Dr. Paul A. Ibbetson

The forced resignation of David Weigel by the Washington Post will probably be forgotten by tomorrow, nothing more than a little blip on the radar of those submersed in the world of the Washington Post. Weigel’s online communications were nabbed and made public to expose the writer as a liberal who thinks Matt Drudge should set himself on fire and that conservatives are inherently doing evil. If you are a conservative you might shake your head, grit your teeth, or even laugh at some of Weigel’s private meanderings about the opposition. What you would not be is surprised. The Washington Post wants you to think that they are awe-struck and amazed, as if their writer were suddenly part of an E-True Hollywood story in which never-before-seen hidden details are suddenly being illuminated. Please.

Howard Klutz reported in the Washington Post that their Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said, “We can’t have any tolerance for the perception that people are conflicted or bring a bias to their work. . . . There’s abundant room on our website for a wide range of viewpoints, and we should be transparent about everybody’s viewpoint.” This is a vague statement at best, more than a little silly at worst. The fact of the matter is that all writers, even the freest of thinkers, bring at least some bias to the table and editors know this. In fact, beyond their ability to creatively communicate with the public, writers, bloggers, you name it, are sought for their general political leanings. This is where things may have gone south for Weigel. It appears the Washington Post got caught with a “political lefty” writing as a “political righty.” Who placed David Weigel writing the column titled “Right Now – Inside the conservative movement and Republican Party” That’s right, the Washington Post.

So who is at fault here? If you say it’s the Rush-Limbaugh-hating, Tea-Party-hating, Matt-Drudge-wanna-see-ya-burn liberal Weigel, you’re wrong. The fault lies directly with the Washington Post for failing to screen the people they hire, or worse, for purposely deceiving the public. If you want to critique a liberal for his or her wacky statements, that’s fine, we can make a day of it, but don’t think its transparency of viewpoint that the Washington Post is protecting; it’s their gluteus maximus. Bloggers are not insidious double agents, or at least never effective ones, and Weigel is no exception. To think so gives the Washington Post political cover they have not earned. In fact, I think they have earned the need for some additional scrutiny.

So, in the aftermath of the private e-mails made public, David Weigel’s career at the Washington Post will be burned away, and for what, being a closet liberal? Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post reports that in 2006 Weigel referred to gay marriage opposers as “anti-gay marriage bigots” on his Twitter page. Think we might be dealing with a liberal here? This was obviously not a red flag to the Washington Post. Brauchli blamed it on the budget and said, “We don’t have the resources or ability to do Supreme Court justice-type investigations into people’s backgrounds.

We will have to be more careful in the future.” Does that explanation fly with you? I think it is not a far cry to assume that the Washington Post was more than comfortable with their writing arrangement with Weigel until their employee’s point of view became overtly known to the public. Then it was transparency time. A time for purity and as the witch hunters say, nothing purifies like fire, or a good firing. Hopefully when the smoke clears there will be some interest left in finding accountability for the Washington Post.

We are currently watching the beginning of an American return to conservative values. What is unique about this return is that it is being led by an increasing number of politically savvy women. Political positions in almost all local, state, and national levels of government have been occupied by women for many years but the overwhelming majority have been filled by liberal Democrats. This is about to change.

Sparked by conservative women like Michele Bachmann, the first woman to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from the state of Minnesota, the challenge for women of breaking the “glass ceiling” has been replaced with the reality of breaking the liberal female glass ceiling. Currently Republican Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona is locked in a stare down with President Barack Obama over SB 1070, which deals with illegal immigrants. It’s no longer a question of separating the men from the boys, but more aptly the conservatives from the liberals, the strong from the weak. Jan Brewer is currently winning her stare down with the president, and Arizona’s SB 1070 may in fact be a fundamental catalyst for securing the border in America’s future.

Much praise must be given to Sarah Palin, who invigorated the nation with her conservative values and positive, enthusiastic vision for the country. The Palin phenomenon is still infectious today. What she also did by stepping onto the national stage was educate the nation about a woman’s ability to govern and fight for core beliefs, and to do so without losing her humanity.

So what will this year’s conservative women bring to the table for the primary races in 2010? Many of the Republican women who are poised to unseat longtime Democrats are tremendously successful business leaders from the private sector. Republican Carly Fiorina running for the Senate seat in California against Barbara Boxer is a former Chairman and CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP). California Republican Meg Whitman won her gubernatorial primary and is the former CEO of eBay Inc. Economically bankrupt California now has the opportunity to elect into high levels of political leadership two dynamic women who have been successful in business and know how to make a profit. Can I hear an “Amen!”

The conservative women of this year’s midterm election will be propelled by the Tea Party movement. You know, that movement that Nancy Pelosi said doesn’t really exist? The Vegas odds are that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will roll “snake eyes” in his attempt at re-election against Republican candidate Sharron Angle. Though we will never know for sure, the GOP’s candidate in the primary race, Sue Lowden, would have most likely sent Reid home a loser, yes, another conservative, yes, another woman.

Additional Republicans challenging influential Senate seats include Jane Norton in Colorado, Linda McMahon in Connecticut and Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire. When we look at these ladies of liberty, these women of worth, we see that their primary victories have been hinged upon their abilities to articulate the conservative message: limited government, controlled spending, adherence to the Constitution and traditional American values. What you do not hear from these conservatives is that they are victims of everything, or that they deserve the American people’s votes because of who they are. Instead, they are taking the conservative route in their platforms, staying issue-driven and appealing to the American people with what they have already accomplished and how it will apply in their future service. As the country moves back to conservative values to survive as a nation, let us not forget that many of our champions will be wearing skirts. Let’s hear it for the girls!