Hey, Allen West. Hey, Marco Rubio. Hey, Paul Ryan. Hey, Bobby Jindal. Hey, Sarah Palin.
Guys, really. Where are you? Why are you hiding in your cozy little states, refusing to affect the kind of positive change you have enacted on a state level on a national one?
Allen West is a fighter and a true hero, in every sense of the word. Marco Rubio is the kind of solid conservative who seems to understand what conservative values are all about (unlike Rick Santorum). Paul Ryan is THE guy to curb government spending and put the economy back on track. And yet...they won't run.
Instead, we get leftist empty suits like recent Iowa Caucus winner Mitt Romney, or Jon Huntsman.
Or radical idealogues with dangerous ideas about foreign policy like Ron Paul.
Or men who've spent the last two decades making themselves a stink in everyone's nostrils like Newt Gingrich (whether he deserves it or not isn't the issue of this post).
Or men who don't even seem to know what kind of campaign they're running, like Rick Perry (seriously, what was up with that "gay soldiers" ad?).
Or men who want to replace oppressive liberal big government with oppressive CONSERVATIVE big government (as if that's not an oxymoron) like Rick Santorum.
Where have all the good men gone?!
Why are good conservatives, who seemed to understand the importance of voting the bums out of Congress and the Senate in 2010 suddenly sitting back and letting men like those I described all but ensure that the bum currently sitting in the White House WON'T be voted out this coming November?
One of the only reasons I still kinda hope Newt pulls this one off is that he's a fighter, and we need fighters. Romney's an appeaser, not a fighter. Rick Perry doesn't even know what he is. Jon Huntsman is a liberal. Ron Paul is all about himself. Rick Santorum is a whiner who thinks he's a fighter.
The fighters who took back congress last year have decided this is one fight they won't get involved in. Why not? Is it because so many are recent electees? Who cares? Obama had yet to finish one term as a junior senator before he became President. Sure, we talked about his lack of experience, but it was his short term in office, COMBINED with his complete lack of accomplishments or record of any real meaning, little to no real world private sector experience and just the mysteriousness of why anyone, black or white, conservative or liberal, should vote for him, that we made issue of.
If Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio or Allen West (my top three picks) were to run, nobody would question their records. Oh, sure, they'd all be excoriated by the press the way all GOP candidates are, and almost certainly Rubio's "natural born" status would be questioned, but they could, and would, fight it. They'd turn it around on the press and come out looking like the winners they are. They are as close to a modern-day Reagan as we currently have.
And any of them would have won in a landslide. But they quit fighting.
Now we only have the one fighter, and he's losing. So, 2012 will either give us four more years of President Worst Ever, or introduce President Not-Obama. Because of the men left in the race, nobody wants to vote FOR THEM, they only want to vote AGAINST OBAMA.
Not good enough. I weep for the nation.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, December 2, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
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?
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?
Sunday, October 30, 2011
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!"
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!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)