An Open Letter to Professor William Jacobson

There are not too many political bloggers of whom I can say that I’ve agreed almost everything they’ve written the last several years. Professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection is one such an individual whose articles I read daily and generally nod along in agreement. It has therefore been a great honor for me, some time ago, to have been named as the “blog of the day” on his site.

It is precisely because of the respect and admiration that I have for his opinion that I’ve opted to pen this open letter directly to him though it’s applicable to all conservative Newt supporters.

Newt’s negatives won’t receive much scrutiny from his supporters, since they claim that his negatives are known, often twisted out of proportion, and apologized for. The most-oft repeated reason cited by conservative Newt supporters, is that they’ve chosen to disregard his flaws out of a lack for an alternative candidate whom they feel they can support. However, supporting a candidate for the presidency only because one has no one else to support isn’t a good enough excuse.

Yes, perhaps no one else is as articulate, polished, and experienced as Newt, thus resulting in anticipation for an Obama/Newt debate at which they envision Newt squashing Obama. However, anyone who has watched the 2008 debates will recall that Obama is actually an extraordinarily talented bluffer. He coolly and smoothly recited one outright lie after another, often prefaced with additional untruths like “I’ve always said that…” He created facts at the spur of the moment and openly contradicted past statements without the slightest hint of unease. If Newt is the candidate, Obama may simply have to spin some more lies, content in the knowledge that the media will cover for him.

Even if Newt makes minced meat out of Obama, in supporting Newt one has got to consider the consequences their support will have on the conservative brand.

Many conservatives had blasted the Democrat Party during the primary of 2008 for their shameless support of the radically liberal Obama. The conservatives who protested an Obama candidacy did so despite his almost nonexistent voting record since Obama’s voted “present” at every opportunity presented to him. With no record, what had caused conservatives to write him off as a radical left wing creature? Quite simply. They looked at the individuals he has associated with, for it is known that if one wishes to know what type of person an individual is one should look at those they associate with. Since his associates were of the most radical nature possible, it was obvious Obama was cut of the same cloth.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and many others therefore delved into the non-repentance of terrorist William Ayers and played audios of Obama’s reverend, Jeremiah Wright, cursing America, followed by Obama’s refusal to condemn them.

Majority of the right were unable to grasp how one can trust an unknown guy with such extreme radical ties with the presidency of the USA only because it was the cool thing to do and because it allowed one to be part of an historic event. Arguments of supporters included praise over his intelligence, articulation, ability to unite all fractions, and guarantee to victory, but conservatives wouldn’t accept any as a valid excuse to condone the Democrat Party’s support of Obama.

Couldn’t conservatives comprehend that putting Obama on the ballot provided an opportunity for many white people to assuage their guilt over their racist past by allowing them to pull the lever for a (half) black individual? Why couldn’t the conservative movement understand that no other Democratic candidate except for Obama would be able to accuse the other party for mocking his name and his looks? Was it so difficult to accept that no other candidate would have received the complete pass and adoration of the media that Obama got? Or that only he was capable of exciting the masses, drawing record-breaking crowds, attracting unheard of number of college students, give a voice to minorities, and be heralded as the messiah?

As a conservative, the responses they’ve given for supporting Obama had been incomprehensible to me, and I was glad and proud to be part of the conservative movement which valued character. Barely three years have passed, and to my utter dismay and disappointment I am shocked to watch as many within the conservative movement have expressed their support for Newt despite his association and praise for an individual whose hands are smeared with blood. How can one condone their support for Newt with excuses such as he’s the most intelligent, articulate, smooth talker when three years ago we wouldn’t accept a similar argument?

As a New Yorker I have been and am constantly exposed to the atrocities of Al Sharpton, and understand it’s pretty likely that many of you are unaware of his hatred-inciting nature and violent background. I’ve therefore penned a lengthy article detailing the atrocities of Al Sharpton, Newt’s chumminess with Sharpton, and the hypocrisy of the conservatives who are supporting him.

I therefore plead of you, William Jacobson, and all other Newt supporters to take the time and read the article, Resist We Much … Mr. Gingrich, with an open mind, give the matter careful consideration, and then decide whether you can continue supporting Newt.

The argument for Newt that he’s got a long record of accomplishments (including many non-conservative items) may be a valid one (though he’s also got a record of lobbying and not necessarily for conservative interests). However, even with a perfect record, his association with Al Sharpton is outright despicable and enough of a cause for conservatives to distance themselves from Newt.

