The Rabid Conservative

Think Right, Act Right, Be Right.

Lewinsky Reloaded? Nah, We’re Not Biting

with 8 comments


Folks, I also want to caution – conservatives will never win when we lower ourselves to mudslinging and feeding into the negativity.  We have a strong powerful message:  lower taxes, limited government, fiscal responsibility, moral leadership in the world, strong national defense, and an American identity that makes one proud; we need to focus squarely on that.

I don’t normally relish the thought of going to bat for Barack Obama.  Granted he’s still the President of the United States (which makes me just want to punch a wall every time I think about it).

But really…

Today the National Enquirer is trying to sensationalize and run a story that would equate to Lewinsky Reloaded.   Turns out, the target is Barack Obama and the supposed mistress is a 35 year old campaign staffer by the name of Vera Baker.  Evidently, the information got “leaked” that Baker was banished from the campaign by Michelle Obama.  The story initially broke back around 2009 and it would seem that The Enquirer is trying to dredge it back up. 

I don’t really take for truth most, if any, of what The National Enquirer  says, since they would run stories about hybrid bat people, this celeb bedding down with that no named pool boy, etc etc.  Even still, the stories that they do run – well, none of their staff has the cast iron gravitas to tie his/her name to the rubbish.

All the news that’s unfit to print, right guys?

As we all remember with rolling eyes, former President Bill Clinton got his hand caught in the proverbial nookie jar when it was revealed that he was having an…ahem…”inappropriate relationship” with Monica Lewinsky.   But it would seem that The Enquirer, now out of gas from the “Tiger Woods putting on another green” story, is gunning for something a bit more juicier, edgier, racier.

More eye rolling…

Do I believe this story to be true?  Not at all.   And while I still have a few reservations about whether or not Obama was actually born in Hawai’i, despite all the WorldNetDaily/Orly Tait circumstantial “evidence” to the contrary (not to mention the March 25, 2010 remarks on the Kenyan Parliament floorsubsequently removed from the Kenyan Parliament website) I am pretty certain that Obama isn’t that stupid to cheat on or get caught cheating on his wife. 

Considering that Michelle Obama is pretty scary to be taken lightly as a “woman scorned”.

But this post isn’t about all that.  It’s about the incessant appetite that America seems to have with scandalous stories about prominent figures and mistresses.  And for years on end, tabloid papers like The National Enquirer  have been feeding that craving.  Never mind anything about good journalistic integrity, fact checking, and responsible reporting of actual news, versus slinging slander, The Enquirer  has made its money by selling stories about stuff that people want to hear, whether or not it’s actually true.  And it would seem that the saucier the story is, the faster that the tabloids are looking to put it out there.

I guess the one thing that I really want to comment about, after it’s all said and done is a warning to my fellow conservatives.  In theory, if Bam-ster actually got involved in such a scandal, the damage to the Democrat Party would be so extreme that it would nearly guarantee GOP control of Congress after just four years of Democrat control.  And Bam would not at all be game for a 2012 run without some serious PR damage control and a widespread suspension of belief/truth by the main populace of Americans.  I mean, let’s hypothesize for a moment.   Let’s say that Bam Bam was just stupid enough to pull a Slick Willie…do you think someone like Robert Gibbs (fibs) would be able to tap dance that good and pull Bam’s…uh…bacon out of the fire?

Again, I’m sure Bam is not that stupid.  Granted he’s very a rank amateur when it comes to being a good government executive, with all of his time in the Oval Office being on-the-job training.  But I am pretty well certain that he’s not that irresponsibly brash in his arrogance that he would amount to this.  We knew about Clinton, even before he got into office.  Bam’s not that stupid; let me reiterate.

So why the story?

My guess, and this is the cynical, conspirator side of my psyche talking, that this little ditty is designed to grab the attention of those on the Right Wing who would just love to watch Obama go down in something reminiscent of Clinton. 

Folks, I also want to caution – conservatives will never win when we lower ourselves to mudslinging and feeding into the negativity.  We have a strong powerful message:  lower taxes, limited government, fiscal responsibility, moral leadership in the world, strong national defense, and an identity that makes one proud; we need to focus squarely on that.  If we resorted to this kind of stuff – stuff we would expect from the Hollywood-backed Left Wing,

Oh look, here’s a little nugget about Rielle Hunter, former John Edwards mistress talking about how she’s “responsible” for bringing down the only politician and presidential candidate (abeit two-time/two-timing loser) with Harpo Winfrey herself (another Obama cheerleader…).

Perhaps there’s some good dirt in there?

Oh yeah, right.

[after telling Jay that they’re going to check the “hot sheets,” Kay pulls up to a newsstand and buys a pile of supermarket tabloids]

Jay: *These* are the hot sheets?

Kay: Best investigative reporting on the planet. But go ahead, read the New York Times if you want. They get lucky sometimes.

Jay: I can’t believe you lookin’ for tips in the supermarket tabloids!

Kay: Not lookin’ for. Found.

Advertisements

Written by The Rabid Conservative

May 1, 2010 at 2:32 pm

8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “Folks, I also want to caution – conservatives will never win when we lower ourselves to mudslinging and feeding into the negativity. We have a strong powerful message: lower taxes, limited government, fiscal responsibility, moral leadership in the world, strong national defense, and an American identity that makes one proud; we need to focus squarely on that.”

    Man, if only every Republican felt this way, I would tow the party line SO hard.

    Added you on my personal blog.

    Kelly

    May 1, 2010 at 6:04 pm

  2. Hi Kelly:

    Thanks for writing in and the blog add.

    Republicans have really lost their way over the last ten years. They started getting sucked into that allure that capitulating to people and moving the party to the center in a “big tent” philosophy would grow the party. This was the position of John McCain and a lot of ways, George Bush (both). Expectedly, the reverse happened.

    And then, during the first decade of the 21st century, GOP members got to the point where they were virtually indistinguishable from Democrats. The American public is so fed up with all of this.

    Back in the ’80’s when Reagan took the party leadership, understanding the principles of Goldwater, Reagan maintained that if the party would just stick to those core principles, the moderates would “come to us”, rather than going to them. And in 1980, not only did Reagan beat Carter, he crushedhim with one of the most stunning landslides in the history of the Presidential Electorate. Reagan resonated with the Main Street, Joe the Plumber American with common horse sense positions. Why? Because it wasn’t all that long ago that Democrats believed the same things.

    Liberal-progressivism sours and spoils everything it touches. It teaches that all things are relative and subject to change. People can’t exist that way forever because we need an absolute frame of reference by which to gauge and live our lives.

    Conservatism places absolute faith in the individual to make his own decisions and allows that person to rise and fall by the merits of those decisions. Progressivism puts all of its faith in “the system”, mandating arbitrary fairness and redefinitions of truth.

    When the GOP picks up the mantle of commonsense conservativism, it resonates with “can-do” Americans who want to rise above their own destinies and they win elections.

    There’s only one man that can truly bring hope and change, and his name is not Barack Obama. Until He shows up again, it’s up to us to take our liberty and do what is right, both fiscally and morally.

    Rick

    May 1, 2010 at 6:59 pm

  3. “Liberal-progressivism sours and spoils everything it touches. It teaches that all things are relative and subject to change. People can’t exist that way forever because we need an absolute frame of reference by which to gauge and live our lives.”

    This isn’t binary. We are *required* to change as a society:

    Cases in point:
    The Civil War
    Women’s Suffrage
    The implementation of the personal income tax
    The Internet
    World War 2

    None of those things can be taken back now, we need to learn to interpret the constitution beyond it’s literal meaning.

    It’s like I agree with you so hard, except when you randomly bash “liberals” like, who outside of NY or CA even identifies with that.

    “Conservatism places absolute faith in the individual to make his own decisions and allows that person to rise and fall by the merits of those decisions. Progressivism puts all of its faith in “the system”, mandating arbitrary fairness and redefinitions of truth”

    You sound like Glenn Beck. The term “progressivism” is literally only used by people who listen to Glenn Beck I have decided.

    I guess I have a problem with this labelling because it’s so easy to blindly label anything that wants to move away from something “established” as this negative buzzword. Dangerous psychology my friend.

    Kelly

    May 1, 2010 at 9:00 pm

  4. >> … we need to learn to interpret the constitution beyond it’s literal meaning.

