Would I Have to Hold My Nose to Vote for Newt? Maybe a Nostril.

It does seem like in the comments section of every article I've read about Newt Gingrich becoming the likely contender, there are commenters here and there that are viciously opposed to this, and immediately accuse anyone who seems to be supporting him, even just considering it, of being a RINO.

Others have said that if he's the nominee, they'd hold their nose and vote for him, but still wouldn't be happy about it. Many of them, when asked to give their choices, either continue defending Herman Cain, or voice their continued support of Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann, or reveal themselves to be Ronpaulians, which is what I call the cult of personality that has mysteriously surrounded this Gollum-like old fart.

They do seem to be in the minority, but nonetheless it's weird to see; people who, for whatever reason, are so opposed to Newt Gingrich that they're clinging to any sinking ship they can, as if they can row it to land just by claiming it's not sinking.

The problem is, a lot of these people are seeking the "perfect conservative." Anything questionable about a candidate is immediately grounds for dismissal as far as they're concerned. Mention Newt's name and they froth at the mouth over his infidelity, divorces and endorsement of the global warming facade. Bring up the Contract with America or the fact that the only time in the last 30 years that we managed to actually move Congress to the Right, as opposed to merely keeping it from getting any more Left, was when Newt was speaker, and they'll scoff as if that means nothing, because he cheated on his wife.

Now, when it comes to infidelity, I should mention this article by Dennis Prager, a devout Jewish social and political conservative, who is the first man of this persuasion I've seen take this position on adultery; it doesn't actually imply anything about your character as a whole.

Upon reflection of this column, I find myself agreeing with him. After all, the reason conservatives villify Bill Clinton wasn't because he had affairs, but because he raped one woman (Juanita Broaddrick), indecently propositioned another (Paula Jones), had an affair with a third (Ginnifer Flowers), and finally, was caught having one with a fourth (Monica Lewinsky) while president, and, when questioned, both under oath and not, LIED ABOUT ALL FOUR. We know, or at least have reason to believe, all of the allegations against Clinton. We know he lied about Monica Lewinsky, and since we know threats were made to Broaddrick, and all the women who came forward were called ugly names by the Clinton Administration, who seemed to think merely making comments about "trailer parks" in regards to the Clinton accusers, acquitted Clinton in toto.

That is our issue with Clinton; not the serial affairs, but the fact that they all three; distant past, recent past and current, and that Clinton did his best to hide them, instead of acknowledging they happened and that he was wrong, and that he's changed since then. Of course, if he had said those things, it would have been laughable, but with Newt, the fact that he had a faith change and seems to have truly changed since then, including no more affairs, does resonate with me.

Good people can do bad things. They can do things that people very close to them would never have thought them capable of, and while the reasons may be numerous they're never good reasons. However, when it comes to sexual sin, primarily adultery, we approach it hypocritically.

First of all, no transgression should ever be treated as "better" or "worse" than another, because who could we trust to draw those lines? All of us are human, none of us are perfect, and everyone has something in their past they're not proud of. What matters isn't that it happened, but whether they were able to acknowledge their wrong-doing, learn from their mistakes, completely turning away from past bad actions, and growing as result. It seems Newt did this, but it's clear Clinton did not. This is also the case with Herman Cain, assuming the allegations against him are true, and they seem to be. At least SOMETHING untoward appears to have gone on there, and the fact that Cain started off denying anything and everything shows him to be unrepentant, whereas Newt, to a majority of voters, seems repentant.

Second of all, I would like to take a step back for a second and look at how society views adultery...when committed by a woman. Speaking as a man who has been cheated on by my former spouse, I'll tell you what happened in my case.

My ex-wife lost not a single friend. In fact, many came out on her side once this came to light. They assumed I must have been beating her (I wasn't) or unfaithful first, which I wasn't, unless you count the fact that I did, on a few occasions, look at pornography.

While I also didn't "lose" friends, once it was revealed that I'd had a problem with porn in the past, nearly everyone told me that I had a pretty large share of the blame regarding what my ex-wife had done. My disrespect for our marriage had "driven" her to commit adultery. Many even trotted out the old (and false) idea that a man who looks at porn is the same as a man who cheats. I am quite certain that if the details were the same but the situation was reversed, it would have played out as follows:

Our friends would ask what could possibly have driven my wife to look at porn, and would decide that the fact that I was physically unfaithful once (as my ex-wife continues to insist was true of her) was in and of itself proof that I had been unfaithful numerous times, and was not attending to her emotional and/or physical needs, therefore it was my fault I cheated, and also my fault she was driven to looking at pornography. I would bet anything that I would have lost friends.

I want to stress that I am not defending my actions. I am merely saying that I am not guilty of adultery, while my ex-wife is. I can guarantee you that if the reverse were true, the idea that "once a cheater, always a cheater" would be brought up, or the idea that the one act (which is usually an act of desperation, not deviousness, even on my ex's part) defines everything about who I am as a man.

Going further; while my ex did feel guilty enough to eventually tell me what happened, she felt justified enough to tell me a very sanitized version of the event, making it sound like she was seduced in a moment of emotional fragility, when in fact it was planned well in advance and she knew exactly what she was doing. At the same time she hid from me the fact that she was making plans to meet with this man again, and was having an emotional affair with her ex-boyfriend, an affair that only wasn't physical because he lived on the opposite side of the country.

Bringing that back to the topic at hand, it seems like society, or at least conservative society, is all too willing to tar and feather a man for sins they brush off when committed by a woman. Nobody asks why a MAN commits adultery. It's enough that he did; we know all we need to know about him. A woman must have had a reason. Think these commenters engaging in moral outrage would be any easier on Newt if the reason for his affairs was that his wife was emotionally manipulative or verbally (or even physically) abusive? Would the excuse work that "she wasn't attending to his emotional or physical needs"? Think they'd be any more forgiving if it were his WIFE that was guilty of the physical affair, and he was only guilty of looking at porn?

I understand their issues run a bit deeper with him, but my point is many of them act like he's the anti-Christ; a worse candidate than Romney by far, and not a true conservative, and when asked why, they bring up this or that minor quibble (which they would totally excuse from, say, Sarah Palin, not that I'm anti-Palin at all), but save their true vitriol for talk about his personal life.

Another topic, which I'll only touch on briefly here, is how willing leftists are to completely ignore or gloss over the scandals their own side engages in frequently, and how often we are told that a candidate's private life is none of our concern (as long as he's a Democrat). I understand the gut instinct to be the opposite of that, to the point where an affair committed by a conservative could almost be a career-killer, as opposed to the resume enhancer it almost seems to be on the left.

But we may have taken it too far. Yes, adultery is wrong. There's never an excuse for it. But there can be forgiveness, if repentance is evident.

So, linking this back to the title of my post, I'll admit, Newt's not my first choice for our next presidential nominee. But my first choice isn't running, and neither is my second, third, fourth or fifth. My sixth turned out not to be what I thought he was (and he dropped out), and my seventh and eighth will, I can almost assure you, drop out.

But the "hold your nose and vote" candidate, to me, isn't Newt. Romney is so foul to me that I couldn't pull the lever because one hand would be on my nose and the other covering my mouth to contain the vomit.

With Newt? I might have to cover a nostril thanks to a few political blunders. But he is continuing to make me think I won't even have to do that.

An Article you will Never See Written by a Democrat About Obama

Interesting article.

Every time I've read someone defending Cain in recent weeks, I've found myself shaking my head. In this case, I was nodding along. And I was EAGER to see Cain vindicated of all charges.

First off, Cain's recent admission does indeed seem like a guilty man trying his best to let just enough of the truth out that we stop asking him questions. Clinton did that too. This breaks my heart, because I liked Cain and wanted to support him. But, Simon has hit the nail on the head. The real issue here isn't "is Cain guilty" but "has he behaved in a trustworthy manner that gives anyone, regardless of political persuasion, the feeling that he's not hiding something?" and the answer is "No."

In his first two paragraphs, Simon DESTROYS Cain's credibility with honest voters. Cain has been caught in several lies already. I listed them in a previous post, but I'll briefly go over them again.

1. He first claimed that at no time had there been an accusation, or a settlement, or if there had been, he didn't recall.

2. He claimed that he had never met Sharon Bialek when impartial witnesses saw them meet, and apparently saw her shamelessly flirt with him. It would be unlikely that he wouldn't recall that.

3. Mark Block, apparently with Cain's blessing, claimed that Karen Kraushar's son worked for Politico, when not only was the man in question not her son, but he worked for a different publication.

4. Block would later accuse a Rick Perry campaign staffer of leaking the story, claiming he "new" it was him. It wasn't, and it turned out Block had no proof at all.

And now, Cain has admitted that not only did he give Ginger White money on several occasions, but his wife not only didn't know about the money, she DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THEIR FRIENDSHIP.

If it was innocent, why wouldn't Cain tell her? What minister would think it was appropriate for a married man, particularly one with the amount of power, influence and public persona Cain has had for most of his adult life, to have a friendship with a person of the opposite sex that he could not tell his wife about? Any time you're doing ANYTHING with a person of the opposite sex that you cannot inform your spouse about (especially if money is changing hands) you are cheating on your marriage. Maybe it isn't a physical affair. Maybe it's not an emotional one. But if you can't tell your wife about it, something is up.

You married men out there; how many of you could do something like that and not feel like you were breaching your wife's trust? Okay, now how many of you who raised your hand are still married and NOT having an affair? That's what I thought.

Roger L. Simon is a political conservative but a social libertarian, and he still recognizes the significance of this. All people with a conscience would. But this actually helps to illustrate exactly why I'm glad to call myself a conservative, and why I now believe liberals are fully corrupt and racist at the core of their philosophy. Why? Because not a single article like this was written by a liberal about Barack Obama.

"But he didn't have any affairs!" I hear liberals screeching. And I'm not suggesting he did. Of course, John Edwards did, and we didn't hear about it for a year after it was first discovered, when a lovechild was the result. But that's another story.

Obama may not have been a philanderer, but the man's closet is so full of skeletons that he had to expand the presidential bedroom to include another for his empty suits. Obama's past is shrouded in mystery. He has deliberately concealed his school records. We don't know what nationality he travelled under. We know he had friendships with people like Tony Rezko and William Ayers, which in itself is suspect, but that's all we know. We know he attended a racist church for 20 years. All these things struck the left-wing media as uninteresting and not news-worthy. Obama is the equivilent of finding out that Mitt Romney is regularly attending KKK rallies and having behind-closed-doors meetings with the Unabomber and Bernie Madoff. And yet, not a single liberal media personality took a step back and decided that he would not be blinded by Obama's race and would instead actually take seriously just how little we know about Obama and how troubling what we do know is.

This is an example of liberal racism. They are so blinded by race that the rest to them doesn't matter. In the case of black liberals, it's literal racism; we will vote for him because he's black, no matter what. For white liberals, it's a case of the kind of "feel good" absolution of white guilt they accused us of having with Herman Cain. They wanted Obama, not only as a mouthpiece to use in order to enact legislation they've wanted to enact for decades, but couldn't because they knew the American people would never accept it, but also as a way to feel good about themselves for being so "progressive".

If the Tea Party and American conservatives were really just trying to make themselves feel like they weren't racist by rallying behind Cain, as Janeane Garofalo accused us, then it wouldn't matter to us about his past because we wouldn't care about him as a man. He would be nothing but a symbol; either a symbol we can use to our advantage or a symbol of "how far we've come"--that skin color used to hold you down and is now the very thing that moves you up. His past? What does that matter, everyone has affairs! Isn't that what they said about Clinton? Why should we believe the idea of Cain having affairs and covering them up has any bearing on what kind of president he'll make?

Of course, conservatives don't believe that at all. They didn't believe that about Clinton, they certainly didn't think Obama deserved to be absolved of any past associations just because of his skin color. But they're liberals. Cain is a conservative that we all liked and wanted to see succeed. And when we found out about this, he lost support. This kind of thing hurts conservatives when it doesn't hurt liberals precisely because we care about values and character, while liberals are blinded by meaningless things like race, sex/sexuality and party affiliation.

This goes even for rank and file liberals who claim to have a moral compass. I run into liberals daily who claim to be moral people. I'm sure they would tell you in a minute that cheating on your wife is wrong, yet they love Bill Clinton. They'd also tell you that a candidate's past is important and they all need to be fully vetted, yet Obama has their vote in his pocket. The reason there is no right-wing candidate we can truly say that about is that we care first and foremost what the candidate stands for and immediately second what kind of person they are. You simply cannot be a liar, an anti-American, a racist, a socialist, a sympathizer with America's enemies, etc. in your personal life and NOT be one as president, as Clinton and Obama have both proven.

The difference between conservatives and liberals is that we understand this to be true ON BOTH SIDES.

Going After Newt's Baggage is Barking Up the Wrong Tree

How do you defeat a political opponent? You ridicule them. Alinsky 101.

And the best ridicule is the kind an opponent can't really fight; the kind that's true. When people bring up Mitt Romney's record; Romneycare, pro-choice advocation, belief in global warming, pro-gay marriage, numerous flip-flops back and forth on almost any issue, saying he's a RINO who will say whatever he thinks will get people to vote for him is not simply ridicule, it's truth. It's the kind of truth that will get him to lose the election, assuming he even gets nominated, because his strategy so far is to defend his record and still claim he's somehow a conservative; and not just a conservative, but the best one running.

Newt Gingrich also has a spotty record and questionable past. We've heard most of them ad nauseum; his divorces, particularly leaving one of his wives while she was cancer-stricken, his infidelities, his sitting down with Nancy Pelosi to talk about combatting global warming, etc. And there are more.

The fact is, though, Newt seems to be the one candidate in the Republican race who is not trying to get voters to ignore his past. He talks about it himself. He says he's made a lot of mistakes and is far from the perfect candidate. He also says he's learned from his mistakes and that his position global warming has changed, not because he suddenly realizes it has to in order for him to get elected, but because he's been made aware of new facts that caused him to doubt it.

Plus, he's shown himself to be a candidate with guts, one that can think on his feet, one who can give an intelligent, reasoned response to any question asked of him and one who knows who the real enemy is in this race. His fight is against the socialistic left, not against his fellow candidates. He (correctly) calls out the media as antagonistic against any and all conservative candidates. He stays on message. He has made no missteps in this race (and no, I don't count his amnesty statements, because it was clear what he meant and he has since clarified it further for anyone who didn't get it the first time).

Of course the mud is being slung nonetheless. Leftist media hacks are already sharpening the knives and getting ready to go after Gingrich's spotty past, but here's the problem; they won't uncover anything we don't already know. Back at the beginning of this race I thought Newt's chances were laughable because of his record and personal history, but I also figured he'd just do what all other politicians do and gloss over his past as though it didn't matter, or wasn't as bad as we think. You know, like Obama. He hasn't done that, though, and that's made all the difference.

Newt's not a Tea Party candidate, and many of us dismissed him as an old establishment type from the get-go. We were wanting a younger, fired-up Tea Party activist, even though I think we knew deep down the GOP wasn't gutsy enough to actually go for such a candidate.

However, what Newt has turned out to be is a smart, obviously capable man who is just as fired-up as any Tea Party candidate would be, and clearly knows how important it is that we not only vote out this current administration but that we repudiate their entire agenda. Romney won't do that, or at least not as full-scale as Newt is obviously prepared to do. Romney will remain as squishy as he's always been because he thinks like an establishment type; playing both sides is the key to re-election. Which of course it isn't.

Newt, who has been around long enough for the establishment to be comfortable with, and whose name is known to almost any American, has proven in this race that he thinks for himself and his line of thinking seems to echo the Tea Party, even if he still can't be called a Tea Party candidate. Some are still saying his past will hurt him in the general election, but as we've already seen with Herman Cain, if that were the case, it would be hurting him now.

Personally, I'd love to see Obama try and debate Newt. It would be a gong show. Newt would mop the floor with him. It very well could be a complete campaign-killer for Obama; the moment when any average American who isn't a die-hard leftist but who was still considering voting for him says "No, no more of that. I like the other guy."

Does this mean I'm a Gingrich supporter now? I don't know. I really don't know. Newt needs to keep doing and saying more things that prove he really has learned from his past mistakes and really isn't saying what he thinks will get him elected. But I love that he's upfront about his baggage. I love that he isn't pulling "politician" tricks. He's acting right now like a man I could support, and if it keeps up I just might.

Besides, it's not like there's anyone better currently running.

President Gingrich?

For the past three years America has been governed by the worst Administration in living memory, possibly the worst ever. Many liberals have asked, "If opposition to Obama isn't motivated by race, why are you only protesting him? Why didn't you protest Bush too?"

Well, for starters, we DID protest Bush, but probably the main reason we didn't take to the streets is that, first of all, they were already well-crowded with liberals whose average protests against Bush were so violent and angry that we wonder how anyone could use those words against the Tea Party. We also didn't take to the streets because while we didn't care for Bush's expansion of government or spending, we knew that if we elected a Democrat in his place, that kind of thing would only continue, and get worse.

By the time Bush went whole-hog Democrat, endorsing the Wall Street bailout, etc., he was practically out of office anyway.

The reason we are protesting Obama is that he is everything we didn't like about Bush, everything we don't like aboud Democratic ideals, and practically an open Socialist all rolled into one. What's there to like about him? Even his most vocal supporters are starting to turn on him. If he's no longer giving Chris Matthews a thrill up the leg, why on Earth should conservative Republicans have ever liked him?

Leftists act like Obama's race is the only reason anyone could have to dislike him because they know that's all they've got to run him on. His record, pre-office and current, is a joke. America is entrenched in two new wars (so much for Obama being the anti-war president), has lost its AAA rating, the economy is in the toilet, joblessness is at an all-time high, and all the Left can do is continue to beat the same drum they've been beating from day one; support Obama, or you're a racist.

Of course, that's one of the reasons the Obama administration is so bloody awful. The whole point of Obama was to be the black puppet to speak for the party while they began enacting their economy-killing legislation that they've been pushing for for decades. Under Clinton, they couldn't get away with it. Under Gore or Kerry they wouldn't have. Obama is what they've been waiting for; a handsome, well-spoken black man who looks good on a collector's edition memorial plate, under whom they can begin the undoing of America, and blame any and all dissent on racism.

Like never before, it is vitally important that a true conservative be elected next year. Ann Coulter is famous for saying "any Republican is better than any Democrat." In previous years, that might have been true. Bush wasn't a good president but he was better than Kerry or Gore would have been. Bob Dole would have made a horrible president, but he likely would have been a better one than Clinton. Lord knows there would have been fewer sex scandals. And John McCain, as much as I don't like him, would have made a marginally better president than Barack Obama. Although, as an aside, I'm kinda grateful he lost, because if he hadn't, Obama would be running in this next election and probably would have creamed him. President Obama has woken up the right-wing heart of America by being who he is, and President McCain would have further put it to sleep.

But in this election, we aren't just running against "any" Democrat. We're running against a deeply divisive, demagoguic figurehead who represents every devious, evil practice and policy America's far-left wants to see enacted. The liberal fantasy of turning America into a Socialistic "paradise" where leftism is the only religion, where the poor are rich and big businesses are broke, where everything is free even if that means total anarchy, etc., is the whole reason President Obama even exists. If this was just any Democrat, I'd probably agree with Coulter; any Republican would be better.

But let's look at the field we have for a moment. First, let's discount the candidates who have no chance at winning; Rick Santorum, while a good man, doesn't appear to be able to excite anyone about his candidacy. He'd make a good deacon, but that doesn't necessarily translate into "good president". Sure, he'd be an asset to the new president's cabinet, but the idea of him being president himself is something only the most religious of the religious right wants to see.

Michelle Bachmann shot herself in the foot with poor debate performances early on, after starting off as the Golden Girl.

Rick Perry became the front-runner the instant he announced his candidacy, but sank like a stone after ridiculous debate performances, his stance on amnesty and the "you don't have a heart comment", and his recent blanking during a debate.

Herman Cain...man, has there been a more heart-breaking story than that? He looked like a dream candidate, and as you can see if you look back in my posts, he had my unqualified support. He HAD it. He lost it after his pathetic finger-pointing in the wake of the sexual harassment allegations against him. I'm not sure I believe the allegations. They're fishy, and they people who made them fishier still. Cain, as far as I'm concerned, could be and most likely is 100% innocent. But he has not behaved like an innocent man. First, he denied that there was ever a charge laid against him (when there was), that there was never a settlement granted (there was) and that he never saw Sharon Bialek before her public allegations against him (he had). Then, Mark Block, his chief strategist, initially stated that the first accuser's son worked for Politico (the man in question worked for a different publication all together, and though he had her last name he was not her son) and then claimed he "knew" a Rick Perry campaign staffer had leaked the stories when he had no proof of any such thing. If the above is an example of how Cain would run the country, I don't want him to. Rush Limbaugh came to his defense, arguing that if the right way to handle sex scandals was the way Clinton did, then he's glad Cain did it the wrong way. Unfortunately, there is more than one wrong way to handle it. Cain didn't handle it like Clinton did, but he didn't handle it in a good way either. More to the point, he showed how disorganized his campaign is.

Jon Huntman. That is all.

So that leaves two candidates; Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. I never thought I would ever type that sentence. This is our top tier. Just over a month away from our first primary, and these two are the most likely to emerge victorious from it. Really?

Now, let's talk about Mitt Romney for a moment. Just for a moment, because it seems like all anyone does these days is talk about him. It's clear, as I've said, that the GOP establishment really wants him to be our candidate, because he is supposedly the most "electable". By which they mean, the one most "liberal-lite" who could reach across the isle and bring in independents and Democrats disgusted with Obama. But when has this ever worked? Seriously, when? Bob Dole? John McCain? Why do men like this routinely end up being touted as "electable candidates" only to lose (and in Dole's case, lose big), yet the GOP establishment predictably backs them again? If Romney were to drop out of the race tomorrow, would they suddenly start backing Huntsman? (answer: probably)

They call Romney the most electable, and while he did start off as the highest polling candidate, that can be chalked up to name recognition. Since the campaign really started, he's been at a permanent polling plateau with literally every other candidate (except Huntsman and Santorum) at one point or another rising above him. Presently, Gingrich is ahead of him. Gingrich. The guy who lost his first campaign staff wholesale. If he falls, I guarantee Santorum will rise to first place. And that's because--pay attention, GOP establishment--Republican voters DO NOT WANT MITT ROMNEY. They want ANYONE but him (again, with the possible exception of Huntsman). If the guy can't beat Newt effin' Gingrich, doesn't that clue you in that your base is not at all excited about him? That if they can find any suitable conservative, they'll go for that person first?

Now, here's the thing; after taking a closer look at Gingrich, I'm not sure I'm against his presidency. I was at first, but with no Marco Rubio, Tim Pawlenty or Allen West in the race, with Bachmann and Cain down for the count, Gingrich may be my man. Yes, he's got skeletons in his closet but he acknowledges them, and says he's learned from them. They're not hidden from view, like Cain's may have been. Gingrich recently said one of the greatest things he could have said: "I'm not the perfect candidate, but I'm better than Romney and I'm a genuine conservative." No, Mr. Gingrich, you're not the perfect candidate, and the best thing you could have done for yourself is acknowledge that, which you have. Romney is trying to sell himself as the perfect candidate, when he's anything but. For you to be so honest and plain-spoken about yourself and your candidacy is refreshing.

To be honest, after the very first debate, when Gingrich was the first, and only, to say openly that the press was hostile to all the candidates and hoped to get them in-fighting so that the focus could stay off Obama's record, I paid attention to that. Most did. We've known Gingrich was a smart man for decades now but I don't think anyone expected him to be so...ballsy. And he's run that kind of campaign since then.

In 2012, we need, nay, we MUST HAVE, a presidential candidate who won't just beat Obama, but will actively work to restore America back to economic and financial stability, and put us back on the road to growth. This person must not be someone willing to appease his opponents, flip-flop on issues or make quid pro quo deals with people who are out to destroy them. Romney has proven over and over again that he is that kind of politician. He's a power-seeker. He's a back-scratcher. He's a suit. Could he beat Obama? Maybe. Would he be appreciably different? No.

Another aside; we have to know by now that race WILL be an active issue on the table in this election. Whoever we elect will unquestionably be called racist by the leftist media. It's gonna happen. It's just simply not a question. Ask yourself what Mitt Romney would do to fight that. He'd probably waste time trying to prove he's not a racist by visiting black neighborhoods or having his picture taken next to black congressmen or some other shameless "politician" move. Gingrich would turn that accusation right back on his accusers and, while it probably wouldn't shut them up, it would kill their message to all but the most committed leftist race-hucksters.

We need someone with guts. Someone who isn't afraid to piss people off and get the job done. And although I never thought I'd say this, I think Newt Gingrich could be that man.

Will we be electing President Gingrich next November? Only time will tell.

Would it Derail the Obama Campaign?

Wow. What a storm can start from one poorly sourced, uninformative article, or at least when it's about a conservative.

Picture this; several years ago, like a decade plus, you made a comment that you thought was innocent, but the person you made it to, who was of the opposite sex, took it the wrong way and got offended. She then files a complaint which totally blindsides you, because you know nothing happened and you certainly didn't intend for it to. The matter gets settled and because you're in a position to delegate to others what to do to satisfy this person, you say do it, and you're glad to have it done with and behind you. I know that if I were in this position, I would likely forget it. After all, I know that I meant nothing by the comment, I know I did nothing wrong, and I know that even if there was video of the incident in question, such a video would prove my innocence.

I have been accused of something I was not guilty of. I even had to consult a lawyer, who assured me that the accusing party had no case and I shouldn't worry. Because my accuser didn't work for me, I was in no position to give them money to leave me alone, but if I were, I know the outcome would have been the same, which was, I promptly put it behind me. I was innocent, nothing came of it, and it was only after racking my brain to think of a time when something like this might have happened that I recalled the incident.

Something like this apparently happened to Herman Cain. Now, Cain has had multiple careers, each of which has been successful. He was a ballistics expert for the military, chairman of a state Federal Reserve, eventual CEO of a chain of Burger Kings and then Godfather's Pizza. In a position like that, allegations of sexual misconduct can come out of left field. Most highly-placed men in any field will tell you that even complimenting a woman's new hair-do can open you up to allegations of sexual harassment or some other form of misconduct.

When the story first broke, the following is literally all we knew: Sometime in the late 90's, a woman who worked for or with Cain in the National Restaurant Association accused cain of "unwanted comments of a sexual nature" and "gestures that while not overtly sexual were nonetheless unprofessional and troubling." Also according to the article another woman had made allegations. The article implied that a monetary settlement had been reached.

That's it. That's all Politico said to start with, and that's all they've said at all so far. When pressed to say more, Jonathan Martin, the author of the article, stated that he was not prepared to reveal more out of "sensitivity" to the "victims" involved.

Uh-huh. Tell me another funny, Mr. Jonathan Martin, author of a thousand Palin hit-pieces that go after her family just as much as they go after her. Jonathan Martin is not a sensitive man, so what his sudden reticence says to me is that he doesn't have more than he's already released. An unknown source, two nameless women, vague allegations that could mean anything, and...that's all.

Tell me, would such allegations derail the Obama campaign, if something like that had come up in 2008? I can tell you right now they would not have, because we knew about Obama's William Ayers connections and his 20 years in Rev. Wrong's church, and none of it mattered. If the Left can get Bill Clinton off the hook for his own (many) marital infidelities that he LIED ABOUT UNDER OATH, then they would definitely rally to Obama's defense, had an allegation like that surfaced.

But with Cain, there is much hemming and hawing because this is a serious issue that bears looking into more closely.

Now, Cain, unfortunately, has not responded well to those accusations and quite frankly I can understand why. Like I said, had it been me in his position, even if I'd had to sign off on some sort of settlement, I would have quickly forgotten it because why dwell on something that is settled and that you know had no merit to begin with? Now, one can argue that in his position, he should have been prepared for this, but Cain is not a career politician, always prepared with a statement about anything, no matter how true or untrue, that may come to light from his past. If anything, that may be what hurts his campaign. He is a businessman first, and while that means he brings common sense real world solutions with him it also means he's not thinking in terms of self-promotion or defense, at least not yet. George W. Bush was the same way, and he had some political experience.

Up until now I've seen Cain be able to let any accusations made against him slide off, and I would have hoped that in this case he could come forward right away, say what happened, and let that be that. The way he's handled this is the only thing that I take issue with; not because I think he's lying but because he has made it easy for his attackers to make it LOOK like he's lying, and in the game he's playing, and on the team he's playing for, that's bad.

If he were a Democrat this wouldn't even be a story. Politico wouldn't have touched it and they would have poo-poo'd any attempts from the Right to bring this up. Only if we'd discovered such a non-story as this we probably wouldn't have touched it either.

Cain's first response was to say that he's never harassed anyone nor did he remember paying anyone a settlement. I admit, if I were in his shoes and thinking like I think (and like he was likely thinking), that would have been my gut response. But the fact is, Cain later came back and said "Okay, I guess there was a settlement", while still denying any wrong-doing took place on his part. I'm prepared to believe him, as in America you are still innocent until proven guilty, but if there was a settlement, Cain should not have implied there wasn't, or that he doesn't remember, even if he did forget. He should have released no statement until he had researched or remembered the incident.

This sorta goes back to all I've said about Cain being in this race for America, and not for himself. He was never thinking of this race as a popularity contest or about promoting himself. It likely never occurred to him that an overly sensitive woman deciding something wrong happened when it didn't would ever come back to haunt him. A career politician would have found her and paid her still more money not to talk to reporters.

What Cain finally ended up saying was that the only incident he could think of after spending a day wracking his brain trying to think of what this incident could have been, was a woman that he off-handedly stated was the same height as his wife, while holding his hand under his chin, to indicate the woman's height. If that's truly it, then there is no story and I can confidently say that had this happened to a Democrat, no media outlet would have touched it. Cain stated that he thinks there may have been a settlement, but if it was it would have been part of a severance package and he thinks it amounted to less than three months' salary, possibly less than two months', and that she definitely didn't get all the money she had started off demanding. It's not unreasonable to assume that Cain is telling the truth here. He also says he doesn't recall a second incident, nor was there another settlement. This I can believe right away because it doesn't take much at all for the accusing woman to suddenly have a friend she can get to make up a story in order to seem more credible.

Like I said, if this was me, and I was signing away for the woman to get a slightly larger severance than normal after she asked for a lot more than she got, I probably wouldn't have thought of that as a "settlement", either. In fact, I'll go further; it's entirely possible that this woman was already thinking of resigning but figured there was no reason she shouldn't do so without a substantial pot of money coming with her. So she asked for a huge severance package, and in order to get it, she makes more out of a past incident than is warranted, claiming she's owed the extra money due to psychological duress. The National Restaurant Association conducts its own investigation, realizes what happened amounts to nothing, and let the woman go with a slightly larger package than normal just to get her to go away, and Cain himself, who in a case like that would have been involved peripherally, completely forgets about it. After all the man probably signed off on plenty of severance packages, and this likely wasn't the first time one of them was slightly larger.

So, in summary, it sounds like the allegations against Cain are minimal at best, which apparently even Jonathan Martin and Politico know, since they're not milking the story.

Despite that, Cain's response was less than perfect.

However, despite THAT, if something like this wouldn't hurt Clinton or Obama, why on Earth should it hurt Cain?

Decoding Lib Double-Talk on Race

They Say: "Republicans are nothing more than racists."

They Mean: "We can't run on issues or we lose. Hurling accusations is the only way we have to defeat them. Besides, maybe it will distract from our own racism."

They Say: "Republicans are your enemy. They want to see you swinging from trees."

They Mean: "PLEASE don't vote for them! If we don't carry your guaranteed vote in our pocket we lose!"

They Say: "Black conservatives are self-loathing Uncle Toms."

They Mean: "Uh-oh. If black Americans start listening to black conservatives we're screwed."

They Say: "Herman Cain is not an authentic black man."

They Mean: "OMG HERMAN CAIN IS SO AUTHENTIC HE MAKES OBAMA LOOK LIKE A SALTINE! Quick, let's do all we can to discredit him!"

They Say: "Republicans talk down to black people."

They Mean: "That's our job, dammit."

They Say: "Tea Party Republicans are only pretending to like Herman Cain so they can hide their racism and convince you to vote for him while he entertains them with minstrelsy."

They Mean: "Hey, they're stealing from our playbook! We already tried that with Obama!"

GOP Establishment, By All Means Continue To Trash Cain

It's pretty clear who the GOP establishment wants for the nomination. They want Romney.

They may not have wanted him at first, but they certainly wanted what they consider an "electable" candidate, and they began hunting for one the minute the race began.

Early in the race, it was Pawlenty vs. Bachmann, with establishment critics on either side prepared to call one or the other "the one to beat", depending on who emerged on top. When Pawlenty dropped out, the spotlight began to shine solely on Bachmann. You'd never have realized others had begun running.

When Bachmann showed that she was unable to handle herself with grace and aplomb during debates, the new "golden boy" upon whom the race centered became Rick Perry. Then Perry, who was always seen as soft on illegal immigration, made that completely uncalled for "you don't have a heart" comment, regarding those who opposed his support of the DREAM act, and that pretty much killed him.

Yes, liberals, it was his embrace of the DREAM act and his left-esque defense of it that sank his campaign, not that stupid rock. So you can shut up about the rock now.

So without Pawlenty, Bachmann or Perry, the only establishment choice left that has any momentum is Mitt Romney. Now, it's clear Americans don't want Mitt Romney. They just don't. And it's not hard to see why; he's not a conservative. He doesn't stand for what we believe in, and up until this race he's pretty much been a liberal in conservative clothing. No, we don't care about his religion. We don't see anything necessarily creepy about Romney's approach to his Mormonism. But we definitely don't want a man who created the diagram upon which Obamacare is based, who seems to support the idea of anthropogenic global warming (and would continue the attempt to force America to "go green"), who is pro-TARP and would be open to more bail-outs and who seems to be just as much an empty suit as Obama.

But the establishment wants him because he's "electable", whatever that means. So, in the absence of other "electable" candidates, Romney is their man. You hear RNC member after RNC member (the latest is Karl Rove) showing their support of Romney by trashing the only man who's beating him: Herman Cain.

Cain has polled ahead of Romney now in three major polls, and also won the Florida Straw Poll, which is also known as Presidency 5, in which Romney was a distant third. That's incredibly impressive for a man who's never held elected office. Hell, it's impressive for anybody. But all you hear from GOP leaders is Romney, Romney, Romney, and why Cain isn't our man.

Their complaints against him are ridiculous. "He's never held public office." So...holding an elected office is a guarantee you'll do a great job? Then explain Obama.

"He has no foreign policy knowledge." This is based on his flubbing of the question about the "right of return". Here's a question: if anyone had asked Obama about that before they'd asked Cain, do you think he would have been able to give an intelligable answer? Also, I think Cain can be counted on not to commit multiple offenses and breaches of protocol with visiting British dignitaries and the freaking Queen, will not bow to foreign dictators, refer to languages that don't exist, etc. If we can allow Obama to be president with his joke of a foreign policy, I think we'll be okay with Cain, who will at least listen to the experts, as he has said on numerous occasions.

"There are issues with his 999 plan." Any time I hear someone attempt to discredit the 999 plan, their reasoning seems very vague. The plan is there at his website and it makes sense. It's written in plain English a layman can understand. Why are people acting like it's a big mystery? And why, since the plan is laid out in point form on the site, do the criticisms sound almost intentionally vague? Also, why is no one suggesting another, better plan?

"He's flubbed some debate responses/interviewer questions." So far, Cain has not uttered a campaign-derailing comment like "You don't have a heart" or "If you turn the 999 plan upside down, the devil's in the details." His "flubs" are no worse than anything Clinton or Bush, Jr. said on the campaign trail. You know, those two-term presidents?

I suppose it isn't all that surprising that the "movers and shakers" within the GOP want another RINO to be nominated. Most of them are RINO's themselves, and have utterly failed to grasp the fact that a majority of Americans want to see a genuine conservative in power this time, and not just another power-seeker we're all told we should vote for. They continue to believe that the only way to win elections is to be "moderate", which means "Liberal lite". To them, we can only run people who seem to appeal to liberals, not understanding that as long as an "R" comes after a politician's name, a liberal is never going to vote for them.

Because they can't really defend Romney, they instead trash Cain. At first I was upset by this, but now I think I'd rather they kept at it. After all, they praised Pawlenty, Bachmann and Perry. Now every time another establishment GOP'er comes out in support of Romney (or trashes Cain), Cain's poll numbers go up. If they started praising him now I'd be worried.

Some say that Cain has peaked too soon, but in all honesty, this is not like the peaks we saw for Bachmann and Perry. They had the support of the GOP establishment. Cain, like so much else he's done in his life, has succeeded in his consistent lead in the polls entirely on his own. America has finally come to know Herman Cain, and they like what they know. And the more attempts there are to take him down, on both sides, the more his numbers continue to rise.

So, establishment hacks? Keep it up. Talk up Cain's lack of experience, this idea that 999 is unclear or hurtful, and keep building up Romney. You'll badmouth Cain right into the White House.

Liberal Projection

The Liberal Position on Obama: "If you don't support Obama, there can be no question you're a racist. Oh, yes, we know that every now and then one of us conscientiously objects to something he says or does, but they still support him, because they're not racist. The only reason to not support him is race."

The Liberal Position on Cain: "If you support Cain, you're a racist, because you don't support Obama. You want to replace Obama with another black man, a black man who dances your dance and says what you want to hear, so therefore you prefer him to a black man who doesn't dance your dance or say what you want to hear. And that's racist."

Could this be a better example of liberal projection? The reason they support Obama is apparently the reason we're supporting Cain. After all, does anyone think liberals would support Obama if he were exactly the same kind of man and the same kind of president, but had run as a Republican?

We care about issues. They care about race. They project, therefore, their own thought process onto us. We couldn't possibly be supporting Cain because of his stance on the issues. It must be race. Except we're racists. So therefore we support Cain because we're hiding our own racism and we enjoy his "mistrelsy". What?

So, let's get to the heart of the matter. Obama (who is half white) is an authentic black man because...he...stands for black issues? Like...universal healthcare? Big government? Socialism? High taxes and increased gov't spending? Yeah, those sound like issues near and dear to the hearts of black Americans. Of course, Obama also responds with great understanding when addressed with concerns about his lack of attention to America's black population, as follows:

“I expect all of you to march with me and press on. Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying. We are going to press on. We’ve got work to do, CBC.”

Yeah...real concern for the best interest of black Americans there. Don't focus on how things are getting worse for you, just support me.

Just how is Barack Obama an "authentic" black man? Oh, that's right, because he's a Democrat, and everyone knows the Democrats have always been the champions of equal rights for black Americans.