Professor Jacobson: Embarrassed and Disgusted

Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection clarifies why the conservatives who don't defend Cain are equal to those creating the stir and attempting to assassinate his character without any serious facts or evidence. 

Embarrassed and disgusted by the behavior of numerous “conservatives” and “libertarians” on Twitter dancing on Herman Cain’s (presumed) political grave.

Let’s sum up the “facts” as they are known right now.  Mostly unnamed people accused Herman Cain of unspecified conduct which some people who will not specify the people or the conduct have deemed “inappropriate.”  And one of the unnamed people received a piddly $35,000 severance package almost 15 years ago for unspecified conduct which included conduct unrelated to Cain.

That’s what’s known now.  Maybe actual facts will come out proving that Cain did something wrong, but those facts are not out now.

Insisting on actual facts before a major conservative politician is taken down is not “selling out our minds.”

Cain has seriously messed up the situation and his campaign with an inconsistent response and a blame game, but does this justify the gloating and pure happiness being exhibited at the media feeding frenzy?

We really are our own worst enemies.

Be sure to read the entire thing at LegalInsurrection.com

Michelle Bachmann's Total Lack of Class

I strongly feel that Palin will be entering the race sooner than later.

If, however, she chooses not to run, I join Legal Insurrection’s motto of ABMB, Anybody But Michelle Bachmann for the Republican primary.

My strong opposition of Bachmann is not because of her lack of executive experience nor because of her inability to respond to simple questions from reporters. In short, it's her lack of class.

Bachmann owes Palin a tremendous debt of gratitude for helping her get reelected. Yes, Bachmann had expressed her thanks immediately after the elections in 2010, but what is that worth in face of her current actions? How can one attempt to explain the hiring of a campaign manager who slammed Palin publicly and continues to lead your team in an underhanded campaign against her as a response to her support, endorsement, campaigning, and fundraisings for you?

Opposing a fellow candidate’s policies is one thing. Attacking the person who enabled your reelection and is not even in the race yet is unacceptable and inexcusable. It shows classlessness, a lack of basic manners, and is totally un-presidential.

Here's an excerpt of Legal Insurrection, and you can read the rest of his great piece right over here. 

There is only one candidate in the Republican field whose campaign staff has used trash talking Sarah Palin as a campaign strategy.

Michelle Bachmann and/or her senior staff have decided that the path to short-term success is to insult Palin and to present Bachmann as the only viable alternative to establishment Republicans.

First it was Ed Rollins publicly insulting Palin almost at the very moment Bachmann announced her run; at the time I left open the possibility that Rollins had gone rogue, but Bachmann herself never made it right and Rollins still is the brains behind her campaign.

Next was this report of what is going on in the run up to the Iowa straw poll:

”I like Sarah Palin a lot,” Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann said at Thursday night’s Republican presidential debate. “We are very good friends.” …

But a personal relationship between the conservative female leaders has, in fact, been nonexistent for the past 16 months, as aides from Bachmann’s camps have privately — and sometimes publicly — disparaged Palin to an extent that has caused growing exasperation in Palin world. That behind-the-scenes rancor is now boiling over as the former Alaska governor inches closer to a presidential run.

Some of the volunteers who have been organizing here in the nation’s first voting state for a potential Palin campaign have been particularly miffed by what they describe as a concerted effort from the Bachmann camp to spread rumors that Palin has already decided not to run and will eventually endorse the Minnesotan.

“It is so pervasive and so continuous that it can’t be rogue people doing it without the understanding and encouragement from the candidate herself,” a Palin supporter in Iowa told RCP. “The entire Bachmann team has gone around the state saying Palin is a lightweight and a quitter and saying that Sarah’s about to endorse Michele. Bachmann’s campaign is radioactively dirty. They are shameless.”

In the whispering campaign against Palin, Bachmann likely picked up some supporters who were hoping for better but figuring Bachmann was the best they could get.

Michele Bachmann is entitled to run her campaign any way she wants, and using typical Ed Rollins tactics is her prerogative.

But millions of Palin supporters — some of whom support her for President, others of whom merely support her because of what she stands for and has gone through — are entitled to take Bachmann’s campaign tactics into account when choosing a “Plan B” should Palin decide not to run. Michelle Bachmann has spit on those supporters at her political peril.

For me, Plan B means anyone but Bachmann. And it is enough to finally get me motivated for the primaries. 

In all probability, Plan B will never see the day of light.  However, I consider Bachmann's lack of basic human gratitude as a blemish never to be erased or forgotten even several elections down the line.