@GregGutfeld, you’re half right

Greg Gutfeld, I read your latest column and unfortunately all it did was make me want to ask you this question, who are you, and where do you stand?


To start out, you say:

I don’t believe that conservatism splinters into moderates and hardliners.

I don’t know what planet you’re from, but on earth, a conservative is a person who is conservative on social issues, financial issues and foreign-policy issues. A person who is only conservative on financial and / or policy issues only is a RINO, a word you hate. Another word for RINO is Libertarian.

My opinion on Libertarians? Those are folks who say “Give me mine, I don’t care about anyone else.” They also say:

– “Abortion? Yeah, I may not choose it, but I’m not gonna tell other people what to do with their lives.”
– “Homosexuality? I don’t care if homosexuals molest children at extreme rates, their issues are none of my business, so I don’t need to get involved.

Also, I’m willing to ignore the fact they aren’t a separate race of people, they are people who have chosen to live a different lifestyle. I’m willing to give them rights no other segment of society gets and will provide them protections no other group gets.”
– Marijuana / drugs? Who cares about all that? Let them get stoned if they want to. as long as they’re not bothering me.

Hmm, it’s strange how much Libertarians sound like Democrats when it comes to social issues.

Continuing with the article. You say:

The real contrast is between conservatives and self-conscious conservatives. It’s a tale of two righties: the person who is conservative, and the person who needs to tell you that they’re conservative

Nothing new there, you have been saying that on @TheFive for a while now, but the people you have attacked on The Five are typically the most conservative representatives we have in government.  Take Ted Cruz for example. After he announced he was running for president you said:

“I believe this has always been about Ted Cruz.”

Really? Ted Cruz, a person who has stood on principle , including abortion, immigration and Obamacare, It’s all about him?

It’s easy for you to sit in your chair and take your “cynical pills” ( Kimberly Guilfoyle) and attack people like Cruz, who put it on the line by standing for his values, possibly getting voted out of office because of that. You, on the other hand, have nothing to lose in all of this. You are the definition of “armchair warrior.”

And wow, you agreed with Juan Williams?

(To Juan) “But I agree with you, you need a unifying figure who appeals beyond the partisan.”

It looks like you’re trying to change the definition of conservative. By saying it comes down to “conservatives and self-conscious conservatives” I assume you are saying conservatives are the establishment Republicans and self-conscious conservatives are the Tea Party Republicans. The Libertarian movement has been trying to do this for a long time, redefine what it means to be conservative.

Libertarians took over CPAC and inserted libertarian forums and people wherever possible. Pro-life people were shoved off to the side, and overall, there wasn’t a strong pro-life presence. now that the event is being run by real conservatives, we can see a strong pro-life presence and a strong overall conservative message.

“Real” conservatives are the whole package, socially conservative, fiscally conservative, religiously conservative and nationally conservative.

Yes, in order to make the claim you are a conservative you have to stand for conservative values. that’s why we have primaries, for politicians to show the voters where they stand. It’s not wrong for a candidate to say “I’m a conservative and this is what I believe.”

Back to the article. You say:

Choosing ideology over victory. Or rather “winnability.” Mind you – both litmus purity and victory can join together – but for the self-conscious conservative that actually defeats the purpose. The choice for candidate is a personal one precisely defined as a differentiation — an expression of total commitment that makes coming defeat heroic.

I know people in the pro-life movement who intentionally didn’t vote for Mitt Romney because he wasn’t a hard-core conservative. I disagreed with that position and I believe they contributed to Obama’s reelection, but they certainly weren’t to the norm. I believe many people didn’t vote for John McCain or Romney because they were just lousy candidates.

About Alan Keyes, you say:

My favorite guy at one point was Alan Keyes. I found him unique, vastly interesting, and courageous: probably because he was black and conservative.

Then you throw in something about your “crappy briefcase.” Nice, very classy. You said “it was fun and attention-getting to say I wanted him to win.”

Let me tell you about Alan Keyes, a man whom I not only met, but who also spoke at my Let Them Live rally in Atlanta Georgia in 2008.

Alan Keyes is a good man and a strong conservative. He believes in this country, he believes in the right to life and he believes in liberty. Alan Keyes has more passion in his pinky than most Americans combined, will ever have in their entire lives.

Unfortunately, he wasn’t strong enough in the numbers, and didn’t really stand a chance. Yes, his fiery passion was too much for moderate Republicans, who are used to hearing soft, wimpy speeches that are devoid of real substance. I’m not even sure why you bring him up in your article. Probably because he was a passionate, outspoken conservative, people you appear to dislike in your article.

Next you say:

Obama’s win had nothing to do with McCain’s moderation. It had to do with being a first. We all know this. Obama was unbeatable for that simple reason. 

When John McCain was selected, there was no passion for his nomination at all. Conservatives were conceding the election almost immediately. In Fairfax County, Virginia, there was so little support for him, his rally was going to be held in a high school gym. After Sarah Palin was selected as his running mate, they had to select a park, and his campaign people were still caught unprepared, as that wasn’t even big enough! Everyone agreed, put Sarah Palin up front on the ticket and Republicans will win the election. Of course that didn’t happen, and we know the outcome.

John McCain and Mitt Romney are
both middle-of-the-road Republicans. They are strong on some issues, but not on many others. Does that mean people shouldn’t have voted for them? Obviously, no. Once they were the nominees, they would’ve been better than Barack Obama, who we’ve been cursed with twice.

Most importantly, both of them were weak candidates. John McCain was completely forgettable. Like I said, I was at his rally. He received claps while Sarah Palin received roars from the crowd. And Mitt Romney, well, I wish I could forget his debates, especially the Candy Crowley incident. Barack Obama, a first-term senator, swept the floor with both of them. Embarrassing.

Greg, your article ends with:

As Democrats sink into a party of pessimism – where there are no victors, only victims – and the west is always at fault – 2016 becomes the opportunity for unity. But before that happens to the country, it has to happen to the party first.

First of all, unity for and with whom, and what kind of unity are you referring to?

I agree once the primaries are over Republicans should get behind the man who is selected. The problem is, the Republican Party picks middle-of-the-road, weak candidates, not conservatives, so what do you say about that? Does voting conservative just mean voting for a Republican?

Many Republicans today believe a strong conservative doesn’t stand a chance.They say we need to have someone who can reach across the aisle to connect with the independants. Yeah, the Democrats sure believe that, as they picked the most polarizing candidate ever to be selected as President of the United States, Barack Obama.

You say Obama won because he was a “first.” First what? First modern president who smokes? First president who plays basketball? Oh, I assume you mean first black president.

I disagree. I believe many people voted for him because he was black, but I also believe most people voted for him because he was charismatic, eloquent, smooth and appeared to have a better grasp of the facts. If you ask me, it’s insulting to the man to say he won just because he was the “first” black candidate.

On close examination, we know Obama is pro-abortion, anti-borders, anti-constitution, anti-marriage, pro-homosexual, anti-homeschooling, pro-taxes, believes in taking from the rich to give to the poor, and he dumped Obamacare on us. Yet his favorability numbers are still some of the highest for president in history. Charisma goes a long way.

Obama is a hard-core, left wing president who has represented the Democrat party above and beyond their expectations. You could say their original selection, Hillary Clinton, a moderate compared to him, was easily shoved aside by the voters.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party doesn’t give conservatives the opportunity to succeed. Conservatives don’t get the money and they don’t get the endorsements. You make it out as if moderates lose because of conservative Republicans. That is the opposite of the truth. The establishment Republican Party does everything it can to keep Conservatives out of office.

One thing we have seen in recent years, determined Tea Party candidates rising up to unseat establishment Republicans. Why does it appear to be a war in the party? Because establishment Republicans made it a war. The Tea Party is responding to their actions. They are putting up their own money and giving it everything they have to win, because establishment Republicans won’t back them.

Remember Todd Akin? Many people remember the “legitimate rape” comment.

First of all, to address the comment, doctors have backed up his statement that women are less likely to become pregnant because of rape due to the trauma of the incident.

After he made the controversial comment, which was used out of context by the media, Republican media and the Republican Party attacked him viciously calling him a loon, immediately backing away from him, even pulling much needed money. Though the Republican Party eventually, slowly, came back on board with him, it was too little, too late. The damage had been done, and the attacks against him, by his own party allowed Claire McCaskill, a hard-core pro-abort, to win.

Over the years, I have interviewed many presidential candidates, Senators, Congressmen, Christian leaders, political leaders and pro-life leaders. I have learned one thing. We all have something in common. Our views differ significantly from the views of the Democrat party.

Every Republican I interviewed believes in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” They have more in common and can accurately be defined as allies, not enemies.

I pray the Republican Party stops working so hard to defeat Tea Party candidates and works harder to defeat Democrats. I pray, if the Tea Party loses in a fair primary, and is supported by the Republican Party, they support the Republican candidate, unless that candidate is pro-abortion.

That’s probably the best place to wrap this up. If a Republican candidate is pro-abortion or anti-life, he/she will never get my support.

I propose the Republican party should support all respectable candidates, and all Republicans should support the Republican nominee who comes out on top in the primary.

Greg, I believe you’re a good guy. You’re an educated person, you love America and have passion for what you do. You’re a strong asset on The Five and I was a regular viewer of Red Eye. Most of the time, I believe you have powerful insight on the issues of the day.

What do you think? I agree, it’s time to unite Republican efforts, what is your proposal?