search

COLD-BLOODED CONSERVATISM



Capitalist @ ConservativeShir Warehouse.com


Does your candidate stir this kind of passion?

December 11, 2011

 Was electing Barack Obama a crime of passion?

“Does your candidate stir this kind of passion?” was the Facebook caption to a Ron Paul post. “No,” I answered, “but the Old Spice guy does.” Let’s step back from the hot-blooded fervor of the followers of Ron Paul, and other candidates, and ask ourselves the most pertinent of questions; is this kind of passion, adoration, zeal…swooning over a political candidate, a sign of mental illness? Perhaps, but this is politics not religion, so we may want to check our collective temperature when it comes to getting all hot and bothered about this or that politician.

It is unbecoming for Conservatives to be like the tranced-out Obama sycophants who fawned over his coolness, his intelligence, his ability to send tingles up the thighs of supposedly straight male journalists, and his messianic aura of infallibility. Obama was greeted by crowds in 2008, heaving and overcome with passion; screaming and fainting women, men who stuttered their admiration through waterfalls of tears, and the Main Stream Media who begged on its knees for his approval–and his marching orders. That was a man who could stir passion. Was electing Barack Obama a crime of passion?

Let me tell you about the Old Spice Guy, listen up you men too. When we talk about “passion” we are talking about an impulse, an urge generated deep in the limbic system; a primeval mechanism that supports survival, i.e. reproduction, flight or fight, the protective instincts of a mama grizzly. Passion is not exactly the domain of the political thinker. Sure, you can have heartfelt drive, courage, commitment, and love for principles and causes that spur your workings within the framework of political action, but these are not the inflamed EMOTIONALITY that my Facebook friend was talking about. Apparently Ron Paul reaches the heart and stirs “passion” among his followers. Hey gang, the heart beats and pumps nourishment and oxygen to the living being, but it doesn’t reason.  Hot-blooded vs Cold-Blooded, is not kind and caring vs. ruthless. It is emotional reaction vs. reasoned action.

I think the ranks of Ron Paul followers are infiltrated with plants from the Left. Look at how Ron Paul supporters cling to their ONE MAN with clinginess even more impressive than hayseeds with guns and Bibles.  I have seen truly patriotic, religious individuals give up the ability to reason and look at an issue from both sides to blindly follow a man who talks about the United States Military as if it were lead by Hermann Goring and filled with heartless storm troopers whose only duty is to ransack the largess of other countries in unjust wars.  Ron Paul accused the Bush administration, regarding the days immediately after 9/11, of being “gleeful” about having to go to war. Paul says America’s ineptness  is the cause of the attacks of 9/11, stopping short of actually blaming the Islamic terrorists who murdered 3,000 innocent civilians that day. Golly gee, with Ron Paul’s reluctance to fight the international war on terror, build up America’s defenses at home, unequivocally pledge to defend Israel–the tiny and singular democracy in the Middle East–and his denial about who the real terrorists are and that they want to kill us on our own soil, it’s hard not to question just whose side he is on.

Oh, and one last thing about Ron Paul and his supporters. They have this compunction for name calling. I have been called a “neo-con” a hundred times, along with every other Conservative that is not a Ron Paul supporter. I have yet to get an adequate explanation of what a “neo-con” is. It is their epithet of choice, as if simply calling a person a “neo-con” somehow dissolves their credibility. The term “neo-con” is invariably spewed during fits of passionate pro-Paul rhetoric. But the term is so hackneyed as to have lost all meaning, except as a symptom of the frustration of a Ron Paul supporter who has run out of evidence that their guy is the only politician alive today who can save America and immediately take it back to the Constructional Republic of 1787.

It’s not just Ron Paul. There is a lot of emotion out there over the withdrawal of Herman Cain and the terrible injustice heaped on him by MSM patsies and demented and unattractive women, including Gloria Allred. It is a little like losing your favorite sweetheart; he had to leave town and he ain’t coming back. And in your paroxysm of the pain of abandonment by the best guy you have ever met and loved, you rebound to another just to fill the void. I’m going to play relationship therapist for a moment and say, “That’s not a healthy way to process the loss of your favorite guy. Sit back, don’t date until the pain and emotion have passed.”  This is a pretty natural and passionate reaction. Conservatives are better served by the cold-blooded and reasoned approach of vetting the remaining candidates through their records, and by coolly assessing their characters.  “The worst thing you could do,” I say to my clients in relationship therapy, “is to immediately grab on to the first attractive thing that walks by, even though you know he’s not the best guy in town. Holding your nose and diving into a new relationship always ends badly. Give your passions some time to die down, dear.”

Should we have passion for our candidate? My cold-blooded answer is no. Should we admire him or her, should we even desire to emulate their best qualities? Absolutely! Who in their right mind really wants to be like Ron Paul, a man who sees nothing but threads of conspiracy and dishonor throughout American history? Ron Paul is a man who, though he loves the Constitution of the United States, hates the current constitution of the United States. I say “balls to that!” We are still the best country on the face of the planet, providing the best opportunities to our citizens, and doing the most good for people throughout the world. Wars are hard, and sometimes they are ill advised. But to decry our military for the actions, assessments, and occasional miscalculations of politicians is simply wrong. And all Americans should be offended when Ron Paul speaks of America as a tyrannical force conducting unnecessary and unjust campaigns overseas. Wait a minute, perhaps I do have a little passion for Ron Paul. Is disgust considered a passion?

In closing; I fully expect to receive the passionate backlash of Ron Paul supporters and other emotional Conservatives in my comments section, on Facebook and Twitter, and everywhere else this article may appear. Let’s do a little experiment and see how many times the cryptic term “neo-con” appears.

By Marjorie Haun  12/11/11





  1. A Ron Paul supporter calling you a “neo-con” is a bit like Rosie O’Donnell blaming her spoon for making her a fat Lesbian. These are people who have IQ’s about 10 points lower than a rock.
    Keep fighting the “good fight.”

  2. Mike Z

    Always enjoy your posts, but you are wrong on a few points.

    1. This is no better than what you accuse the Paul supporters doing. Will be nice fodder for people that agree with you though. Name-calling is OK when someone you agree with is doing it 😉

    2. Paul actually supports building up the military at home. You should check the facts on that before saying he is reluctant towards it.

    3. Ron Paul has already made it clear that it is up to Congress, not the President to declare war. That is a pretty strong position to take and shouldn’t be confused with the simple-minded approach of “HE DOESNT SUPPORT ISRAEL”

    4. The term “Neo-Conservative” stems from admitted former Communist Irving Kristol’s influence on the Republican Party. Generally Neo-Cons are very hawkish for war and also support big government programs like Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. (See Rick Santorum who supported both programs and also backed Arlen Spector LOL)

    5. I agree reacting emotionally vs rationally is always a bad idea, but many Paul supporters are reacting after doing a lot more reading than you probably know. At least that is the case for me. You are generalizing based on a few people who have disagreed with you online…

    Merry Christmas! Keep it up, always enjoy your blog even when I disagree with you 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

close
Search ReaganGirl
search
Newest Posts
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The Truth About Islam
Networked Blogs
search

Hi, guest!

settings

menu
WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera