The Republican hierarchy isn’t concerned about values – conservative or otherwise. They are singularly concerned about getting and retaining power. When Pat Toomey, R-Pa., announced his bid for the Senate 2010, party insiders argued that Toomey was too conservative to win and that someone else should be supported. George W. Bush, himself, campaigned against Toomey – supporting Arlen Specter in 2004.

Joke about Christine O’Donnell, R-Del., but could she have possibly been worse than over-the-top liberal Republican Mike Castle, whom she defeated in the 2010 primaries? And let’s not forget former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie claiming that the conservative base might not like Rudy Giuliani’s liberal politics, but we would vote for him anyway if it meant keeping Hillary out.

Rove had to apologize pursuant to O’Donnell after his belligerent and condescending statements about her and tea-party people ignited a firestorm. He was forced to eat crow after repeated disparaging comments he made about Sarah Palin.

Which brings us to Mitt Romney. Romney has received applause from party hierarchy and the media for supposedly reinventing himself into something more acceptable to conservatives after the 2008 presidential campaign. He wants us to believe that after being a big-government liberal Republican his entire life, immediately following his 2008 drubbing he changed. He may have had a political epiphany, but I wager it wasn’t because of a change in beliefs – rather, a matter of expediency.

The question is, do we want a candidate who has learned to counterfeit himself into something he really isn’t, or a candidate who knows who he is and holds to what he’s always believed? Which, of course, brings us to Herman Cain.

Karl Rove can say anything he wants, as can the media that continue to blather party talking points. All we’ve heard since the last election was that the nomination belongs to Romney. The march to securing the nomination would, in their worldview, be nothing more than a formality to an inevitable end, when all would bow before the man they declared king, or president, as it were.

At least that was the plan until Herman Cain threatened their strategy in a major way. Herman hasn’t had to reinvent himself and, as for his so-called gaffes, do Rove and the media want us to believe that George W. Bush had a masterful command of language and facts that Cain somehow lacks? Or are they taking the honest statements and comments of a candidate with nothing to hide and trying to convince us his honesty disqualifies him?

Rove and the media were quick to jump on Herman’s comments about abortion. But Cain has been honest in his pro-life positions – unlike Bush, who was secretly a big-government, big spending, pro-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens activist who purposely deceived the base about his wife’s social positions, which were supportive of both homosexual marriage and abortion. (See: “Laura Bush: Pro abortion and gay marriage,” Richard Adams, The Guardian, May 12, 2010). Or perhaps Rove would have us overlook George H.W. Bush’s involvement in supporting abortion, as was pointed out in “Maafa 21 – Black Genocide in 21st Century America,” by Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics, Inc.


I am intractable and unapologetic in my positions on homosexuality, abortion and God’s plan of salvation, but I assured a woman who had had an abortion some years ago that I didn’t condemn her actions. At the time she felt she had no other options, so did that mean my position on abortion was situational? I condemn homosexuality, but I considered a person – who worked on former liberal Arizona Rep. Morris Udall’s presidential campaign – a friend even though he was a homosexual. My cousin was a homosexual, and even though I condemned the perversion I loved him and was not ashamed to be seen with him in public. Does that make my condemnation of homosexuality situational? Of course not, lest we dismiss the many disputes my cousin and I had pursuant to his chosen lifestyle. As a born-again Christian, I believe there is one and only one plan of salvation, but I have many times publicly said it is up to the individual where they want to spend eternity. Does that mean I waver on my convictions of faith? Of course it doesn’t.

Unlike another very popular Republican member of Congress, whom people even now want to run for president and who shared with me that he was pro-choice, Herman is not pro-choice and opposes the genocide of the unborn – and his comments in no way show him not being pro-life.

Rove is attempting to hold Herman to a higher standard than he held George W. Bush. He diligently did all he could to cover up and deny Bush’s misstatements, mispronunciations and so-called gaffes. And the media have absolutely no credibility upon which to attack Herman while still continuing to ignore the unambiguous lies and prevarications of others.

Some of us remember accounts of Rove’s lament that he had to use the conservative Christian base to re-elect Bush in 2004, and we’re not willing to be tolerant with him or the party any longer.

(Note For an update to above see: “Who is really after Herman Cain?”)

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.