“You are a disgrace to conservatism…For some demented reason, you are trying to destroy a conservative candidate, be he Cain or Gingrich, or whomever.”
This sort of email comes in frequently nowadays. So do the angry tweets. That’s because it’s primary season.
“Our job,” one writer asserts, actually referring to our job, “is to defend people, regardless of their flaws.”
Our commentary section’s conservative lean apparently gives some conservative readers the impression that we’re here primarily to help somebody get elected. That we should be overlooking problems in the GOP field for the greater good.
But before you buy into this view, let me first invite you to think back to 2008. There was this candidate who was all about Hope and Change, and no one seemed to care — or realize — that voters actually agreed with perhaps only 1 to 2 percent of his policy prescriptions.
No one in the press seemed to care that he had risen quickly in politics by aligning himself with some pretty sleazy people, and most voters never found out.
Most people still look at me funny when I tell them that this particular candidate — Barack Obama — won his first election for state Senate by throwing all of his opponents off the ballot. It’s as if someone failed to tell them his story.
Although it received some ink, no one made too big a deal about Obama’s “bonehead move” of getting real estate help and big political money from Tony Rezko — a guy who was, it turns out, simultaneously corrupting politicians all over Chicagoland.
To my knowledge, only one reporter from outside Chicago (Binyamin Appelbaum) ever visited the uninhabitable slums through which Obama cronies reaped government subsidies.
There was exactly one story (and no follow-up) published on how a financially troubled Obama, while serving as a state lawmaker, had simultaneously helped obtain earmarks for, and received a substantial monthly legal retainer from, one of his law clients (also a political donor).
Obama spoke a lot about education during election 2008, but we heard practically nothing about his work in education. He had served on and chaired the board of a controversial and failed education experiment where he worked with Weatherman Bill Ayers. Stanley Kurtz of National Review was the only person even slightly interested.
Why do I bring this up? Because all this griping about the exposure of conservative candidates’ flaws will, at best, result in the Republicans’ nomination of another unvetted Barack Obama-type candidate.
If Republicans nominate a candidate while overlooking his flaws, they might lose. Even worse, they might win. If you look forward to defending a bad president — the way liberals do now — then stop reading here.
For those conservatives still reading, you bear the responsibility for making sure the GOP does not nominate a candidate who doesn’t know what he thinks about Libya, abortion, Israel or unions.
If conservative writers shy away from pointing these things out about Herman Cain, they fool only themselves.
It’s understandable that conservatives are upset this year. There is no Reagan in this field. The supposedly most viable conservative, Rick Perry, can’t even remember his own plan for abolishing government agencies.
All talk of gaffes aside, here’s a serious question for you: If he can’t even remember it, do you really think he actually plans to abolish anything?
Conservatives would love to vote for a principled Mitt Romney, a humble, once-married Newt Gingrich, or a well-studied and prudent Herman Cain.
They would probably even feel good about a more conservative Jon Huntsman or a less petulant Rick Santorum — maybe even an articulate Ron Paul.
But those choices don’t exist. And with the candidates we do have, it’s worth poking at their flaws. They will either die deserved political deaths, or come out of the ordeal stronger.
David Freddoso is The Examiner’s online opinion editor. He can be reached at [email protected].
