Hear the audio version here (segments older than 3 weeks may be unavailable)
So there's this big headline on Drudge and around various internet sites that I think is hilarious: "Newt Gingrich tells gay man to vote for Obama." And this is being made into some big coup, some big, breaking, bombshell story. And I'm just sitting here asking the question, "Why?" Why is this a surprise? Why is this wrong? Why was this the wrong answer? Why does anyone have a beef with this?
If anything, it's refreshingly honest. If someone who wants to see an expansion of the welfare state goes up to a Republican candidate and says, "I want to see the welfare state expanded, tell me how you're going to do that for me?" what would expect an honest Republican who doesn't believe in the expansion of the welfare state to say? Wouldn't it be something like, "Well, sir, I don't think I'm your guy because I don't think the expansion of the welfare state is in the best interest of our country as a whole. You may see it as benefitting you personally, but as president I have an obligation to the country."
Well, that is essentially what Newt said to this "gay man" who approached him. Here's the "earthshattering" scoop:
Newt Gingrich told a gay man and longtime resident of Oskaloosa here today that he should vote for President Obama.
"I asked him if he's elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him? And he told me to support Obama," said Scott Arnold, an associate professor of writing at William Penn University."
Arnold, a Democrat, said he came to the event at Smokey Row coffee house with an open mind. But he wanted to ask Gingrich about how he would represent him as president after reading past comments the former U.S. House Speaker as made about gay and lesbians.
"When you ask somebody a question and you expect them to support all Americans and have everyone's general interest," Arnold said. "It's a little bit frustrating and disheartening when you're told to support the other side. That he doesn't' need your support."
Okay, and if you believe that this Arnold guy had any intention of voting Republican in this election you are a dupe. This is more of the same old, "We're open minded and those darn dirty conservatives are just so close minded" routine. Mr. Arnold came to the meeting with an "open mind" only in the sense that if Gingrich or any of the others would pander to his own personal or special interests then he would consider supporting them. But saying to someone, "What will you do for me?" isn't open mindedness. Open mindedness would be to come and find out what Gingrich believes about homosexuality and the danger undefining marriage represents to the culture and considering those arguments on their merits. That isn't Mr. Arnold.
But once again, the media, totally in the tank for this sexual revolution, spins this story as Newt somehow being the bad guy. What do you think they would say or report if Newt, believing as he does about homosexuality had attempted to pander to this guy and say something like, "Well, I believe in a big tent philosophy where everyone can have what they want in a Gingrich administration?" Think the media would have just let that go? Of course not. They would have ripped him for pandering and not being honest. This is the way it is in this election and for the immediate future. Best to get used to it. Expose it and demolish its illogic, but best to be prepared for it.
So here's the answer to this particular story: Barack Obama is the candidate who is bending over backwards to do whatever he can to pander to the sexual anarchists. He will undefine our most cherished institutions, run social experiments on the military, and endanger the very existence of the Biblical model of family (the backbone of this and any culture) simply to gain approval from the sexual revolutionaries. So if you're on board with the sexual revolution and want to see the abolition of traditional morality in the United States, yes, Barack Obama is your guy. Period.