    I don’t believe that’s correct because I don’t believe in the so-called “living constitution”. One of the things that I have observed in human behavior stems from the fact that humans like to change their own rules to suit their purposes. Acutely, I see this in religion.

    Christianity is supposed to be beholden to the teachings of Christ, but yet, when they are taken back to the Bible to correct an error in their lives, they seek to remediate that by simply finding a Bible that is more liberal in nature and agrees with them – or doesn’t interpret what they don’t like in the older KJV in as harsh of terms. In short, people, rather than changing their behavior to meet the unchangeable standard, do their darndest to change that standard and mold their piety around that.

    The Constitution is the same way. It was never meant to be so impossible to change, but it was to only be changed at the will of the greatest population of people. However, this means that someone isn’t going to get what they want. So, what do they do? They start by uncoupling the Constitution from the Declaration of Indepenence (Woodrow Wilson calling it ‘obsolete’), then calling it a ‘Living Constitution’ to match a more progressive interpretation, because they don’t like, for example, when the Second Amendment simply states that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet in a state like Texas where carrying firearms is very much allowed, the gun control people would so love to find a way to override laws – because they don’t agree with them.

    How do I make this point? Because of the arguments regarding the 9th and 10th Amendments. Liberal-Progressives say that “if it’s not specifically denied by the Constitution, government can do it”. Conservatives argue that the Constitution enumerates what the government is allowed to do and denies everything else (which to me, seems to map better to the 10th Amendment).

    I am willing to wager a dollar that if the Libs could drop the 10th Amendement, they would in a heartbeat. And if they can’t change the Constitution, they simply work around it by legislating from the Bench.

    >> You sound like Glenn Beck.

    Beck says a lot of things I agree with. He has taken the time to go back to what the Founders have stated as how our country should run.

    The American experiment is all about doing something that was never tried before – instead of ruling over people, creating program after program, government control after government control, people should be given the freedom and liberty to govern themselves. The Founders found base for this in the Scriptures as well as in the writings of Cicero. Grant Americans the ability to do for themselves and the will. Force Americans to do for all, and they will only do what they have to.

    I do use labels quite a bit, and sometimes, they are not very granular, because not every so-called Conservative is a true one in my book. In my mind and on this blog, Progressivism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism are all negative buzzwords.

    But then, I don’t see “Conservative” as a favored word on sites like Daily Kos or HuffPo, either. Tit for tat.

    Rick

    May 2, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    • “I don’t believe that’s correct because I don’t believe in the so-called “living constitution”… ”

      Actually this is the unfortunate aspect of this medium. I agree with Scalia on this too. I don’t want to change the constitution. I want to *append* where necessary. This was entirely in the mind of our founding fathers because they recognized they could not define the future of a nation on a paper, it must be able to grow, not chopped from.

      this is where rigid ideology is more a liability than a virtue. Obviously you could never disagree with me that the very *definition of a man* has changed since the writing of the declaration of independence. We are never going back to defining a man in terms of his lands and slaves.

      In this respect, it MUST be a growing document, not necessarily a living one.

      “But then, I don’t see “Conservative” as a favored word on sites like Daily Kos or HuffPo, either. Tit for tat”

      Far enough, your blog your land, obviously

      Kelly

      May 2, 2010 at 2:21 pm

  5. >> Obviously you could never disagree with me that the very *definition of a man* has changed since the writing of the declaration of independence.

    Actually, I can. Mankind has not changed very much over the course of the recorded 6,000 years of human history. While societies and cultures have risen and fallen, humanity continues to be a corruptable, self-centered race. There is no guarantee that just because one nation or kingdom has dispensed with some practice that it finds to be objectionable, such as slavery, doesn’t mean it won’t resurge elsewhere.

    While the Constitution was only meant to change under the most definite of circumstances. Rigid ideologies aren’t a liability when they define the context of right and wrong. Relativeists seek to uncouple the rigidity because they prefer to make their own rules.

    Rick

    May 3, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    • OK, yes, you can do whatever you like.

      Do you find people stop talking to you about this stuff in real life and notch it a win in some sort of tally book?

      Kelly

      May 3, 2010 at 7:06 pm

      • Yeah, it often happens that way in terms of people talking to me. But I don’t have any tally books. I just use the “Bang Head Here” circle. 😉

        Rick

        May 4, 2010 at 11:56 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: