Do the Pundits Still Have Credibility?

It’s been quite entertaining watching pundits like Sean Hannity explain why it is, all of a sudden, no longer important that a candidate have a record of being for small government. Sean Hannity said recently he didn’t care what Newt Gingrich did fifteen years go, and that what matters is what he is for, right now.

I was under the impression that pretty much everyone agreed that politicians will say just about anything to get elected. Now we are told, we must go by what candidates like Newt are saying? We’re supposed to disregard his actions? It just makes me laugh.

But we have to defeat Obama, we are told. “Imagine a great debater like Gingrich debating Obama.” In situations like this one, the truth really does come out. It isn’t about implementing what is right for the country, for these people. It isn’t about fixing our problems. It is simply a game. It’s about winning. It really doesn’t matter to them whether Gingrich would continue the same Obama policies, as long as he has an R next to his name.

How small government Republicans, at a time when the economy is in shambles, can consider voting for a man who took money from Freddy Mac and who supported the bailouts, is beyond me.

It’s the pundits who are making sure those who are not paying much attention give candidates like Gingrich a pass for pretty much anything; making excuses at a time when the last thing we need is to choose a candidate based on what we hope he acts like, once elected.

Is this really the time to choose candidates based on their words and not their actions? Are we really going to do this again? How different would Republicans be than those who voted for Obama based on hope?

I will leave you with this ad made by the Ron Paul campaign, exposing Gingrich as the hypocrite that he is:

 

Similar Posts: