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.