Friday, November 11, 2011

Newt Attackers Are The New Alinksy’s



Those liberals never stop right?  Unfortunately it is CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES making these claims.  And I ain’t gonna just *smh*

What the hell is the matter with YOU PEOPLE!?? Why is a RUMOR about YOUR candidate untrue (and the end of the world as we know it), but you won’t even boot up your search engine to double check accusations about your candidates’ competitor which you can’t wait to email, tweet or post?

PolitiJim, did you not take your meds this morning?”

(Fair warning – this is a RANT.  Do not take this to be FOR or AGAINST any specific candidate.  But this is a beat back against particular Cain supporters who somehow think there is only one side of the argument.)

I received an email from a dear conservative, tea partying patriot that was entitled “NEWT GINGRICH HAS A CHARACTER PROBLEM.”  It recited (many now disputed) accounts of Newts adultery 20 years ago in the ESQUIRE article as fact.  It brought up silly charges about his personal spending habits.  Essentially she, a CAIN supporter, said Gingrich couldn’t run anything, was dishonest, immoral and – as best I could tell – was singlehandedly responsible for the moral decline of civilization and the rise of Lady Gaga.  Not a word however, about HER candidate that hired an inept campaign management team that has falsely charged other candidates without any evidence. TWICE! (In my Bible a False Accusation is still no less of a sin than that of adultery.  And Gingrich has at least repented for his sin.) 

erkel This week I’ve seen a ton of this stuff making me wonder if I was on a spineless liberal Twitter Timeline instead of good, God fearing patriots who agree in Restoring Honor, Courage and Liberty. This is a very, very unfair attack on Gingrich when the Cain “management” house is not just made of glass, but the thin “stage prop” stuff that shatters every time an off key note comes out of his campaign.  I suppose I’m not “godly” if I dare point out her candidate promised he would hire the “best” people to run the country but so far has demonstrated he’s picked the equivalent of a team of Urkels to the UFC Championship of politics called a Presidential campaign.

By the way – I am NOT anti-CAIN.  The success he is making in steadily overcoming the false allegations (and the likelihood they are orchestrated by Obama) make me want to push and press for him harder.  As I wrote in my defense of Cain yesterday – Cain may be the SINGLE MOST DANGEROUS nominee to the long term viability of the Democrat party and the liberal mindset in the US electorate. 

cain006 But I’m tired of this “my guy is holier than thou” when his shorts stink as bad or worse as that of the guy whose pants they are trying to pull down! Cain fumbled on numerous OBVIOUS debate questions last night including one suggesting that US products would be cheap enough to compete with China under his 9-9-9 plan.  It is embarrassing that someone running for the President of the United States would not be aware of the currency manipulation by the largest single creditor our country has.  The PRACTICAL impact of that could mean disastrous economic and diplomatic policy decisions, national embarrassment if told in a meeting of the G20.  You can’t tell me that ignorance of a basic geopolitical fact is going to be less harmful than past indiscretions of which ALL around him agree have been nonexistent for two decades.  I believe Cain is a godly man.  And if he is he certainly wouldn’t condone slanderous and ethical attacks from his followers against one of his closest friends and the guy he is willing to serve under if Newt is elected President.

I’m tired of pro- Perry, Palin, Cain supporters completely disallowing any accurate criticism of THEIR candidate but feel perfectly free to personally disparage and demean fellow Christians. 

Where is the intellectual honesty you accuse Obama and Democrats of not having?