Always.

So Obama is "authentic" because he...dances the Democrats' dance and says what they want to hear.

Herman Cain, however, is not authentic. Because...he's successful, self-made and doesn't sit around blaming "The White Man" for keeping him down. In fact he refused to let himself be kept down. He did things black people were told they couldn't do, succeeding in mathematics and business despite being told he shouldn't bother. He made something of himself with no help from "whitey", and certainly no help from Democrats, who would have offered him social assistance in order to keep him poor and dependant on them.

In other words, Cain is living the dream Martin Luther King fought for. And that...somehow makes him not authentic.

Oh, wait, actually it's because he is running as a Republican and supports the Tea Party. We all know the Tea Party is racist. They can't stand the thought of a black man in the Oval Office, which is why they're...totally supporting the idea of a black man in the Oval Office. It's just a black man who agrees with their positions on lower taxes, smaller government, job growth, etc. Okay, that settles it. They must be racists.

It is time for Black America to wake up. They have been handing their votes to Democrats for decades now and what has it gotten them? Sweet f--k all, that's what. "But they got a black President!" Yes, a black president who couldn't care less that while unemployment has risen for everyone across the country, it's near double for blacks what it is for whites. A black president whose response to his own poor performance in actually helping the community he claims to care so much about is to literally tell them to "stop grumbling." A black president who routinely rolls over and does the bidding of the white men who pull his strings; name a single issue Obama appears passionate about that isn't also a long-time Democratic "progressive" talking point?

Black Americans, listen. Obama may share your skin color but in what other way has he earned your vote? Name a single thing Obama has done that helped you? Has your life improved under his leadership at all? Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Are you worse off?

Herman Cain also shares your skin color, and he wants to help. Unlike Obama, whom the Democrats pushed on us transparently so they could cry "racist" against any nay-sayers, Herman Cain has beat the odds to get where he is and has had no help from the establishment on either side. He is in the race because he cares about America, and all her people, of all colors. And it's a message that is resonating. Maybe it wouldn't have if Cain had run in 2000, or even 2008. But now people are understanding; we can't just keep putting our support behind the same old "electable" candidates just because the establishment SAYS they're electable. Cain is a true grassroots presidential contender who can, and will if he's allowed, make a real difference. The fact that he also shares your skin color can be thought of as a bonus if you want to think of it that way, but in a much more important way, Cain has already earned your vote in a way that Obama simply never will.

And please, for the love of all that's holy, stop worrying about feeling like an Uncle Tom just for voting for a Republican. First of all, this Republican is one of you in every way he can be. Second, the only reason any of you feel this way is that the mainstream media, Democrats all, have told you that you should. In no way is this true. It's far more "Uncle Tom-ish" to keep voting for Democrats year after year because your parents did and you keep being told that's what you should do--by WHITE Democrats. I know, I'm white, too. The difference is, I'm not suggesting you should vote for Cain, or anyone, because they're black. I'm saying vote for Cain because he stands for your issues and will actually help you. Just that now the only reservation you would have had (should he be nominated) is gone; you won't be voting against the black man. You'll simply be picking the better of two.

Realize what more black Americans are realizing all the time; the Democrats don't give two sh-ts about you and have done nothing to help you. All they care about is your vote, which they feel they own. They are the modern day plantation owners. It's time to emancipate yourselves from their condescending rhetoric.

Raise Cain. He's the authentic black man, and more importantly, the authentic American.

Leftists: Ideology First, Race Second, Sex Third, Everything Else: Doesn't Matter

Yesterday I wrote an entire post about my support of Herman Cain and the only time I mentioned race (other than to tell potential race-baiters that my use of the term "spades" as in "he has it in spades" was not a racial joke and not to make it into one) was to say that the Democrats wouldn't forego the race-baiting in the 2012 campaign even if Cain were to be the nominee, because they feel they own the black vote.

If anything, the fact that I wrote a pretty long piece about my support for a black man and never mentioned his race as a reason to support him or not support him should show where my head is where race is concerned; it's just not a factor. I'd be an idiot to think it wouldn't be brought up by the mainstream media during the campaign (it already has) but it doesn't affect who I support one iota.

But to Democrats it's a trump card; sorry, it's THE trump card. Why are critics of Obama called racists? It's not because they are, but rather it's because the Democrats are obsessed with race, and for them, all that mattered about Obama was that he was a leftist, and he was black. For a true leftist, it's ideology first, race second, sex or sexuality third, and everything else hardly even matters. Why else would they run a man with literally nothing remotely presidential or leadership-ready on his resume?

I've written many times about how I feel that true racism today is mostly on the left, so when I hear a right-winger suggest that we wouldn't get behind Herman Cain if we were really racists, I wonder why they don't address the reasons why the party of true widespread racism DID get behind Obama. But it hit me as I was thinking about it that while today's left is just as racist as it's ever been, it's a different kind of racism. Rather than the kind that lynches them or burns crosses on their yards, it's the kind that says people of color should all think, act, talk, dress and vote alike, or that black people can't succeed without white man's help, or that black people who are able to speak eloquently and have good hygene are somehow exceptional (as if most black people are not those things), or that any person of color who would ever consider voting Republican is a traitor to his or her race, because Democrats are supposed to own their vote.

All of the above are truly racist positions, and they define leftist views on race to a T. But they aren't about hating black people, per se. Instead they are about considering people of color to be a sub-class of human who have their uses, but need to be kept in their proper place.

So why would such a group willingly follow a black man? Simple; they're NOT following him, nor is he acting like a leader. He also isn't acting in the best interests of black Americans. Everything Obama's done since taking office is basically "Force legislation through Congress that the left has been trying to enact for decades now, while totally ignoring the black community he claims to care so much about." Obama's policies aren't about advancing black America. They're about advancing LEFTIST America. Socialist America. He pays lip service to the idea of supporting the cause of black Americans, but nothing he's done since taking office suggests he really cares about it. Poverty, single parenthood, wellfare, food stamp use, etc., all have risen among black Americans under Obama's watch. And it's not just "racist" right-wingers who've noticed; Maxine Waters herself, and many of the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus, took Obama to task over his total shafting of black Americans.

Now, I'm not saying Obama SHOULD focus on just black Americans. He's president of the country, not president of its black population. I mean, it's not that he doesn't care about black America; he doesn't care about America as a whole. But this proves that Obama was not campaigned or elected by people who give a rodent's hirsute hindquarters about black Americans or their plight. Obama was not elected because the Democrats want to advance people of color in America. He was elected because the left can now do what it's always wanted to do, and claim that any opposition to it is due to racism.

Which is exactly what they're doing.

In effect, this makes Obama the ultimate Uncle Tom; he's sold out his people for the leftist cause. He's allowed himself to be the black face the left puts on all its actions so that it can keep playing the race card every time they face reprisal. He's joined those who are doing all they can to keep black people in their place, and if he ever starts actually thinking for himself (that is, coming up with a thought or plan that wasn't straight out of the leftist playbook), the left will turn on him in a hurry. Heck, they've already done that every time he was forced to concede to the Republicans on any issue. Not only that, but Obama got where he is entirely because of white people. I've said before that establishment Democrats are just as white as establishment Republicans, and have actually done less to show they care about black Americans.

Leftists cannot fathom that right-wingers love Herman Cain because we feel like he's one of us, or agree with his stance on the issues, or think he's got some good ideas to get this country back on track. They can't fathom that because that's not how they think. They look at Herman Cain and they see A BLACK MAN. A black man who IS A REPUBLICAN! And then they lose their head. Policies? Positions? Ideas? Motivations? These do not matter. And it gets worse. Cain is a self-made black man who took responsibility, worked hard and made something of himself, never demanding a hand-out from white America or whining about how his personal journey was harder than it should have been because of his color. Clearly, this man does not know his place. And that terrifies the left.

Because we're supposed to be racists, a meme the left will flog until the end of days, leftists struggle to come up with a reason we love Herman Cain that makes sense alongside the racist meme. But it DOESN'T make any sense; supposedly we love Cain because we're trying to hide our racism. Projection?

I'm afraid it can't work that way. The left hasn't claimed that we're the kind of racists they are, allowing that black people have their uses as long as they know their place. They started off claiming we HATE black people and that the only reason we oppose anything Obama does is that we can't handle the idea of a black president. You can't claim on the one hand that we hate black people and then also claim that we're getting behind a black man now so that we can hide the fact that we hate him. In what universe does that make sense?

If we really were the kind of people the mainstream media would have you believe we are, we'd laugh at Cain's attempt to ingratiate himself with us, mock him and then throw our support behind the KKK.

If we were the kind of people the left truly are, then we would politely scoff at his efforts to become president, pat him on the head and advise him it would be in his best interests to keep voting for us despite how little heed we pay anything he says. Just like the Democrats did with every black presidential candidate they've ever had who threatened to be even slightly more than a puppet for the hardline left.

All Aboard the Cain Train

Okay, I'm a Herman Cain supporter again.

I've always liked Cain. I always felt he was the only man in the race who was in it for America, and not for himself. I never lost that sense of him. What lost me was his pathetic show of ignorance when it came to a crucial matter; foreign policy.
I'm no expert on foreign policy either. I wouldn't have known what the "right of return" was either. But then, I'm also not running for president (and couldn't legally do so until a year from now anyway). I kept hoping, after Cain's poor performance in that area, that a candidate would emerge who was everything Cain was, as well as more prepared to lead America on the international scene.

Such a candidate has not emerged.

I've asked myself many times over the last few days since Herman Cain's stunning victory in the crucial Florida straw poll what's a larger concern; a president with a detailed resume full of national and international experience who will, without losing any sleep, consistently do what is best for his continued presidency at the expense of the American people, and fail to make any real change, or do we want a tough, smart man who really knows what's best for this country (ei. his 999 plan) who will NOT compromise with self-serving Democrats, who will NOT just roll over and take it when the media makes up lies about him, who will NOT pander to special interest groups and/or unions, and who WILL stand up for America, and average Americans?

