What candidate should be chosen

When choosing a candidate to vote for, we must not choose candidates just to limit the criticism of the media. We must not choose a woman just because feminists think republicans have a war on women.  We must not choose a black candidate just because most blacks vote democrat.

Those are things we should avoid doing.  If we choose candidates that they want, candidates who might support a few things we are opposed to, such as the pro-choice movement, then all we are doing then is playing right into their agenda.  We don't want to do that.  That will get us nowhere.  

What we need to do is choose the best man or woman, black or white, yellow or red, Catholic or Jew, who is the best conservative for the job.  We must choose the most conservative candidate (The Bill Buckley Rule).  

We need to pick someone who can campaign well. We need to pick someone who can get votes. We need to pick someone who can speak well and articulate conservatism, like Ronald Reagan.  We need to pick someone who is a true conservative, not just someone who claims to be, like John McCain or Mitt Romney. We need to pick someone who truly believes what he or she is saying. 

Don't pick someone who is going to undercut the conservative agenda. Don't pick someone who disagrees with the cause on "just a few issues."  Don't pick someone just to satisfy a particular constituency that's more aligned with the democratic party. 

That's identity politics.  That's the wrong thing to do.  That's the opposite of the conservative cause.  The conservative cause is doing things, believing in things, that will lift the entire nation; that will benefit everyone.  We must not choose a candidate who caters to one cause or one group, but someone who is for lifting up the entire ship. 

We do not want gender politics.  We don't endorse that kind of planning.  What we want is to vote for the best person for the job.  We want only the best speaker, the best communicator, and the person with the best conservative agenda getting elected. It is this person who comprises the general classical liberal views of the majority of the people who live in this country. 

We want leaders who the most qualified to inspire and motivate all the people of this great nation, people who are right on the issues and policies. This is why it is important who you vote for, and why elections matter.  

Think of it this way. Here's a good idea of what I'm saying here. Every time the republican establishment nominates a candidate for president who is supposed to cater to the left on certain issues, we lose.  

I'll rattle off some names here: Gerald R. Ford, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush (1992), John McCain, and Mitt Romney. These are all candidates who were moderate republicans, or those who catered to a certain group of people instead of the nation as a whole.  

When people see that the republican candidate is just as liberal as the democrat, they think that republicans are no better than democrats.  They might as well vote for the democrat and let them get blamed for advancing the progressive agenda, an agenda that creates nothing but chaos and failure. 

We need to vote for the best conservative candidates, and it does not matter what race, color, sex, creed, or even political affiliation.  What matters is that these men and women understand that it was classical liberalism, now called conservatism and libertarianism and constitutionalism) that made this country great, and this is what will make this country great once again.  

Why do uneducated people become liberals

So we have people out there saying things like: "I hate politics. All people do is fight." They hate politics. They tune politics out.  When you send them something political in an email, they either respond with antipathy, or they say things like "quit sending me all that political junk?"  But these are exactly the people we need to reach with our conservative or libertarian message.

These are the people who say they don't pay attention to politics, but when you say something political they get all upset.  When you tell them that global warming is a hoax, they get all upset. When you tell them that Obama's number of 200,000 new jobs created every month is not good, they say you are a racist.  So they say they are not political, that they don't pay attention, but they still take sides; and they still get angry.

You know, if you ask me, if I was uninformed about something, I certainly wouldn't take sides.  I also wouldn't get angry, because people who are truly uninformed about something surely have no need to get upset about it.  So something is amess with these people who say they hate politics, and they don't take sides, and they don't follow the news, yet they still get upset when you share your ideas that are the antithesis of theirs.

The truth is, if I were uninformed on an issue, of which there are many issues I'm uninformed on, I'd be open minded and listen to all arguments without getting upset. I wouldn't be a liberal by default, I'd be neither liberal nor republican. I'd be bipartisan, at least until I had all the facts on the table. Then I'd sift through the facts, and I'd make a decision based on the facts.

Truth be told, I don't see why an bipartisan, or an independent voter, or a person who didn't pay attention to politics, would get upset about any political view.  So, the logical conclusion here is that the person is lying, that he is truly partisan, and most likely a liberal with his head in the sand because he's embarrassed to admit it.

But, lacking knowledge of politics because, as they admittedly say, they don't pay attention, they, by default, form an opinion based on their feelings, their heart, instead of their head.  They, by default, fall for the dream world politics of liberalism/ progressivism/ socialism.  Of course if you ask them if they are liberals, they will deny it tooth and nail.

These are exactly the types of people we need to continue to inform, even if it ticks them off.  In the meantime, they will continue to complain that "I hate politics.  I hate that people don't get along.  I just want people to get along.  I want them to get along and compromise."

Yet what they don't realize is that the liberal definition of compromise is "do it my way."

Liberals don't want to compromise.  They only see the dream, the end goal, and so any other information, fact or other, is the antithesis of what they want to hear.

So they reject it tooth and nail.  They refuse to listen to your facts, because the truth hurts.

By telling them the truth, by educating them, you are in fact hurting their feelings.

And, lacking any political wisdom, this all makes sense.  So they continue to tune you out and get ticked when you try to educate them.

To them, global warming is not politics, it's science.  Even though science is based on educated guesses -- mankind is making the climate change --, they don't care. To them this is all fact.  They don't want to hear anything about the natural cycle of events, or the natural cycle of warming and cooling, warming and cooling, warming and cooling.

To them that's too complex to understand.  So when you tell them global warming is a hoax, they tell you that you are ignorant.  They tell you you are stupid and blind.  However, what they don't ever do is present you with facts to back up their statements because there are none.  They do not study politics, so how could they obtain facts.

So that brings me back to my point.  If they do not study politics, if they do not read the news, if they do not listen to the facts, if they do not search for the truth, then how can they take sides?  How could a person who hates politics, wants nothing to do with it, become a liberal, let alone a conservative?  It makes no sense to me?

How could a person who has never studied politics a day in his life tell me that I'm a racist and bigot because of my conservative views, when he has never studied politics, and probably has no clue what my argument is, or what my evidence is, because he refuses to listen to it.  He might hear it but he never listens to it.  

It's perplexing.

After the great mystery of the father, son and spirit, this might be the second biggest mystery of all time: why someone could become a liberal by default when they lack any knowledge at all about politics.

But it does make sense, because liberalism is based on a dream.  And when you compare a dream with reality, the dream will win out every time.