Do we have to be against Romney in order to be for Newt Gingrich? Do we have to smear Newt to show our support for Mitt Romney? Am I the only one who understands the very basic concept of supporting the one who you personally feel best represents your values both politically and morally? Now don't get me wrong there are such things as valid criticism and by all means as voters we should be able to both praise and criticize when necessary. And earlier last week I wrote about the reasons behind each candidate running for president and I believe that's a credible source of one's support or opposition to whomever is in this race.
But to take it as far as some in the conservative media have taken it, openly waging campaigns to stop this candidate or stopping that candidate, we're beginning to resemble Democrats in this respect because Democrats are the ones who wage personal air raids against their opponents be it in the primary or the general election. And in our arrogance little do we know that we are in fact giving more ammunition to the real opponent than we are helping our man or woman inch closer to the nomination.
I'm not just for the best person who can beat Barack Obama because quite frankly I'm not as obsessed with that as some on our side have revealed themselves to be. Win at any cost? Win at the cost of losing the general because we've torn each other up to the point where by the time we have a nominee he or she will be damaged beyond repair? Why destroy the carcass for the vultures to finish it off? Why go after Newt (National Review) when you can simply endorse a candidate and leave it at that. Why is Jennifer Rubin, shameless and vocal Mitt Romney groupie going after Newt Gingrich like she's some Democrat Strategist employed by the Barack Obama reelection campaign.
You can tell this is the first time we've had an actual contested primary where every candidate has a chance to win and state their case instead of the next guy in line taking it without a challenge like in years past. You can tell because we're acting like we've never done this before and that's sad. We should never go back to the next guy in line approach because we end up creating a circular firing squad when we have such open and widely contested primaries. Unfortunately I see the same thing happening in 2016 or 2020 when Chris Christie decides to run and he'll be the next guy in line. If anyone tries to even challenge one little issue remotely related to Chris Christie the Jennifer Rubin's and the National Review geeks will move in to silence all those who dare challenge their political Jesus Christ, the governor from New Jersey.
So I'm taking the Glen Beck approach and I'm not voting for Obama, I'm going to look for the candidate who I feel represents my Christian faith, my pro-life belief, my constitutional beliefs, my support of individual thought and reason, and most important I will support the candidate who I believe is running for the right reasons. If that person isn't running as a Republican then so be it. I'm open to the libertarian party and if that means one less vote to put a Republican closer to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue then fine.
I will leave you with a quote from a great man John Quincy Adams. I just pray many of you actually think about what he said and perhaps follow this nugget of wisdom:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."-John Q. Adams
How bout we start voting principle instead of who best can defeat Barack Obama because on one hand we're told both attributes cannot occupy the same space, especially if you're a conservative, and on the other hand we should be careful what we wish for in the latter because we might get the most electable candidate but turns out that candidate loses in the general after all. Principles matter guys, elect ability does not because at the end of the day if you lack principle you lack the ability to lead, thus ultimately you're not electable.