of seven children, consistently expresses his frustration during all of the debates that family values, i.e. traditional marriage and the need to outlaw abortion, are not debated. Santorum’s niche is that he’s the only champion who speaks up for the traditional family unit and is not afraid to challenge his fellow conservative presidential hopefuls for not speaking about the family. Although he denies this, my hunch is that Santorum is running for vice president. Vice presidential candidates typically make up a deficit that the nominee may have, and if Mitt Romney becomes the nominee; many social conservatives will demand that he put someone on the ticket who speaks to them. Santorum could be that very person.

Newt Gingrich – the former Speaker is arguably the smartest candidate in the field.  His objective is very clear — during every debate he clarifies the moderator’s questions and he answers very substantively while praising the other candidates. Gingrich is the elder statesman in the room who sees potential in each of the candidates’ positions and is determined to bolster each of them, knowing full well that he is not going to be the nominee. His niche is that he making all of the other candidates become better candidates by leading the through his answers.

Rick Perry – To date, his debate performances have been lackluster. Governor Perry seems to be dazed and not substantive in responses to the questions being posed to him. He frequently mentions Texas in his answers and has yet to run a national campaign. He’s still learning the ropes on how to be a national candidate and has yet to find his niche.

Jon Huntsman – the former governor of Utah and ambassador to China is the only candidate who brings significant foreign policy experience to the race. During the debates he often speaks forcefully about the trade imbalance between the United States and China. Huntsman’s niche is that he is the only person who understands America’s foreign policy and is able to hit the ground running in repairing America’s image around the world. My hunch is that Huntsman is running to be on the short list for secretary of state.

Herman Cain – The follower of the pack has now become the leader of the pack.  The former head of Godfather’s Pizza, former member of the Federal Reserve and cheerleader of his famed “9-9-9 Plan,” Cain’s niche is that he brings a strong business acumen to the office of the presidency. Cain is quick on sound bites and his true niche is that he answers every debate question with a plain common-sense response. The only caveat is that the economic problems we face are more complex that simple answers. His poll numbers will fall, and like Bachmann, I’m not sure we he goes from here.

Mitt Romney – Like Cain, the former governor of Massachusetts brings a strong business acumen to the race. Romney’s middle-of-the-road messaging campaign works perfectly for someone who is already the nominee. The reality is that he is not, and his niche appears to be that he is trying to convince Republican primary voters that he is the only person who can win a general race against the president. Throughout each of the debates, Romney appears to be steady, calm and substantive. Will his niche messaging work? We’ll know after Super Tuesday.

Ron Paul – The Texas Congressman is a true libertarian. He believes that anything government touches is bound to fail. He created this niche in 2008 when he first ran for president and that message continues to this day. His niche is the most narrow and simplistic. It wins him straw polls in contest after contest, but at the end of the day, it wins him nothing else.

So we now know the political playbook — each candidate has his or her recipe for victory. My political instincts still tell me that this is Romney’s race to lose. Super Tuesday will prove me right or completely wrong. Stay tuned.

Robert Traynham can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

LEBANON, N.H. — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — who spurned repeated calls to run for president himself — endorsed Mitt Romney for the GOP presidential nomination Tuesday, sending a signal to the skeptical GOP establishment to fall in line behind the former Massachusetts governor.

"I'm here in New Hampshire for one simple reason: America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney's the man to lead America and we need him now," Christie said, standing alongside Romney.

The endorsement was a surprise, coming just hours before a GOP presidential debate and just a week after the pugnacious, budget-cutting Christie disappointed party elders and top GOP donors when he decided last week that he wouldn't run for president in 2012.

In the intervening days, Romney and his chief rival, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, have been scrambling to win support from the donors and party elders who had been sitting on the sidelines and waiting for Christie to decide.

It's unclear just how much impact — if any — the endorsement will have with fewer than three months before the primary voting season begins and as Romney tries to position himself as the party's inevitable nominee.

Voters tend to make up their own minds about who to support.

But Christie's endorsement could influence groups Romney has struggled to win over — a core segment of the GOP establishment that isn't enthused by him and the tea party, many of whom view him as insincere on issues they hold dear.

In a hastily arranged news conference on the debate sidelines, Christie said that the former Massachusetts governor could beat Obama and has the right mix of private sector and government experience to be president.

Christie also addressed what's perhaps Romney's biggest vulnerability — the Massachusetts health care measure that he signed into law and that was a model for Obama's nationwide measure that conservatives detest.

The New Jersey governor said it was "completely intellectually dishonest" to link Romney's measure with Obama's. And Christie added of Romney: "I'm proud of him for doing what he thought was right" on health care in Massachusetts.

Romney, in turn, called Christie a "hero" because of his record of cutting government spending as governor of New Jersey.

Christie has closer ties to the former Massachusetts governor than to other candidates. Romney endorsed Christie when the former U.S. attorney ran for governor in 2009. And in January he became the first Republican presidential contender to visit Christie at the governor's mansion in Princeton.

Christie's financial supporters had been waiting for him to decide before backing a different candidate. The New Jersey governor's endorsement is a blow to Perry, as it's likely to send much of that cash to Romney. Several top Christie donors, including Home Depot financier Ken Langone, had already announced they would back Romney.

Romney already had an $18 million financial head start over Perry, who couldn't start raising money until August, when he announced his presidential bid. Perry raised more than $17 million in his first six weeks campaigning, showing he can keep pace with Romney's financial resources. Romney is expected to announce he raised more than $14 million between July and September.

Christie's backing could help solidify Romney's standing as the most logical candidate in a field that just became settled last week, after Christie and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin both decided not to run.

Romney also stands to benefit from the budget-cutting Christie's ties to the tea party, a group of voters that Romney has struggled to win over.

The endorsement comes as the race accelerates because of a compressed primary calendar. Because Florida moved its primary to the end of January, voting in Iowa and New Hampshire is likely to start just after the new year or even as early as December.

That's left Romney in a stronger position than the rivals who are still struggling to introduce themselves to voters. Romney has led most early national polls, and has a campaign structure that he's been building since he lost his 2008 bid for the nomination.

And so far, the GOP race has been a struggle to find an alternative to Romney. Perry and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann have both tried to pitch themselves in that role, and now former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain has risen in national polls.

Perry and Bachmann have stumbled in their attempts to attack Romney: Perry flubbed a practiced criticism during his last debate; Bachmann struggled to hold onto her fast rise in popularity and has struggled to gain traction for her message that casts Romney as a moderate who can't be trusted. And Cain has yet to face the scrutiny that's focused on top-tier candidates.

Romney, meanwhile, has turned in one steady debate performance after another. He's making fewer mistakes on the campaign trail and he's been able to spend most of his time focused on attacking Obama.

He faced another test in Tuesday's debate. It's focused strictly on the economy, a subject that will give Romney, a former venture capitalist, the opportunity to focus on his campaign's core message. -- (AP)