Stop Being Panzies!

One of the things that has always comforted me, being a conservative, is the raw, bare, confidence I have in knowing that the ideas we construct society around (from the conservative viewpoint) are without question based in freedom, dignity, and morality. One of the things I have most despised about conservatives is that while we have these tremendous and high-minded principles, we wimp out way too often, and the fate of the free world suffers.

 

I hate victimization of the innocent more than anything. And when conservatives serve up the self-inflicted victimhood, I want to heave!

 

A couple of examples of recent history come to mind.

 

This past week MSNBC and the man who shall not be trusted (pick many of the hosts on MSNBC, but for the sake of this argument assume Ed Schultz), purposefully and willfully ascribed racism to Texas Governor Rick Perry. They did so by deceptively editing a tape and chopping a speech of Perry's so that the sentence he last uttered used the words "this big black cloud." Schultz, then in unabashed slanderous libel, proceeded to say, "The big black cloud that Perry's referring to is President Barack Obama."

 

When the full context of the speech was released by a competing news organization it was discovered that the "big black cloud" Perry referred to directly was "that debt." The national albatross hanging around the necks of Americans to come for generations--THAT was what he was referring to--not the man most responsible for causing it.

 

Yet it did not prevent Schultz from flat out making up racism, inventing it out of thin air, dishonestly claiming it about a man, who only a week before had spent several hours one Saturday praying with African American church leaders for God to sovereignly begin to heal the joblessness that the black community is in such pain over.

 

It was disgusting, yet no one has sued Mr. Schultz. No one has told the fellow, "You will not get away with these tactics." His immoral, dishonest, and unjustified spouting of lies were allowed to fester, when in reality he should pay a heavy price--perhaps even lose his platform on MSNBC. For if Mr. Perry was even one-tenth the racist Mr. Shultz claimed he was, he would advocate that Perry lose his job.

 

Fast forward to later in the week, former U.S. Senate candidate from Delaware Christine O'Donnell began making the rounds on an interestingly titled book tour, "Troublemaker."

 

No doubt enjoying and basking in the counter-cultural role she had come to represent in her own attempt for the U.S. Senate seat, (her second failed attempt) Christine O'Donnell accepted an interview invite on one of the least interesting prime time cable shows in America, Piers Morgan.

 

Piers was himself, disdainful, mocking, cheeky, and crude.

 

Piers seemed more interested in O'Donnell's interest in masturbation than in much of anything else. But what bothered me immensely was how she took it from him.

 

She appeared weak in refusing to confront Morgan directly. She said his actions "appeared rude" as she nervously giggled. I was embarrassed not just for her, but for the entirety of the conservative cause.

 

If she did not wish to answer the question on masturbation, then she should have out thought him and responded in a way that would put him on his heels. The fact that she would not address the issue of gay marriage--which clearly is part of the conversation of her book--was inconsistent and any normal host would've smelled that blood in the water and forced the issue.

 

She later blamed her bizarre departure from the show on the "creepy behavior" of Morgan as supposedly cited by bloggers. Again missing the point...

 

O'Donnell needs to do what Schultz refused to and that is to "own your actions" and "own the consequences."

 

She should have fired back at Morgan that if his juvenile existence was made more meaningful by her decade's old views on self-stimulated sex then she would let the audience draw their own conclusions but that she wasn't going to dignify his unending adolescence. And on the issue of marriage she should have not hidden behind the issue of, "I only wished to talk about what's in the book." (After all it WAS in the book.)

 

Instead as a strong, confident, and proud believer in her ideas she should have shot back that she would never wish to deprive any child of the ultimate gift--which is--the unparalleled stability of a home with a married mother and father.

 

Conservatives listen closely.

 

We are going into a season of all out war with a leftist enemy who will do all they can to ridicule sound ideas, genuinely helpful policies, and principles that have stood the test of time. We have no room to be bullied, victimized, and isolated because we want people to go easy on us. When the Piers Morgans of the world fire warning shots, bazooka a hole in the hull of their craft. And when unabashed evil seeks to lie to advance its point, insist upon accountability.

 

I'm not advocating unnecessary harshness, but I will never advocate unrequited niceness.

 

One does damage and loses ground, the other gives up before the discussion of ideas even begins.

 

And this will not be the season that common sense goes quietly... not on my watch!