The Democrats don't win by gaining votes, but by convincing the opposition not to vote. That is how Obama won the Illinois Senate seat. . . by knocking his opponent out of the race with personal attacks. That is how Obama won the presidency, too. The democrats, and the liberal media, had convinced the voters to hate Bush with their Bush derangement syndrome campaign, while the schools taught the young to follow a cult of personality like our current president. As a result, they pulled off enough votes to win the election.
Most of the nation, however, is conservative, and the liberal left knows it. They have been working on weakening the GOP candidates to pave the way for another Obama win. They must engage in a campaign of personal destruction if they want to have a chance. The Left also knows that moral character is a big deal with conservatives, and that is why when they attack it is normally through the exposure of a republican's moral shortcomings.
Liberals, because the ideology is for the most part dominated by secularists, also believe that people don't change, and can't change. They hold an ignorant understanding of biblical teachings, and they think that by simply slamming republicans for their immoral mistakes of their pasts they can fool the voters enough to win the election.
The problem is, when it comes to Newt Gingrich, the attacks are not only not working, but he is turning their accusations into a positive for him. The liberals believe Newt is resonating with the conservatives because he is attacking the media, but it is really because he is articulating conservatism.
Is Newt Gingrich the ideal conservative? Of course not. If this was a campaign for sainthood, he would lose miserably. As Tom recently said, with my positive posts about Newt's latest escapades, he thinks I am defending a serial adulterer.
Honestly, I am not a huge Newt fan. I have repeatedly claimed that I think he is a party guy that has a history of putting party, and often himself, before his alleged conservative principles. But if I have to choose between an egotistical "serial adulterer," and a narcissistic Marxist student of Saul Alinsky hell bent on destroying the nation as founded by the Founding Fathers and transforming it into a communitarian-style system that considers capitalism the enemy and the Constitution as an obstacle, I will take the adulterer every time.
Besides, if Newt has indeed sincerely seen the error of his ways, and has reached out to God for forgiveness as he has said, then that actually makes me consider supporting him even more. I would rather vote for someone who has made errors, learned from them, and is a better man for it, than a narcissist who thinks he does no wrong and that it is his elitist responsibility to use government to control everyone's lives.
The run of the mill liberal will of course claim that in the end it is the republican voters choosing the candidates, and to place blame on the liberal campaign of personal destruction is giving their opposition to the GOP way too much credit. But let's not forget that not all voters are well informed, and often fall for the leftist propaganda. Also, the republican primary voters in the States with open primaries are not all republicans. Historically, in Michigan, for example, liberals will often vote in the republican primary for the weakest GOP candidate in the hopes of helping their own democrat party candidate.
The liberal business as usual will probably not work this time. People are sick of Obama, and fearful of what his liberal policies are doing to this nation. Also, in the case of Newt, the voters are resonating with his articulation of conservatism. If Newt keeps this up, or if another GOP candidate was to win by articulating conservatism, it will more solidify a GOP win in the upcoming general election. In other words, the more conservative the candidate, the wider the margin of victory over Obama.
After I had written articles refusing to jump on the anti-Cain bandwagon after the accusations of sexual harassment that had no evidence presented along with the accusations (and they interestingly went away without further pursuit after Cain dropped out), and after I had refused to get all over Paterno when the Sandusky details surfaced (I understood that Paterno had informed his next higher up, and I believe he did not understand that he needed to do more because I don't think he fully grasped that what he had been told was reality, plus he felt he had done what he was required to by telling his supervisor - much less was his inaction beyond notifying his superiors anywhere near illegal), liberal Tom left the following comment:
Who are the Republican primary voters again? Let's see.. liberal Democrats? No.. that doesn't sound right.. Oh.. I know.. Republicans. That's right. It's the Republicans that will not vote for Cain and instead put Romney up against Obama to get his ass kicked. But hey.. if it makes you feel better to blame the Democratic party.. then by all means.. have at it. Strange you've lately been defending child rape enablers and perpetrators of sexual harassment. I'm sure Jesus would approve.
I placed this comment here to show the ignorance of the liberal mind, the vitriol of the average liberal, and to address the final sentence because it truly reveals how ignorant the secular liberals are. He added at the end, when it came to me being willing to defend "alleged" child rape enablers and perpetrators of sexual harassment as he put it, "I'm sure Jesus would approve."
Actually, Tom, Jesus would approve. Christ encouraged us to see the best in people, to forgive them of their transgressions (not justify or condone, but forgive), and to accept repentance as Christ would rather than hammer someone over the head over their past mistakes in life. People do change. People can turn away from their wicked ways and become new creatures in Him. This is why, to the dismay of the Jewish leadership, Jesus forgave the prostitute Mary, and why even a murderer, after truly realizing the error of his ways and submitting to the love of Christ, can even receive salvation from the Lord.
I believe Cain when he said he did not harass those women. I believe Paterno died regretting he didn't do more when it came to bringing Sandusky to justice but also died knowing that he had not purposely done anything wrong, and I am at peace with that. And I believe Newt when he says he has seen the errors of his past and he has turned over a new leaf thanks to his Faith in God.
I believe Cain when he said he did not harass those women. I believe Paterno died regretting he didn't do more when it came to bringing Sandusky to justice but also died knowing that he had not purposely done anything wrong, and I am at peace with that. And I believe Newt when he says he has seen the errors of his past and he has turned over a new leaf thanks to his Faith in God.
Besides, as I said before, which should I prefer? A person that has struggled with his morality and has cried out to God for forgiveness? Or a liberal leftist that desires to intentionally destroy the nation as it was founded?
I'll take my chances with the repentant sinner every time.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment