Jack Cafferty,: Dishonest Political Hack (on CNN, The Liar Network)

Yes, Jack Cafferty, on CNN, is a dishonest political hack--while I,on the other hand, have again been proven right on something you would not have thought I could be PROVEN right on.


Let us go to the CNN debate. Yes, I told you that there would be questionis on "social issues' which LEFTISTS believe they can "embarrass" Republicans with. This is because it is LEFTISTS who are willing to put those issues ABOVE "jobs" and "the economy", as Obama and the Democrats in Congress have proven time and time again. But this was the EASY prediction. I was r proven right on a more subtle point, and Jack Cafferty--dishonest political hack that he is--PROVED me right on it.


Tjhus, you got TWO CNN questions on gay activist topics. Again, these questions were NOT for the purpose of "educating" Repubicans, but for the purpose of pursuing the LEFTIST idea of topics that make Republicans uncomfortable (true only of establishhment Republicans totally out of touch with the people). Thus, you got questions BOTH on the temporarily "settled" issue of "don't ask, don't tell", AND the issue of gay marriage. I hate to break it to CNN and Jack Cafferty, but the public is WITH conservatrives on gay marriage (as are ALL human civilizations for the thousands of years of human history up to essentially this century). But that is not the point. The point is that it was CNN which asked TWO questons on a subject NONE--I repeat, NONE--of the Repubicans is making a main part of their campaign. Nope. Not Michelle Bockman. NOBODY. It is CNN and the LEFT who want to make these things "issues' in the Prewsidential race, when everyone agrees that they are not going to defnne this election (although they can matter on the very margins for people who DO care about them). Nope. CNN can't be excused because they were using "voter questions". That is a SHAM: someting like the kind of SHAM Democrats are trying to use to say thaey have "cut" the budget, when all they are using are gimmicks and out year "cuts" they expect never to take place. Even CNN, with the usual viewers of a test pattern, has to SCREEN thousands of "voter" questions to ask the questions that CNN wants to ask. These are CNN questions. If you don't believe that, then I can't help you. You are too naive--really stulpid--to exist on thiis Earth. Notice I am NOT saying lthat the "voter" is not asking the question. Rather, what I am saying is that the SUBSTANCE of what gets to be asked is chosen by CNN. Put it another way: Do you really believe that MY questions that I have put forth for DEMOCRATS this week, in blog articles, would be asked in a CNN debate--that is, that I would be allowed to ask them? Again, if you believe that, I can't help you. You are too far gone in your own fantasy world.


Thus, you got the "church and state" question, put THIS way: "What do you think of separation of Church and State?" Is there ANYONE in this country, ouside of the ACLUL and the left, who cares about the answer to this ABSTRACT question? Again, it is the CNN position that this question is NOT IMPROTANT, because people only care about jobs and the economy. So WHY was the questrion asked? Yep. CNN can say that it was asking questions "Republican voters care about" all it wants, but tlhat is a LIE. CNN was asking a question, or alloweing a 'voter" to ask the question, because of the CNN LEFTIST AGENDA. That is especailly true of the way the question was phrased. Yes, I am sure a FEW Republicans care about this in THIS electioin. But most Republicans put this way down on the list of concerns for THIS election, and that is not just me talking. It is CNN. So why ask the question? I told you why.


Abortion. Now abortrion is an important question for many Republicans or conservatives: me, for example. Even as to abortion, I think it is fair to say that most Repubicans believe getting rid of Obama is so important that they are not so adamant THIS ELECTION of voting only for a candidate who agrees with them of abortion. But CNN ASKED THE QUESTION, albeit in the most confusing and convoluted way CNN could ask it--not a direct questioon, in other words, as to the position of the candidates on abortion restrictions. By the way, this is again an issue on which the PUBLIC is more with conservatives than leftis. How many Democrats, for example, do you know who are ASKED this direct question: "Do you faovr legal abortion up to the ninth month?" Even my pro--abortion, feminist older daughter opposes this position. She voted for Obama (although I don't =know she will do it again). Obama, of course, FAVORS legal abrotion up to the ninth month, and beyond (to birth, and beyond, in other words, in that Obama has OPPOSED laws tlrying to require babies born alive to be saved). What CNN did, in the debate, was to talk about one of the candidates opposing abortion, "except in the cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother", and then ask what the dandicates thought of this positon: obviiously trying to get some of the cnadidates to talk about the EXCETIONS for rape and incest. Miichelle Bockm indirectly criticized and trashed the question by correctlyl noting that abortions coming from ralpe and incest are so rare as to constitute a MINISCULE in percentage as to not be a significant part of this issue. By the way, do you see Democrats being asked THIS question: "Do you favor legal infanticde in cases of rape and incest?" "Why not, if you favor legal abortion up to the moment of birth" "What is the difference?" But I digress. No one I know of opposes legal abortion to save the life of the mother. I digresss---in a minor way. The pint here is that CNN ASKED these social issue questions in the way CNN wanted to ask them, as part of CNN's LEFTIST agenda.


But what about Jack Cafferty? Remember that, even if you disagree with me on the agenda behind the WAy CNN asked these social issue questions, CNN ASKED THE QUESTIONS. The candidates had no choice but to answer. Oh, I guess one or more of the candidates could have taken my suggestion and ATTACKED CNN for putting so mmuch emphasis on these questions, when the econnomy, jobs, the deficit, and wars need so much more attention. But CNN was putting these questions--dishonestly, as is appropriate for The Liar Network--as coming from VOTERS. Even if CNN reporeporters had been the only ones asking questions, it is a dangerous thing for a candidate to ATTTACK the question andthe reporter. I have advocated it. But i is a lot to expect. When CNN has set it up this way, it is effectively impossible to refuse to answer the "VOTER" question. Thus, CNN FORCED the candidates to give their positions on these issues. It is beyond unrealistic to expect a candidate to answer by saying: "I refuse to answer that question, because it is ONLY jobs, the economy, debt, the deficit, and foreign policy that is important in this election." Well, DISHONEST HYPOCRITE Jack Cafferty did not think CNN had made this impossible. But what did DISHONEST POLICTAL HACK CAFFERTY expect from the GOP candidates?


Ah. This is where this blog was PRTOVEN right. Cafferty said lthat the GOP candidates had no business making "issues" out of these things, because it is those other issues that are important. Caffertly closed this DISHONEST rant by saying something like this: "Message to the GOP: you can't win by making issues out of lthese things when these other things are so important" (the "other things" being those things I referenced above). No, Cafferty did NOT say that the candidates only answered questions ASKED of them by CNN. How DISHONEST is that? It is as DISHONEST as a person can get.


But what did I tell you in yesterday's article addressing this subject? What I told you was that this is a TACTIC of the mainstream media and the rest of the left to force Republicans to back down on these issues. This is how really DISHONEST Cafferty is--as ldishonest as any person I have ever heard on any subject. It is how DISHONEST the left is. What is Cafferty and the rest of the left asking Repubicans to do? He is asking Repubicans to GIVE IN on these issues--to concede defeat. Bay Marriage? Say that gay marriage is fine--just not imprtant enough to oppose. Let the gays have ltheir marriage, because it is IMPORTANT to them and the left--improtant enough to be put AHEAD of economic prosperity and jobs. In other words, by opposing the left, Repubicans force the LEFT to make these things issues, which distract the nation from our real problems. But what if a Repubican does not BELIEVE that? Cafferty does not care, because this is only a TACTIC to force Repubican candidates to BETRAY their constituency. Abortion? Cafferty is saying: "Republicans, you should stop FIGHTING on this issue, and GIVE IN, because otherwise the left will keep on fighting and DISTRACT us from the important things this country has to face." "Don't ask, don't tell" (from the Caffertty school of DISHONESTY: "I don't care if your opinion is that we have to keep looking into whether repeal of this polilcy is HURTING the military--especailly the combat units. If you even give that opinion in answer to a CNN question, you are forcing gay activists to make it an ISSUE, which takes away from the real issues." Some people (Juan Williams, for example) would say the same thing of IMMIGRATION (stupid as that is, and I think Cafferty has not used this dishonest stupidity on immigration). Does a Repubican politicain honestly thinkk--correctly--that it is RIDICULOUS to "eliminate GOD' from public life, so that even Christmas is no lojnger a national holiday (another question for Democrats and Obama)? Nope. A Repubican is not allowed to even ANSER a question on this, because he or she will be FORCING the left to keep fightingfor THEIR POSTION (even if it means distracting from the economy and jobs).


Yes, you should be able to see that DISHONEST JACK CAFFERTY has s proven me to be corredt on this. Cafferty's real position CANNOT be that Repubicans should refuse to anser these CNN questions, even when CNN has put them in the mouths of "voters". What Cafferty is saying--while dishonestly not letting you know this is what he is saysing--is that Repubicans should not give the WRONG answer on these questons. In othe words, Cafferty is saing that Repubicans should SURRENDER, and not fight the left (and Cafferty) on what the left (including Cafferty) believes is the CORRECT position on each of these isues. Dhishonest Caferty just wants Repubicans to SHUT UP on these issues, even if asked, except that even shutting up is not enough. Cafferty wants Repubicans to affirmatively say that they will NOT OPPOSE Cafferty and the left on these issues--that Repubicans should just say that they are forfeiting because they have more important things to worry about. Repubicans are supposed to say this even though the LEFT, and the mainstream media (including Cafferty), are willing to SHUT DONWN the ogvernment just to keep funding for abortion provider Planned Parenthood. Who is it that is really willing to put social issues ahead of jobs and the economy?


Yes, I KNOW some establishment Repubicans say the same thig as Cafferty, and for the same reason. That is one of the many reasons I have little respect for establlishment Repubicans. The premise here is that MY principles are not important, when other things are more important, while THEIR principles ARE important. Merely typin this makes me so angry I can hardly see straight (bad for you, since I can't see anywya, and there are bound to be more typos). The idea that Mitt Romney should get up there and BETRAY me because the left is more willing to fight for their principles than he is--including the "social issue" principles, si totally unacceptable to me.


Message to Dishonest Jack Cafferty (full, complete name from now on): I old you in complete contempt. Dishonesty just does not get any worse than this. You actually have the gall to say that Repubicans should not say what they believe on sodcial issues, because they know that those who oppose them are willing to put those same "social issues' ABOVE the "important issues" facing the country. This is as DISHONEST as a person gets. Cafferty, you are advising oliticians to BETRAY PRINCIPLE, and LIE about it, because you are trying to convince them it MIGHT win an election. I have no problem--altough I do not agree totally--that Republicans should EMPHASIZE the issues lthat are now putting the entire country at risk. But you are a CONTEMPTIBLE human being if you are advising OTHER PEOPLE to give up their principles, in faovr of YOURS, because....well, WHY JACK? I have given you the reason. You believe yours are CORRECT, and therefore we conservatives should give up ours because they are not correct. That is absurd. You say, Jack, that people lilke YOU have trouble voting Repubican because the candidates have these crazy positions on social issues? Well, Dishonest Jack Cafferty, isn't it BIG of you to allow us to do what YOU refuse to do. Yes, Jack, YOU are saying that YOU are willing to put these UNIMPORTANT issues ahead of the important issues facing this country. In other words, Jack, YOU are saying that people like YOU are willing to let the country go dowon the drain rather than vote for Repubicans because of these UNIMPORTANT social issues. Even if you, Jack, would not vote Repubican anyway, you are saying that people who would otherwise vote Repubican are willing to DESTROY this country, because of these UNIMPORTANT cosical issues, rather than vote for a Repubican who is RIGHT on the IMPORTANT ISSUES facing this country. Yes, Disonest Jack Cafferty, you must be one of the most despicable human beings to ever live. This is what you ARE saying: That you would prefer to DESTROY this country rather than vote for Repubicans who could save it, because of the positon of those Repubicans on what YOU say are UNIMPORANT issues. It must be hard to sleep at night, Jack, knowing what a VILE human being you are.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). As usual, however, I would much rather have bad eyesight than be as VILE a human being as Dishonest Jack Cafferty. Yes, I KNOW that Dishonest Jack Cafferty does not really believe that Republican politicians really believe differently than he does on "social issues'. He thinks people like me are HICKS--even if I did graduatge with High Honors (3rd in my class) fomr the University of Texas School of Law. I hope somebody out there with access will FORWARD this to Jack Cafferty. I want him to KNOW exactly what I think of him. He may think me a HICK. I tink of him as a VILE, DISHONEST human being. For everyone's information again, since I would not want Dishonest Jack Cafferty to think I would hide behind a mask, it is GORDON STEART (my name) who thinks this badly of him (and othes who think the way he does). If Cafferty happens to be right about SOME Repuiblican politicians who profess to believe what they do not believe, that is THEIR problem. MY problem is to vote for people that will advance ALL of my beliefs. Yes, I have to CHOOSE which of those believfs are most imporatnt to me, as does everyone, as there is no such thing as a politician who agress with me on everything. But I absolutely REFUSE to act on the idea that "social issues' can be IMPORTANT to leftists--important eough to SELL OUT the contry--but sshould not be IMPORTANT to me. Remember, Dishonest Jack Cafferty did NOT just suggest that people like me should be willing to vote for peoplle who disagree with me on one oor more of these social issues. What Dishonst Jack Cafferty said was that Republican politicians should not even ANSWER QUESITONS from Caffertly's own network in a way that please me, even if they agree with me. It is really about impossible to be amore vile human being than that, short of being a serial killer or member of al-Qaida. Yes, Antthony Weiner may be worse, but Dishonest Jack Cafferty will be "happy" to know that he will be this week's recipient of the coveted WEINER AWARD (my renamed reincarnation of the old "Laugh In" "Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate " award). Something for you to look forward to, Jack.