Skip to main content

Conservative Diversity on Parade

Like every other blogger on the planet, I have a few thoughts to share regarding last night's GOP debate on CNN. I know there are supposed to be no original thoughts left in the universe but I truly haven't seen these expressed elsewhere.

The candidates were all in fine form last night -- looked good, sounded good. None seemed to stumble horribly or cave in to using the usual ambiguous answers. I was quite proud to see that each candidate seemed on fire with his own brand of Conservatism last night. I ws energized by it actually.

The proof that Conservatism is a thinkers political ideology was in abundant evidence. Just as intellects come in all shapes and sizes -- from the rough and tumble biker with the 180 IQ to the clean cut PhD in Physics -- Conservatives are much the same. Our ideology covers quite a spectrum of thought and representation. Listen to Rush Limbaugh's radio show any given day of the week and you'll hear callers that cover this same spectrum, from teenagers to truckers to PhDs in Cosmology.

Yes, ours is a big tent and we had the candidates on stage last night to prove it. From Huckabee's Christian Conservatism to Guilani and Romney's Compassionate Conservatism to McCain's "Why can't we all just get along?" Conservatism to Ron Paul's Constitutionalist Conservatism to Hunter's Second Amendment Conservatism to Tancredo's "Rule of Law" Conservatism, there was a candidate for every flavor of Conservative on this fruited plain. It was a thing of beauty to behold! I was so very, very proud to see each and every flavor of the ideology on display in such fine form.

Many Republicans are livid today as evidence continues to roll in on the planted questions used by CNN in the debate. Rightly so, actually. A Primary debate should be different from a General Election debate. Only Republicans should be asking the questions of their candidates during the Primary; after all, it is we who will decide our nominee for the General Election, not the Democrats or the Independents. In a General Election, it's fair game for any voter to ask questions of any candidate.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that CNN's political editors took their best shots at forcing the "stereotypical" Conservative image center stage last night. The planted YouTube questions made it glaringly obvious during the debate. Any Conservative worth his or her weight noticed it early on. The fact that the sham questioners were unmasked so immediately is clear evidence to me that CNN's political staff knew what they were doing but underestimated the intelligence (and research skills) of their Conservative audience.

The questions were nothing but standard mockeries of and jabs at the Liberal stereotypes of Conservatives. Our candidates did a fine job in politely picking those stereotypes apart with their thoughtful and honest answers. One by one, they picked those stereotypes apart in each "flavor" of Conservatism at which they were aimed. I am very proud to have watched Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul use those sham questions as opportunities to educate the television audience on Conservatism. Smart, smart men who all happen to vary slightly to greatly in their variety of Conservatism. BRAVO, fellas!

Today I find myself feeling grateful that CNN's political editors pulled those shenanigans in the GOP Primary debate. Their miscalculated chicanery provided a wonderful spotlight for our candidates -- each and every variety of Conservative -- in which they put those tired old Conservative stereotypes to rest and educated the television audience on just how big a tent it takes to cover the political ideology of Conservatism.

While some Conservative and GOP groups are burning up the 'net with calls for the resignation/firing of the Political Editors at CNN -- and there's certainly reason to do so -- I'd simply like to say "Thanks! Nice work, CNN!" They did more public good for Conservatism in that two hours than I've seen done in ages!

It's nice to see some badly-needed points made for Conservatism: (1) CNN's actions in choosing the planted YouTube questions finally confirmed its collusion with the Left; (2) Old, worn out Liberal stereotypes of Conservatives were shattered on national TV; and (3) Conservative thought was voiced eloquently in terms that were welcoming and educational for voters who needed enlightenment on our political ideology.

All in all, it was a wonderful evening of Conservative diversity on parade. No rainbow flags needed... they did it peacefully and in grand, understated, Conservative style. Nice work, candidates!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is conscription the prescription?

US Representative, Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is at it again. Rangel's prescription for fixing the ills we're feeling in Iraq is a draft . I have very mixed feelings about this. Conscription is conscription no matter what you choose to label it. Is that appropriate in a free country? On the flip side of this coin, I've often thought that compulsory national service would be a great idea for American kids right out of high school. It might have been a better start for me than learning to down beer at a Liberal Arts university! Two years in the service might give kids time to think about their future, learn higher levels of responsibility, and begin to take life more seriously. There are many countries who require some level of mandatory military service: Belarus, Chile, China, Croatia, Serbia, Russia, Iran, Lebanon, our neighbor Mexico, and our old buddy Germany, to name a few. Gee, now that I look at that partial list... aren't many of those countries Socialist or at battl...

As the Blog Turns...

Gee. I have found myself fascinated by the soap opera unfolding in the comments section of this blog since last night. One little mention on a controversial Democrat's blog and it's High Noon on ConservaChick! (Yes, I'm laughing while I type this.) For those of you who have no idea what's happening in the ever-expanding comments section , join the club! Here's what I know about Mark Nickolas from bits and pieces I've read on his blog, and from a local news report: Nickolas likes to sneer at Republicans and call them snide little nicknames as he provides his "Unfiltered and Candid Look at Politics, Politicians and the Media in Kentucky;" he raised a ruckus within the Democrat party here in Kentucky by filing a suit against the chairman of the party , Jerry Lundergan; and he will be appearing on the same panel with yours truly on Thursday night. That's about it. You now have the benefit of my not-so-extensive knowledge on this subject. Nickolas poste...

Pol Watchers Responds

I think it's important for anyone with a voice on the internet to present all sides of an issue. In that spirit, I am posting the response I received via email from John Stamper of the Lexington Herald-Leader to the piece I wrote about censorship on blogs: "Your post about Pol Watchers does not contain the entire thread of comments, as your blog states. If you go to the post in question , you will see that there has been no effort to eliminate comments just because they question Jonathan Miller and Mark Nickolas. Plenty of them still remain. However, as stated in my comment on Pol Watchers, we're not going to allow people to use the blog as a forum for name calling. It's that simple. Check around, it's a pretty common policy. For example, blogs at WashingtonPost.com have this policy: 'User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsi...