“We’ve been deluged by hundreds of pathetic posts defending Rick Santorum’s “conservatism.  Thankfully his campaign has been suspended and don’t have to read that stupid crap anymore.  There is talk of “Santorum ’16″ but after today that claptrap will hopefully die a metaphorically violent death.”

Besides such a juvenile ranting as what I quoted above, this particular “gem” also contained more trash which I will not cite here.

Clearly there will  be no letup in the whining, insults and bellyaching even after Rick Santorum suspended his campaign.  Any statement he makes, any appearance in the news, generates a cacophony of more load moans, whining, complaints and what sounds like eerie nail scratching on a chalkboard.

The “writer” (ranter would be more accurate) employed constant use of such “persuasive” language – little more than juvenile catcalls – to describe their opinion of our conservative candidate such as “stupid crap” and “claptrap.”

Nope, I have bad news for the children who talk/write like that: Rick Santorum and those who supported him are not going to “die a metaphorically violent death.”

The above quote and lead in is not a description of the rhetoric directed at us RED STATERS and us conservatives/Christians from Daily Kos, Media Matters, Huff Post or any of the other liberal left, secular-left, anti-Christian hate sites funded in many instances by George Soros.

This shocking anti-conservative diatribe or rant was lifted from a recent column right here at RED STATE.

The book I like to read suggests you can tell the tree by the fruit – and if that doesn’t sound like leftwing trash then you haven’t been visiting leftwing websites or else you have, and you are lying about it.

I know that during the recent GOP primary we’ve seen a lot of pretty strong rhetoric directed at each of the candidates, particularly as each had a brief turn as the “flavor of the week”.

If you listened to some of this stuff and took it too seriously, NO ONE who was offered as a candidate, has any chance of defeating Barack Obama, and NO ONE running at any time, was any different from Barack Obama.

They are all bad, they are all the same, they all have fatal flaws, and they all have no chance.

And those “telling” us this were of course, mostly on the left, the pretend “fair and balanced” news media and by a few from within our own ranks, who were (are) either over zealous, over worked up, took too many energy drinks or caffeine, or who are liberals posing as conservatives.

I just cited what is surely considered a clever “argument” right here on Red State just a few days ago by someone claiming to be a conservative (as one would suppose, writing here), who simply detests Rick Santorum and it would appear, any of us who dissent from their “sure sounds like a hard core leftist to me” rhetoric.

In the case of the offering I cite above, the supposed excuse to launch a fresh new round of trashing of Rick Santorum was the supposition that the one true conservative (is anyone else besides me tired of all the politicians making this claim – except Richard Lugar – whose honesty is a rare trait in a politician, ie. I had never heard of him claiming this mantle) in the race for a Senate seat in Nebraska was the one that Santorum did NOT endorse.

(I want to be clear: in a contest between Rick Santorum and Erick Erickson’s endorsement for a candidate, while I would listen respectfully to the rationale of both, my advance-inclination would be to follow the Erickson recommendation – but without any urge to insult Rick Santorum. In the case of the Nebraska US Senate race I offer no opinion except the aforementioned.)

Geez folks.  Do we still have to listen to this sort of personal insult and caterwauling?  Can’t we just dissent from the Santorum endorsement in Nebraska without using it as an excuse for a fresh new round of junk?

Isn’t it about time to give it a rest?  Mercy.

Such rhetoric will not persuade either Rick Santorum or a single one of his followers to stop or depart the political process, and only serves as an irritant, and something which will drive people away from any party making such unbecoming howling and pathetic whining.

Next I suppose we’ll be seeing a series of articles about poor lovestruck Ann Coulter who thinks the Governor of New Jersey should have been the GOP nominee for President, and more recently that he should be VP?

After all, most conservatives I know think that Governor Chris Christie is too liberal for them, despite some fascinating riposte on his part over the past year.

So therefore should we entertain a motion that Ann Coulter is a liberal, she stinks, we should burn all of her books, we should spit when we hear her name, perhaps burn her in effigy?

Can’t we simply dissent from something that one of our advocates says and with which we disagree, without claiming that they are now evil incarnate and should be driven out of politics and that they should  now “die a metaphorically violent death” as a result of your (or our) disagreement with something they said or did?

Enough of the juvenile name calling and childish temper tantrums.

A typical rotten-tomato throw is the epithet “neo-con” hurled at conservatives, usually as a dead giveaway that the accuser is a fan of Ron Paul.  I’ve yet to see any sensible definition of what the term means to the accuser – only that in context it must be a very bad thing to be accused of that.

Am I wrong?

Have you ever read an explanation as to why we old time Reaganites ought to have kicked original neo-cons Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Senator Henry Scoop Jackson out of the ranks of cold-war allies to our President fighting to defend America against a “clear and present danger” to our existence?

Have you ever yet read an explanation as to why movement conservatives who in the past had allied from time to time with liberals on national defense issues, should all be thrown overboard as wicked, evil, nasty “neo-cons”?

It truly reveals far more about the person who hurls around such juvenile attempts to smear conservatives than it does about the person or group they have targeted.

Red State regulars have seen some of that sort of frantic rhetoric directed at former Governor Sarah Palin from people who claim to be “good conservatives” and our fellow RED STATERS who seem to always get very exorcised at the mere mention of her name, let alone any of us suggesting that there are many things to admire and appreciate about the former Alaska Governor and GOP VP nominee.

Again, the howling and whining about Sarah Palin have not deterred the lady from building a twitter and Facebook following larger than all the candidates who ran for the GOP nomination this past year, combined.

Truly, Rick Santorum and his followers may be emboldened by the insults to follow Sarah Palin’s example: success is the best revenge and he who builds our cause larger, has the last laugh.

But no.  The Sarah Palin critics – mostly on the left but a few water carriers within our ranks – love to trot out anything the lady ever did wrong or was ever accused of and once again, the frantic rhetoric would sound like it had been lifted right off the pages of Daily Kos (et. al.) diatribe or from a Rachel Maddow broadcast.  And you can count on this anytime she has been in the news.

The article in question which I take the floor to criticize today was posted a few days ago as a new “trashing” of Rick Santorum, and was given extra long life by its placement in the “Recommended” section.

The article contained not one new thing or news item but simply used the excuse of Santorum endorsing the “wrong” candidate in a GOP primary (a ‘fact” disputed by others in the comment thread that followed), to regurgitate all of the leftist, anti-Christian, anti-conservative accusations against Santorum plus a variety of the talking points from the Ron Paul for President campaign.

I wish to register my polite demur to such extension of life for a RED STATE offering which should have been allowed to die a nice quiet death, albeit the half dozen or so who can be reliably counted on to cheer loudly (Bronx cheer?) any attack on Christian/values voters would seem to preclude a totally silent sinking beneath the cesspool waters where such trash belongs.

And yes I did say the rather unChristian characterization of the article as trash, which does not do credit to Red State to have been placed in the “recommended” status.

It is not exactly clever, to simply throw around such trash talk and hang your hat on a rationale for this fresh new round of attack on Rick Santorum, that he endorsed the “wrong” candidate in a primary.

We know that for the rest of their lives, anything that Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michele Malkin, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich do, will cause a veritable eruption of trash and refuse coming at them from every leftwing 2nd floor window in America.

But are we really going to have to listen to this silliness here on these pages also?  May I appeal to the editors to please consider allowing such vicious, personal and fact-devoid attacks on people who have earned a following among our ranks of dedicated conservatives (such as Rick Santorum) to die a natural death by leaving them ignored in the future, instead of giving them extra life?

I don’t mind in the slightest that we conservatives do not always agree.  In addition to the “three legs” of the conservative cause we also have differences based on personal preferences, and we are also sometimes influenced by someone we admire, endorsing a particular candidate (though I wonder: did Ann Coulter ever convince anyone for Chris Christie, after all those articles & appearances on Sean Hannity’s show?).

I do not think it is an appropriate way to build fellowship and community, to build our army larger, by such trash talk as the article I read and here write to object to.

It isn’t a matter of whether you Dear Reader, agree with my support of Rick Santorum, or if you were for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.

Clearly the majority of movement-oriented conservatives, which does include (despite their hatred of them) the leaders of the values-voter crowd, once known as the Christian right, were for NOT ROMNEY whether they were for Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, Palin, Cain, Bachmann.

The issue I raise here, is my belief that we “sin by silence” but should instead object, when someone is so rude as to insult and hurl such juvenile rantings in our midst to any of these candidates and those who supported any of them during the primary.

In summary, and knowing that a half dozen (at most) irate, anti-values voter activists here will sound off and if this offering receives some “Facebook likes” will pounce with a fresh round of insults, strawman arguments, trash-talk, ad hominum attacks, etc.

Nonetheless, we soldier on with this proposition:

For our cause to prosper, a modicum of mutual respect and affection by those who accept certain fundamentals about our cause and why we are alarmed about the prospects of our socialist adversaries, is in order.

Barack Obama is a socialist (or a very good pretender) who appointed two of the most far-left members of the U.S. Supreme Court, has staffed his administration with the most far-left activists he could find, and has filled our radio, TV, newspaper and internet spaces with the most far-left socialist rhetoric that any of us have heard in our lifetime.

Those of us who recognize the danger of an even more unrestrained “flexible” second term, should and must recognize that in spite of any differences we may have, our highest priority should be to focus our limited firepower to the front, and not into our own flanks.

Those shooting wounded conservatives on the battlefield, with special focus on the ones who are Christian, ought to be given a rather loud and cheerful raspberry.  For the battle still rages, and the enemy is there, to the far-left, they still outnumber us, and we have precious little ammunition to waste shooting our own.

As for the future of Rick Santorum and those for whom he spoke, I have especially bad news for those who ape the rhetoric of the far left here on the pages of Red State.

You won’t be rid of Rick Santorum or his folks because they will, with or without Mitt Romney’s encouragement, regardless of whether the Romney management follows your advise and attempts to emulate Gerald Ford’s failed attempt to marginalize Ronald Reagan and his followers in 1976, carry on.

They have the issues, the larger mailing lists, a larger following and determination to carry on, and the sick-sounding criticism of the far-left and you who ally with them in assaulting “values voters” here at Red State, will avail you naught.

The idea of right and wrong is not about to be banished as an idea ripe for political discussion.

Those who believe the American founding fathers had it right when they were inspired by their Christian beliefs to found this Republic, grow stronger even as your insults and desperate, juvenile attacks, persist.

Those who believe with Rick Santorum that the John F. Kennedy of 1960 and you are wrong to attempt to banish Christians and their ideas from the political process will lose.

Those of us who believe with Rick Santorum that the “centrality of faith” in our life is a key both to happy living here and to eternal salvation, will continue, and indeed be strengthened by the desperate attacks on our core beliefs and on those who champion our cause.

We will be emboldened and encouraged by the desperate, childish attacks and in the end, we will have the last laugh.  “If not here” (and we believe it will be here), “then in eternity.”

*

HanoverHenry of RED STATE is Pat Henry on Facebook, and I’m on the lookout for new friends there. You can also communicate via private mail at Facebook, and I welcome new sources for my articles focusing on the conservative-Christian viewpoint in Pennsylvania.  I appreciate your sharing this article elsewhere and only ask that you include this “disclaimer” in any reprints or sharing you do (if this is reprinted on any other website, that is).  And I thank those whose information have helped me with some of my reports, including those who do not wish to be quoted by name.

Links to articles I wrote at RED STATE at my Facebook Notes section.