The essence of the article is that Gingrich isn’t fit to serve because of:

  • His past affairs
  • FALSE claims that his consulting is “lobbying” (his agreements SPECIFICALLY prohibit him from doing such)
  • “Attacking” Paul Ryan’s plan – the congressman who supported TARP and would not “hold the line” as Jim DeMint advocated to stop the automatic cut of a TRILLION dollars on defense that is about to happen.
  • Attacks on Newt’s having a $500,000 credit line at Tiffany’s and went on a lavish cruise.  (seriously, this was an argument.)

brkfst at tiffanys Seriously? The man isn’t fit to be President because he spends a lot of money on his wife? I guess it would be too much to acknowledge that Gingrich was HUGELY responsible for the last balanced budget our government had. This is INSANE!  At that point – I am not convinced that this person is even a serious Christian much less a conservative.  Otherwise they would be removing the PLANK in their candidates eye before screeching out the spec in Newt’s.  How else you could explain the complete absence of ignoring St. Paul’s admonishment to not speak evil of each other?

IT IS FAIR, I believe, to point out inconsistencies, deficiencies and shortcomings of any candidate.  But there is a huge difference for me to call Mitt Romney an “evil” man versus pointing out he’s held multiple positions on a lot of issues and told NARAL he would be a stealth candidate to “moderate” the GOP on abortion.   This is on tape documented and is a fact.  I don’t need to make “character assassinations” to discuss something that would relate to both his ability to get elected and my faith that he would do what he said.  But I would also not dare make a judgment that he is INTENTIONALLY lying from one minute to the next.  It could be that he sincerely changed his views.  It could be that he sees the issues differently.  But no one, but Mitt and his God know the truth.  I have no right (and I would be factually wrong) to make a declaration that he did these things because he has “character issues.”

Just to set the record straight on Newt’s “transgressions” (thanks to wonkish1):

  • Like King David who wrote Psalms, he committed adultery and fervently repented before God,his family AND the public. (He didn’t murder anyone as far as we know.)
  • Newt argued to NOT run the 1998 elections on Lewisky and was overruled by party leadership who then LIED and BLAMED the losses on the approach Newt vigorously fought against.
  • Newt’s daughter was an eyewitness to the “hospital bed divorce paper” rumor and wrote a column firmly denying this on fact and insinuation.
  • Newt has said over and over that “The Couch” was the single most idiotic thing he has ever done politically, but his intent was to try and not leave the issue in liberal hands alone.  It didn’t work, but at least he DID something and NEVER advocated for Cap & Trade. (Newt is actually VERY knowledgeable on Global Warming but is not up to speed on the BEST findings from NASA yet. This decade WAS cooler.)
  • Newt immediately “unendorsed” Dede Scozzafava when Dick Armey informed him who she was and endorsed Doug Hoffman.  Yes, he should have been familiar with the race before doing so – but he immediately corrected his mistake.
  • Calling Ryan’s plan “social engineering” was stupid.  He had PROFUSELY PRAISED the plan 6 weeks before and was talking about not forcing it down the throat of the people in comparison to his idea of how to implement a staged change in healthcare.  HOWEVER.  Gingrich has been around a long time and he likes to think.  Thinkers constantly come up with ideas so he has a lot of them.  A ton of them.  Many contradictory.  But he was instrumental in defeating Hillarycare on principle and fought fiercely against Obamacare.
  • He is a lifelong politician.  Unfortunately while doing so, he made a liberal President move toward conservatism as the Speaker of the House and implemented Welfare Reform and a Balanced Budget.  Give me MORE of those “politicians” will you?

Gingrich Pelosi That was my best defense of Gingrich on his worst issues.  For the best attack (and by best I mean factual and non-emotional)  It’s not too hard.

  • As just mentioned – he’s had a LOT of ideas on a lot of things.  Although the “gold standard” of conservative think tanks – The Heritage Foundation actually was the foundation for his thinking, he did support an individual mandate.
  • In an attempt to “influence,” he has befriended and praised Hillary Clinton and even Al Sharpton.  I call it the “Jack Kemp” approach.  Both either didn’t see or didn’t want to see the radical underbelly of these types of “outreaches.”
  • He loves being an academic.  Of itself that’s not bad, but there is a tendency to over-rely on theory instead of practical.  It leads him to make errors of what is the best designed government rather than having a Milton Friedman-like core that is willing to do away established bureaucracy.
  • He is short on emotion, at least in the “sound bite” area.  Emotion moves people to action.  Newt can do it in a 45 minute lecture, but he doesn’t have the emotional appeal to get non-policy wonks excited about complex solutions like Reagan, or even Clinton could.

Holy crap that took a long time.  So here was my response to this person:

I see it all over twitter and and just delete this email if you don't want to hear my two cents.

CAIN has said Newt would be his VP if elected.  To slam Newt is to slam Cain's judgment in picking a possible successor.  If he is that bad as a possible president - then he should not be Vice President.  and if he is that bad, it casts a horrible stain on Cain's ability to pick a team.

Newt has been the single most honest broker and leader during the entire campaign.  When Cain jumped and smeared Perry on the "N-word Rock", when Perry smeared Mitt with an dishonest attack on his gardening service, when Pawlenty tried to assassinate Bachmann and EVERYONE wanted to demean Palin - Gingrich was the only person who refused to get into gutter politics.

And Newt singlehandedly kept Cain alive when Cain couldn't get above 5% by complimenting him, drawing him into focus during earlier debates by complementing him - and this week FIERCELY defending him on network news stations when the rest of the cowards stayed silent.

You have a right to your opinion of course - but I'm frankly ashamed by those who forgot Reagan's 11th Commandment.  It is an Alinksky tactic DIRECTLY out of rules 5, 11 and 13 - to demean and marginalize your opponent.

Despite all Newt's problems of the past, he has repented privately and publicly and acknowledges Jesus as His Savior.  God has already forgiven him and has removed it "as far as the east is from the west."

It is a sorry shame that people who claim to be people of God INTENTIONALLY go out of their way to continue to trash a very good man who has demonstrated what Cain, Perry, Bachmann and Santorum could not.  Actually showing what leadership should look like.

there now.  I've said my piece.  (and of course this will likely turn into a blog)

Love you anyway.


If what you are about to say about another candidate is more in line with what would come from a book dedicated to “Lucifer” than a book dedicated to the Lamb, think of another way to say it based on FACTS rather than False Accusations.

I will do a pro/con Cain piece this week.  I am SIMILARLY tired of people telling me Cain is stupid although an economist from the Cato Institute says he is one of the smartest people he has worked with. As does NEWT GINGRICH by the way.

But the hypocrisy of Cain supporters who want me to just take a leap of faith to elect a person with ZERO government experience, close to zero foreign policy understanding (in a world that is about to explode)and someone who doesn’t even apologize for successive false accusations because he is “godly,” is appalling. 

GodAmericaNewt Similarly how can I be thought wrong to elect a person who balanced the countries budget, actually has CREATED national movements that resulted in historical electoral and legislative accomplishments, has written books and produced movies setting the case for the Nation to return to God?

Do you want someone with NO policy and government experience but great executive experience, or do you want someone with amazing government and policy experience and limited executive experience?

Character DOES matter.  If you decide to throw Newt overboard you might want to rethink your acceptance of the Bible.  Godly men and women can fail and be redeemed.  NO. YOU do not have to take that leap of faith that they have learned their lessons.  But please don’t disparage the intelligence and discernment of those that might be compelled to do so.  For if you do you are condemning God himself, who forgave and entrusted these men AFTER they did much worse than what you accuse Newt Gingrich of doing:

King David

Murder & Adultery


Murder and Disobedience of a direct command from God


Selling his own wife


Denying Christ – perhaps the worst sin of all.


Killing & Torturing Christians

What does all that mean? We should try and walk “in love” with one another much as possible.  And forgive each other our sins.

Hopefully you will do so to me, after this pointed message.

UPDATE:  Here is an example of the completely insane attacks that use no fact, just to try and marginalize someone.  What this idiot person doesn’t realize is that they actually make their attacks WEAKER since all you have to prove is that ONE rumor is false.  Once they are incorrect on one tenant of their argument – the entire thing comes into doubt:



Post a Comment


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More