Having taken into consideration who's running, and leaving out anyone conservatives seem to WISH would run (like Sarah Palin or Chris Christie), I have to say that Herman Cain is truly the only one I really want to see get the nomination. There are others running I would settle for, like Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman or Rick Santorum, but I would be settling. I wouldn't be happy with any of them.

Mock the idea of debates-as-American-Idol all you want; the fact is that if you can't perform well on that stage, you can't perform well as president. And Bachmann is performing very poorly. Rick Perry started off well, but I'm becoming more convinced than ever that Perry cannot win this unless he changes his position on immigration, and pronto. But instead he's doubling down on it. Mitt Romney? Are you kidding? I've said before, and I'll say again, that if Romney wins the nomination we may as well not even bother having an election at all, and just hand Obama another 4 years. Can Romney get conservatives to come out in droves to vote? Can he sway independants? In both cases I'm convinced the answer is no. A Romney campaign will be just like John McCain's; there were no votes FOR McCain in 2008. There were only votes AGAINST Obama. I know of no one who really wanted a President McCain. All we wanted was to ensure we wouldn't get a hard-left socialist in the White House.

And while I'm at it, let me say that I'm not really that fired up about a Palin presidential run, and don't want Christie to run at all. I love Sarah Palin. I love everything about her. But I'm not convinced she could run a solid campaign and actually defeat the ongoing smear campaign the left has running 24 hours against her. There are right-wingers the left hates, there are right-wingers they are afraid of and then there are those they hate AND are afraid of. Sarah Palin definitely fits into the third category, whereas I'm convinced even George W. Bush only fits into the first. The anti-Bush smears were awful, but the smears against Sarah Palin were and are the most reprehensible thing I've ever seen. They wanted you to think W. was stupid. They want you to think Palin is sub-human.

As for a Christie presidential campaign, there are exactly two things I like about Chris Christie, and two things only; he's willing to stand up to unions and he's willing to speak the truth as he sees it plainly and not pretty up his speech with PC bullshit. No one can accuse Christie of talking like a politician, and there's little doubt that his unwillingness to cater to unions has helped clean up New Jersey. Unfortunately in all other matters, Christie doesn't at all speak to the conservative base. He's spoken out in favor of the Ground Zero Mosque, he believes in anthropogenic global warming, he's for raising taxes and the debt ceiling, and I may be wrong but I also believe he's pro-choice. No, I do not want to see a President Christie, and every time he denies that he'll run, my first thought is "Good!"

Unlike Christie, Cain is a true conservative, and won't hide that fact. He also has the two factors I like about Christie in spades (no that's not a racial joke, and if you try to make one out of it, you're pathetic). Also unlike Palin, he seems able to rise above the smears. Not one smear against him has stuck, and a large part of that is that Cain (unlike Bush) actually--gasp!--RESPONDS to the smears against him but it's the way he responds that I like; he laughs at them. His stance for most is that the leftists who make the smears don't really believe those things themselves, but are afraid of his momentum and are trying laughable ways of bringing him down. And the Florida straw poll results show that he might in fact be right; both about his momentum and about how afraid he's making the Obama campaign.

Some are suggesting that running Cain against Obama in 2012 will take the race issue off the table. I say they're fools if they believe that because race will NEVER stop being a campaign issue for Democrats. They are convinced that they own the black vote, and will do all they can to hold on to it. They call white Republicans racist, but for Cain they'll bring out the "Uncle Tom" hat and try to make him wear it. Heck, they already are. I say to them: good luck. Cain doesn't wear the smears as well as Palin did. I'm not saying the Palin smears were or are true; most of them are provably false and those that aren't amount to little more than salacious gossip. But for some reason she had a really hard time fighting them off, and there are even conservatives who believe the smears against her (one website I saw claimed that her record as governor was littered with controversy, which is completely bogus; one of the reasons McCain picked her was she was a solid conservative with a remarkably sterling record).

Cain? I have yet to encounter even the most hardline leftist who can really say something against him other than vague "this man is a joke" rhetoric they lob against any conservative. Yes, there have been "Uncle Tom" smears. Yes, Jon Stewart tried to claim doesn't like to read (with a routine that would have been unquestionably racist to the left if it had been, say, Dennis Miller making the same sort of joke against Obama). But Cain seems to rise above it. None of it seems to affect his popularity, none of it has slowed his momentum even a hair. Now that he's won the Florida poll, maybe the media will start treating him like a serious candidate and we'll see some real effort on the part of the MSM to take him down. I say bring it on; I think Cain can take it and make them look ridiculous for trying.

Add that to the reasons I support him. While the Republican establishment continues to try and convince us that we should go for an "electable" candidate like Romney or Perry (or Christie) when we know they mean "someone who's not a real conservative because we stupidly believe people like that can't win", we the people have been waiting for a candidate who really speaks for us, who listens to the average American and who is not just concerned about getting elected and keeping his position, who has common sense solutions that will work. Cain is that man.

And to all of those who hem and haw and say "the presidency is not an entry-level position", I repeat what Cain says: "We've had career policitians in power for the past twenty years. How's that working out for you?"

PS: Besides, Cain may not have held elected office before, but he brings more real world experience with him than any president before him. Obama barely ever worked in the private sector; he lives in a different reality than most Americans. It's Obama that's the entry-level president, not Cain.

It's Becoming Clear: When it Comes to Slagging Conservatives, the Left is Losing its Touch

During the 2008 campaign, so much negative was said about Sarah Palin that even people who would ordinarily have supported her, if even half a second of news coverage had actually been about her views, record or planned policies, believed she was stupid.

Meanwhile, the press allowed Obama to get by with having known associations with Tony Rezko, William Ayers and the explosively racist "minister", Jeremiah Wright.

The 2008 campaign trail was a mud-slinging fest, or at least it was from one side. The McCain/Palin campaign, and by extension ALL Republicans and conservatives, were painted with a broad brush as insane, dangerous, angry, stupid, racist, sexist, facist Islamophobes who want nothing more than to impose a Christian theocracy in America and who deserved to be crushed.

And it worked. Obama became president and Sarah Palin, on whom most of the attacks were focused, ended up having to resign even as Alaska's governor, due to a concerted effort to destroy her with baseless "ethics violations" charges.

So...what happened? This month, TWO Palin-bashing books were released; Joe McGinnis's The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin and Deer in the Headlights: My Time In Sarah Palin's Crosshairs by Bristol Palin's baby-daddy Levi Johnston. No, I'm not going to link to them. If you're really that curious, google them.

But what's funny is I'm sure most on the Left expected these books to be massive best-sellers and would further bury Palin as an American pariah. After all, the reason Palin's two books, Going Rogue: An American Life and America By Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag were such best-sellers just has to be because Americans were just rubber-necking at the train-wreck that is her life, right? It certainly can't be because they wanted to read what she has to say. But she's a controversial figure, and that sells. So certainly books that trash her will sell too, right?

Wrong. The Rogue isn't even in the New York Times's top 50 (whereas Going Rogue topped it for weeks) while nobody even knows or cares that Levin Johnston wrote a book about anything. Even LEFTISTS of all people have been critical of McGinnis, while barely even ackowledging Johnston.

And there's good reason. McGinnis's book is a collection of unsourced, unverifiable yellow journalism that could grace the page of National Enquirer, and in fact many of the stories McGinnis collects initially appeared in the Enquirer. The Rogue is less a gritty exposé of Palin and more like a novel about the Palin the left WISHES existed. I've said before that the "journalists" of the left went after Palin with both barrels, determined to shame her on the National stage, and when they couldn't find anything to smear her with, they started making stuff up or taking very minor public gaffes of Palin and blew them up as if only a moron could possibly make such blunders.

You know, like pronouncing the word "corpsman" as "Corpse-Man", claiming to have visited "57 states" or signing the Royal British guestbook with the date of 2008 in 2011. Oh, wait, my mistake; those gaffes were committed by our genius president Barack Obama, the man who is reportedly so cool that there's nothing about him one can mock.

Palin's "gaffes" include supposedly believing America was founded in 1773 (when she was actually talking about the year of the Boston Tea Party, and was correct), supposedly believes we're allied with North Korea (when she actually meant South Korea, whom we are allied with, and immediately corrected her mis-wording without being prompted), or believing that Paul Revere warned the British (which he did).

But the left wasn't content merely to blow her very minor (especially when compared to genius Obama) gaffes out of proportion. They also managed to legally obtain tens of thousands of Sarah Palin's personal emails, which they were certain would blow the lid off the Palin family and expose Sarah Palin for the fraud they were all certain she was. The emails revealed nothing scandalous whatsoever. So many attempts to tear her down and she was still standing proud. I would imagine that many leftists were hoping that Joe McGinnis would finally deliver the crushing blow that would destroy her.

And this is what they got. That's the vaunted liberal establishment known as the New York Times slamming McGinnis's book. When even the New York Times is as unkind as that to a liberal writer trashing a woman the left loves to hate, you know you've lost. I gotta say I'm surprised. Oh, I'm not surprised that McGinnis's book amounts to salacious gossip intended to do no more than cement in the minds of people that already hate her that Sarah Palin is a fraud, a liar and a creep. That much was obvious the moment it was announced that McGinnis had managed to rent a home next door to the Palins. But McGinnis is no idiot, so I at least expected that he would manage to produce something that somebody, ANYBODY, could take seriously. I expected leftist establishments to be behind him 100% and to repeatedly assert that Palin's cover had been blown, and that anyone who doubted she was stupid, evil, narcissistic, hypocritical, etc. would now be "proven" wrong.

Instead, they recognize McGinnis's book for what it is. They realize that you can't just write down a sordid collection of rumors, many of which contradict each other, source them all to "a friend of the Palin family" or "someone who knew them well", etc. and expect anyone to believe it. You can't postulate that Palin was promiscuous while also stating that she was so sexually repressed she would barely let her husband touch her, or simultaneously claim that Palin is a fake Christian while also saying she is setting up a theocracy, or that everyone who knew her was aware of her promiscuity and drug use, etc., while also stating that it was a well-kept secret.

McGinnis's book, however, isn't even close to the only example of how the left's smear tactics are beginning to fail. The Tea Party continues to grow, despite the doubling down on Tea Party smearing the left is currently engaged in. Right now leftists look like the little boy who cried "racist!" as more and more average Americans realize that the Tea Party isn't a Klan-like group but is in fact the true voice of America. While Democrats in national and local Congress, the Congressional Black Caucus, etc. behave like a bunch of thugs, or petulant children, more and more people are understanding that the Tea Party is right; that they are not some racist group trying to get rid of Obama, but are instead a group thoroughly disgusted with the current state of congress and the actions of this administration, and are dedicated to getting rid of ALL those who are causing the current problem, including not only Obama, but anyone connected with this reprehensible party, black or white.

The insults are no longer sticking. The left can gang up on one woman, but when they try to apply the same tactic to literally EVERYONE who opposes them, their mud-slinging looks more and more hollow, and more and more people are understanding that the smears of the left aren't based on anything approaching reality, but are the schoolyard taunts of a failed administration that is scared they're actually going to lose.

President O-BLAME-a

So while the pageant of lies
Still rolls from your tongue
Don't blame me for your Kingdom come

When you're willing to render
The the guilt you concede
When truth is your reason
THEN lay the blame on me

When you unveil a conscience
And with peace you agree
When love is your constant
THEN lay the blame on me

--Ed Roland, Blame

Has any president ever spent so much time blaming his predecessor? And for as long?

There's no doubt Obama didn't have a perfect economy and 8 years of peace handed to him the way Bush did. But, heck, Clinton was handed an unfinished war, a weak economy, etc. Many of the things Obama has been handed. Did he spend an inordinant amount of time blaming Bush Sr.?

Now, I'm not praising Clinton. He was not a good president. But he was A PRESIDENT. He wasn't a martinet put into a position he was uniquely unqualified for who then spent his entire first term blaming his poor performance on his predecessor. He may have been a leftist, who, if left to his own devices, would have crippled the economy almost as bad as Obama, who almost certainly would have introduced the same kind of healthcare bill, and who is most certainly guilty of ignoring Al Quaeda activity which lead to 9/11.

Bush Jr. wasn't a good president, either. Unlike Clinton, I believe he is a good man, but a good man and a good president aren't the same thing. His spending, in the name of "compassionate conservativism" and his expansion of government are unforgivable, and almost certainly contributed to the recession. Of course Congress is chiefly to blame for that, but let's not get into that here.

My point is that while neither man was a good president, at the very least they behaved like they were president. Bush could have pointed fingers at Congress all he wanted, and he partly would have been right to do so, but he shouldered the blame himself. Clinton also didn't waste time pointing fingers. When Clinton was in charge, right-wingers may not have liked him, or agreed with his policies, but they never accused him of acting like anything less than our president. Okay, maybe during his trial, when he danced around his guilt, but I'm talking about his performance in office.

Obama doesn't act like he's president. He acts like he's king. His every speech, his every action since obtaining office is to act like he can do no wrong, and if something is going wrong, it must be SOMEONE ELSE'S fault. It's Bush's fault, or it's congressional Republicans who are at fault, or it's Sarah Palin's fault, or, hey, it must be the Tea Party's fault! It's ANYBODY'S fault but mine!

Seriously, this has got to be some kind of record. I'm not historically studied enough to know if any president has ever blamed his predecessor at all, but I feel like I can safely say no president in living memory has ever done it this much or for this long.

During his first 100 days, okay, I can understand why so many people were still saying "give him a chance". After all, he hadn't been in office for even half a year, yet. I still get gaulled by the fact that the same people yelling "give Obama a chance" were the same people who were calling for Bush's head during HIS first 100 days, but all the same, it's true; you can't judge a man's performance based on 100 days in a job.

But the "give him a chance" cry was still going strong one year into his presidency, as was the "it's not Obama's fault; Bush left a mess and he's still trying to clean it up" cry. As if Obama was the first president to "inherit" a large deficit, a failing economy and an ongoing war. People blame Bush's war and spending for Obama's inherited problems, but during the first two years of his presidency, Obama's spending eclipsed Bush's (and pretty much every other president) and he engaged us in TWO new overseas conflicts (Afghanistan and Libya), before the first one was won. Liberals also (wrongly) blame the "Bush tax cuts" for increasing the deficit and worsening the economy, but Obama has extended them. So at what point will he stop saying that literally every problem that's occurred during his presidency is the result of his predecessor, or Congress, or the Tea Party?

After last night I'm convinced the answer is "never". No blame must touch The Golden One. We're nearly three years into his presidency. THREE YEARS. That's almost a full term. Can we expect that the "hope and change" we were promised on the campaign trail would be evident by now? YES WE CAN! But we're worse off than we ever were under Bush. Why is that Bush's fault?

At this point, a majority of Obama's supporters, even the "give him a chance" and the "he inherited this" crowd are forced to admit that Obama can no longer blame anyone but himself and his own administration for the US's current state of affairs. But a few diehard supporters in the media and within his administration are still trumpeting the "it's someone else's fault" meme, and from his speech last night it's clear that Obama will continue to flog that dead horse for as long as anyone echoes it, or as long as he can convince himself that people still believe it.

Don't buy it. Anyone thinking of voting for Obama in the next election, I caution you to think hard. HARD. Don't let fear of a "Republican theocracy" (you know, that thing that's never happened despite generations of Christian Republican presidents) or whatever it is you're afraid of make you decide that as bad as Obama is, he's less scary than the alternative. Remember how angry you were that Bush earned a second term and ask yourself what Obama's done during his first term that's made him more deserving of a second than Bush. And for the love of God leave skin tone out of it! Nobody but Obama's camp cares about skin tone, because they know that's all they have left to run on!

Civility? Are you kidding me?

Okay, the Left can officially no longer lecture about "civility" as long as this is allowed to exist with no comment from them.

Let's review: You cannot put up a map with cross-hairs over congressional districts "targeted" as potential Republican victories. (Wait, you mean a map like this one?) If you do this, you are inciting violence and you are entirely to blame when a lone gunman, a man with a history of mental and emotional problems who was described by acquaintances as "creepy" and who never showed a hint of being political at all, let alone right-wing, starts shooting in a public area and those he hits include a Democratic congresswoman.

However, you can create a freaking online game where you get to mow down "tea party zombies", including likenesses of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck, all without comment from those "so concerned" about civility. Horse-shit. I'm sorry if I offend those who don't like four-letter words, but this is so much more offensive than a mere "profanity". This is an unprecedented level of repugnance from a political affiliation I thought could sink no lower.

What's next after this? A game where you get to be President Obama mowing down all the GOP presidential contenders? A game where you're planned parenthood and you get to shoot up zombie unborn fetuses? A game where you play as members of the Congressional Black Caucus gunning down all the white people you can find?

Now, just imagine for a moment that instead of "Tea Party Zombies", somebody made a game where you get to shoot at likenesses of Michael Moore, Barney Frank, Keith Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and even Barack Obama himself. I don't even have to write potential headlines for this; they write themselves. The makers of the game would be sued, the site taken down, and they would then be investigated by the DOJ as potential threats to the President.

Don't tell me they wouldn't. When a pastor at a tiny church with just over 100 members apparently prays for Obama's death, the DOJ pays him a visit. Now, I hate this pastor as much as it's possible to hate a human being, because he is basically a Fred Phelps in training, but let's be honest here; how much power does this man really hold? And how seriously can you take a man like this?

Plus, Bush protesters repeatedly showed up at rallies with signs calling for Bush's murder. Not kidding. Not one of those assholes was ever investigated by the DOJ, not one was arrested, not one was taken seriously. This is perfectly acceptable, apparently, while stupid men praying in a tiny church that used to be a convenience store apparently warrants a visit from the DOJ and nightly news coverage.

And now it's gone beyond mere signs and parade floats, and a game has been designed where you get to mow down likenesses of real human beings you disagree with politically. This is the Democratic picture of civility.

Barack Obama needs to make a speech right now repudiating this game and its designers and demanding it be taken down.

While he's at it, he needs to condemn the Congressional Black Caucus, specifically Maxine Waters for saying the Tea Party "can go straight to Hell and I'm gonna help 'em get there", and Andre "Hears Racial Slurs in his Head" Carson, who recently said the Tea Party "would like to see [black people] hanging from trees."

He needs to condemn Teamsters Union president Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. for declaring that he and others should "take those sons of bitches out!", referring to the Tea Party.

He needs condemn his own Vice President for calling the Tea Party "a bunch of terrorists".

Either that or he should make a speech saying he really doesn't care about "civility", because it's clear that no one on the left does. At least when it's against Conservatives.

Rules for Debating Liberals

1. Liberals don't debate. They attack. This is important to remember. Don't attempt to engage in any debate with a liberal unless you're willing to fight back, because the Liberals' goal isn't to prove you wrong; it's to shut you up. If they can scare you into silence, they will.


2. Liberals don't refute your points. They sneer and condescend. If scaring you doesn't work, expect them to immediately dismiss your arguments as the ravings of a total loon. "No one with half a brain could possibly believe that!" they'll sneer. Phrases like "Riiight..." or "Oh, come on" will be used frequently. At no point will the Liberal feel the need to actually cite where you're wrong, or what made you wrong. You are wrong simply for disagreeing with them. It's a classic Alinsky tactic; ridicule is a powerful weapon. They hope to make you feel stupid or part of a fringe element because of your views. Failing that, they hope anyone listening to you will feel that way about you.


3. Liberals are generally the first to resort to personal attacks. Don't even think of debating a Liberal unless you are prepared to hear personal remarks about your intelligence, gender, weight, age, alleged promiscuity, education and, yes, even your sexuality.


4. Despite supposedly being race-friendly, gay-friendly and feministic, Liberals nearly always accuse their black opponents of being "house slaves", and accuse others of being gay, and attack the womanhood of female conservatives. This goes back to personal attacks, but deserves its own point because Liberals trumpet their tolerance loudly, but always--ALWAYS--attack their opponents with smears against their gender, race and sexuality.


5. Liberals do not appeal to facts or precedent, despite a constant claim to be the side with the "facts". They appeal to emotion and "fairness". Their claims to be the side that has all the "facts" falls apart the minute you begin debating them, as they always fall back to claims that your position is "cruel", "fascist", "angry", "heartless", "unconscionable" or "unfair". This is because they don't actually have any "facts", and they know it, so sticking purely to facts would force them to admit defeat. Instead, they declare anything they want to think is true to be a "fact".


6. "Tolerant" Liberals who claim to be open to a wide range of views will attack anyone they feel is too religious (other than Muslims). They will question the rationality, sanity and brain power of any person who concedes anything remotely like a belief in God, or support of any faith-based organization.


7. Even after a Liberal has failed to prove you wrong on any point, they will always behave as if they have won. That's because to a Liberal, they are right by virtue of being Liberal. If they say racist or sexist things, well, they know they aren't really racist or sexist because they're Liberal, and nothing a Liberal does is racist or sexist, including saying racist and sexist things. By contrast, ANYTHING a Conservative says is racist or sexist, probably both. You lose because you are Conservative.

You know...come to think of it, debating Liberals is a lot like engaging in flame wars with Internet trolls!

Seven Things Liberals Do and Conservatives Don't

Liberals and Conservatives are just opposite sides of the same coin, aren't they? When it comes right down to it, there's no real difference between them other than which side of the political pole they're on, right?

Not so fast.

There are many things Liberals do all the time, and see as perfectly acceptable, that Conservatives just don't do.

Oh, they're accused of doing them all the time, and that's due to projection (more on that later). How do you know what Liberals are up to? Look at what they're accusing their competition of doing.

All the same, here's a list of things Liberals do habitually, that Conservatives just plain don't do.

7. Engage in misogeny, racism and religious intolerance while claiming to be against such things. Conservatives are routinely accused of racism, sexism, etc., but at this point the argument is essentially "They have to be racist/sexist! They're Conservatives/Republicans! Everybody knows they're racist/sexist!"

Of course, can there be anything more sexist than the way leftists routinely talk about Sarah Palin, and of late, Michelle Bachman? Look at the Newsweek cover calling Bachman "The Queen of Rage", and how purposefully they made her look crazy and frail. The left HATES women who don't fall under their definition of "feminism" which is basically "treats men badly, has promiscuous sex, is pro-choice, and puts their careers ahead of their family, assuming they have a family." In other words, a true "woman" tries to be as macho and pig-headed as the way they see men. Nothing could be more mysogenistic. And despite the way Maureen Dowd, Gloria Steinem, etc. repeatedly tear down Conservative women, you never see Conservatives of either gender going after left-leaning women this way. You just don't. Find me the article where a Conservative calls Maxine Waters a "c#nt" or Hilary Clinton a bitch. Many people were calling Hilary a bitch while she was Obama's competitor for the Democratic Nomination, but guess who was doing that? Not Republicans, Conservative or otherwise.

And you just don't get more racist than the sort of bile the left spews at Black Conservatives. I've already discussed this at length, so I won't bother going over it again, but you know what I'm talking about. You just don't see this kind of vitriole from Conservatives against Black liberals. We hope they change their minds, and we hope they'll understand that just because Charles Rangel, Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, etc. share skin color with them doesn't mean they share ideals or have their best interest at heart. But we don't hate them and we don't use racist language against them. Liberals use that kind of language against black Conservatives all the time.

6. Approve of literally everything, even illegal things, if it means they win. See Journolist. See the fact that there is no Conservative equivilant. See the Democratic efforts to pass Obamacare. They made it clear they would pass it no matter what. The fact that so many Democratic Senators suddenly changed their minds is highly suspect, or would be if they were Republicans, whose every act is suspect.

Conservatives are strongly law-bound. When a conservative gets caught in a scandal or breaking the law, their career is over. Liberals can be guilty of murder, or at least manslaughter (Ted Kennedy) and go on to have long careers. Consider that nobody connected with Journolist lost their jobs. Consider that East Anglia University's Climate Dept. is still the research centre of record for Global Warming BS despite the leaked emails. This would be unacceptable to Conservatives.

5. See opposing viewpoints as "the enemy". Obama literally told Latino Americans that Republicans were their "enemy". In fact, read any article by any left-winger talking about any right-winger. To them, we're not simply "wrong" or "arrogant" or "misguided" or "stupid" (we're all those things, too), but we're also "evil". The way they always talk about us is the way you talk about an opposing force to be wiped out. Liberals don't want to change conservative minds; they want conservatives DESTROYED. How else do you interpret their literally calling for our deaths, and rejoicing when we do die?

Conservatives often make fun of liberals, often suggest that their stupid policies are what got us headed on the wrong track in the first place, etc. but I've rarely if ever seen a conservative wish death on a liberal, or rejoice at a liberal's death. We see them as the opposition, but not a literal "enemy". Maybe we should.

4. Change the meaning of words like "tolerance" or "hate". To a liberal, "hate" means "you disagree with me". How else to explain liberals' constant complaint that the Tea Party "hates" Obama, and by extension all black people? But before the recent race-baiting spate began, liberals were already using "hate" to describe anyone opposed to gay marriage, regardless of what grounds they disagreed with it on. Strongly held religious convictions? No, it must be HAAAATE! Of course, the opposite of "hate" is "tolerance", and "tolerance" is a virtue that all liberals claim to hold dearly, despite proving over and over again that they are only willing to tolerate what they find tolerable, which is pretty much nothing outside the umbrella of liberalism.

Conservatives may not claim to be tolerant, but they at least use the word correctly, and don't claim to be something they're not.

3. Accuse others of doing things they do themselves. Projection is one of the watch-words of modern liberalism. Remember what I said above? The best way to find out what liberals are up to is look at what they accuse conservatives of doing. Bush "stole" the election? Sure. The far more likely scenario is that Gore was trying to win at any cost, including voter fraud, and failed. Why do you think Democrats hate the idea of needing ID to vote? Because it makes voter fraud harder! Why else?

But nowhere is liberal projection more obvious than the recent "new tone" of "civility" the Democrats are all insisting we go by now. Remember when President "Punch Back Twice as Hard" demanded that we all begin "using words that heal rather than hurt" in the wake of his own comments getting Kenneth Gladney a beatdown from SEIU thugs? Oh, wait, I'm sorry. This was in the wake of the Jared Loughner shootings that happened to hit Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The way the media tried to spin it, Loughner was a right-wing extremist who was inspired by Sarah Palin, who had put a map on her facebook page with cross-hairs over electoral districts "targeted" as potential Republican victories. The map was obviously a call for violence in these regions, so Loughner was not to blame for the shootings. Sarah Palin was.

Never mind that Loughner was described by all who knew him not only as "a-political" but as "creepy" and "unbalanced", and he had once made a joke in a college classroom about strapping aborted fetuses to bombs. Never mind that at no point could anyone on the Left provide any direct link between Palin's map and Loughner's decision to get a gun and start shooting up Tuscon.

This meant that a "new tone" of civility was called for, so that the "violent rhetoric" of people like Palin, and Glen Beck, et al, would never inspire another crazed right-winger to violence like that again.

Of course, liberals have violated the new tone all over the place. And they don't care at all that Obama's encouragement to his followers to "bring a gun to a knife fight", "get in their faces" and "punch back twice as hard" were made THE DAY BEFORE the Gladney incident.

Got that? Sarah Palin makes a map with cross-hairs on it, targeting electoral districts, and months later a lone nutcase with a history of mental issues shoots several in Tuscon and hits a Democratic congresswoman = Sarah Palin is DIRECTLY at fault.

While Obama in a speech uses violent words to encourage his followers to beat down conservatives, and the NEXT DAY his own followers do exactly that = nothing to see here.

2. Name-call, accuse, and use "yeah right" or "oh, come on" instead of refute. I have no doubt that by this point any liberal reading this has made several comments like "Oh, whatever" or "Can you believe this idiot?" or "He probably pleasures himself to a picture of Mitt Romney" or "I bet he's a racist" or any number of things. In fact, I would imagine that if anyone leaves a comment (assuming anyone is reading this), I can probably tell whether you're liberal or conservative just by how dismissive your tone is. I mocked liberal's "debate" style in my first post. This attitude is deliberate; it's a classic Alinsky tactic. That way they put us on the defensive, or make it look like what we say is so "obviously" ridiculous that no smart person would dare pay it any heed. Think all those "ethics violations" Sarah Palin was sued for had anything to do with actual ethics violations on her part? No, but she wasted time, money and effort fighting them to the point where she could no longer successfully govern, so she resigned. Which was the entire point.

1. Evade the slightest possibility of debate. Of course all of the above lead to this one. Liberals know that if they actually debate the issues, and not engage in any of the former, they'll lose. Everything liberals do is designed to stop a debate with conservatives before it even starts. Anthropogenic global warming is "settled science". Obamacare will fix everyone's problems and we don't need to know what's in the bill. Period. Our economy sucks because of Bush, the Tea Party, the Republican Congress not "compromising" (ie: just doing what the Democrats want), etc. and that's all there is to it. Don't debate us, just agree with us. If you don't, you're an idiot, probably racist, uncivil, etc.

Liberals, I welcome your response. I guarantee you will prove me right.