AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

What an Absolute Joke Our Society has Become

I left the following comment in response to this discussion at This Ain’t Hell: Legislation to allow women in combat specialties

Just another case of the ‘progressive’ mindset vs the conservative mindset. Conservatives are about equality of opportunity and focusing on excellence of results. ‘Progressives’ are about equality of results and excellence of ‘diversity’. Even then, conservatives and ‘progressives’ define results differently. While conservatives’ idea of results RE: the military is based on specific tasks military members must complete successfully, the idea of results for ‘progressives’ RE: the military is based on ‘diversity’.

The conservative, logical mindset will look at the tasks to be completed and then set standards to get the people best suited to complete those tasks. Anyone will have the opportunity to prove they can achieve the standards. But only those who achieve the standards will be chosen. If the pool of people chosen are all white men, all black/hispanic/asian men, all white women, all black/hispanic/asian women, etc, matters not to the conservative, logical mindset. What matters is that everyone chosen meets the standards and will complete the tasks successfully.

The ‘progressive’, emotional mindset will ignore the tasks to be completed and look only at what pool of people they want chosen. If they see that the standards set to successfully complete the tasks are preventing their ‘diverse’ pool of chosen people, they will change the standards to help their ‘diversity’ agenda. If this change in standards negatively affects the successful completion of the tasks, it matters not to the ‘progressive’, emotional mindset. What matters is that those attempting to complete the tasks are properly ‘diverse’.

Anyone or any company or organization who/which focuses on ‘diversity’ instead of excellence should be avoided. Period.

But, how about we take the emotional ‘diversity’ illogic of feminists and ‘progressives’ to its logical end. Someone mentioned that this crap started when these riTARDs started ignoring results-based success and started looking at ‘diversity’-based ‘success’. For example, they looked at the NFL and started bitching that there were not enough Black QBs or Black coaches, etc. So, they started the ‘Rooney Rule’ to force teams to interview Black coaches.

Well, as far as I can tell, the demographics of NFL players skews to Black athletes. And I believe those demographics do not match up with the demographics of the US population at all. Thus, we need a quota system in the NFL. No NFL team will be allowed to have its roster any different than the demographics of the US population overall. If the percentage of Blacks in the overall population is 20%, then no more than 20% of any roster shall be made up of Blacks. We can extend this ‘diversity’ agenda to the NBA, MLB and NHL as well. All major sports will be forced to adhere to this policy. This will also mean that more Mexicans and Asians will need to be on each major sports league’s teams. Afterall, we cannot have any ethnic background improperly represented.

Also, this will need to extend to colleges as well. Thus, only 20% of atheletic scholarships shall be given to Blacks in any sport. And more athletic scholarships given to Mexicans and Asians, etc.  (Think this is wrong or unfair?  Well, it is absolutely NO different than changing/lowering academic standards to give more scholarships to minorities who would otherwise not get them.  So if we need to make academic scholarships more ‘fair’ and ‘diverse’, it follows that we need to do the same with athletic scholarships, right?)

But wait, I’m not done. As we’re learning from the feminists and the LGBTs, women are absolutely, positively NO different than men. A woman can do anything a man can do. She can play sports, she can be a father to a child and she can do anything a male member of the military can do. Now, since we don’t set up our military to be “The US Military” and “The Female US Military” (yes, I know, we actually DO set it up that way, since no female military member in any branch of the military actually has to achieve the same standards as their male counterparts, by default creating ‘female Marines’, ‘female soldiers’, etc), then there is absolutely no reason for the existence of the WNBA, the LPGA and female tennis leagues. Also, women’s softball shall be eliminated. Women can throw overhand just as well as men, so there is no reason to have a separate league for them where they throw underhand.

Thus, just as the US Military is being forced (and has been forced throughout history) — in the name of ‘diversity’ and equality — to open its organization to women, regardless of how that will affect the effectiveness of the organization, all other organizations shall be forced to do the same.

NFL — What’s that you say? A 100-lb female DE can’t compete with a 350lb male offensive lineman, thus no high school or college or NFL team will give her a shot? No problem! We’ll just change the rules of football so that women can compete better.

MLB — What’s that you say? Women can’t throw overhand as far as men can, which is why women’s softball mounds are set up closer to the batter and they are allowed to throw underhand? No problem! We’ll just change the rules of baseball so that women can compete better.

NBA — What’s that you say? A 5’5″ female guard can’t get her jump shot off over a 6’5″ male guard? No problem! We’ll just change the rules of basketball so that women can compete better.

PGA — What’s that you say? There are not enough females who are as good at golf as men, so there wouldn’t be an even number of men and women competing each week in the tournaments? No problem! We’ll just create a quota rule where each tournament has to be 50-50 men and women.

NHL — What’s that you say? A 100-lb female getting hit into the boards by a 250-lb male would get herself mauled? No problem! We’ll just change the rules of hockey so that women can compete better.

Think about that for a minute. Anyone proposing that we make those changes for our major sports would be ridiculed as the idiotic, dumbass riTARD that s/he is. YET, this is exactly what is being proposed for our US military, an organization which conducts MUCH MORE SERIOUS tasks than simply throwing balls around or hitting balls with sticks.

When it comes to a game, no one makes the absolutely majorly f-ing idiotic suggestion that women be treated the same as men. But when it comes to our national defense, all of a sudden, it’s somehow less riTARDed an idea?

WTF is wrong with people. Seriously, what the bloody f’ing f’ck is wrong with people.

Anyone suggesting that women be allowed in the military with lesser standards, let alone in combat MOS with lesser standards, should be treated the same way as we would anyone suggesting that women be allowed in the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL with lesser standards. Yet, we’re actually treating this as a serious, intellectual idea. Un-freaking-real.

What an absolute joke our society has become.

Some great points made in the comments:

Frankly Opinionated Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 8:25 am

Let’s take this from the basics:

Men in the military are not permitted to grow their hair long. I believe this is for good reason. I was told that it was because of the hygiene, and the fact that hair can get in the way or get caught in weaponry. I agree.

Women are not made to cut theirs “high and tight”, but in combat MOS’, wouldn’t those same factors apply.

Not too long ago, a lady commented here, about the once a month hygiene difficulties of a women, and on how much more difficult it is for them at that time. Great point.

Men must meet a certain standard in Physical ability. Because it is what is needed to perform the job. If women in the same MOS’ are held to a lesser standard, how could we expect them to perform the same job, (handling, mounting/dismounting a “Ma Duece” perhaps), as timely and well as a man?

And back to my time in service, (right after we replaced the musket), we had women in the Army, in the Air Force, in the Navy, and in the Marines. They were WAC’s, WAF’s, Wave’s, n BAM’s. They performed a necessary job, did it well, made rank, stayed in til retirement.

Women don’t have a “right” to be in a MAN’s slot, anymore than a Man has a “right” to a promotion that he did not earn.

Ben Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 9:14 am

Loretta Sanchez…

“The Vietnamese are trying to take our seat!”

She is such a piece of shit.

Anyway, here’s the point: “Sanchez’s amendment would implement a recommendation made earlier this year by the Military Leadership Diversity Committee, a group of current and retired officers, noncommissioned officers and civilians, which determined that combat exclusion laws hurt advancement opportunities for women.”

So the point here is that the rules are standing in the way of their advancement opportunities. My initial reaction is that we already have affirmative action that gives women and minorities special treatment in advancement at the expense of white guys like me. Women can shoot up through the ranks without putting in half the effort as men. It’s disgusting. Talk about incompotent people being placed in positions of power.

But that’s not even the most important thing to consider. Combat effectiveness should ALWAYS be the focus. What’s best for our ass-kicking power is more important than what’s best for some whiney woman’s career.

By the way, affirmative action hasn’t been very beneficial to my career either. Not that Sanchez cares. She wants “equality” not equality.

Doc Bailey Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 10:00 am

Medics are technically a non-combat MOS, but we do NOT let them anywhere NEAR the line. Officially. Sometimes they sneak in as “attachments” but brother let me tell you, dealing with women in the chain of command adds a whole new dynamic. Whatever drama you had before suddenly becomes a soap opera, and a lot of female officers are passive aggressive in the extreme. I’ve seen female NCOs go nuts over minor things and Female officers are if anything worse, because the Army almost TELLS them to be passive aggressive. I understand shit details tend to go to those you don’t like, but still. . . it gets ridiculous if you don’t have a 1SG willing to tell them off.

Its not PC, but I’m going to say this as honestly as I can. Units with women in them are 10 times harder to deal with than all male ones.

But that doesn’t even touch on the physical reasons to include weight carrying capacity (their hips are NOT designed to carry loads the same way as men) Stamina and speed, (just why IS the 2 mile run standards so much lower?) the idea that a mostly male unit would “protect” the females, and lets not forget my favorite: women are psychologically predisposed to “nurture”, the battlefield is a bit of a jump in the opposite direction, so no one really knows if more extreme cases of PTSD might result.

This is just another Dem political stunt, like DADT repeal and women on Subs. It makes no sense to the people tasked with implementing the policy (timing and even in most cases the NEED for such) and we’re just supposed to salute, say Hoah and carry on like the GOOD little mindless robots we are.

Ben Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 10:59 am

Bottom line: Men and women are different. They are not interchangeable parts. Treating different things differently is not discrimination.

DaveO Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 11:01 am

I agree that this is a stunt. It worked exceptionally well with Repealing DADT, with so-called gay conservative groups imploding with their support of the repeal.

Women in combat MOS is not about the individual woman, or the chosen ones who will be given rank and position. This is about Democrats having lost the Feminist Mojo to conservatives such as Governor Palin and Rep. Bachmann. The meme goes: if woman can do anything, then woman can do anything.

Being an artillerist, I’ve served with women assigned to brigade-level HQ and higher; and in our support battalions. In a peacetime Army, they were professional. In wartime and on operational deployments to Bosnia? Most were professional.

This measure is also an insult to women who serve, and have served. They made the rank by going to the schools, walking the trail, taking good assignments and bad. Now? Now soldiers won’t know if their female leader is competent, or a quota requirement.

Before I’m willing to consider women in combat MOS, IMO DOD needs to get to the bottom, if you’ll pardon the pun, of all of these sexual assaults going on. There’ve been so many reports of rape, and countering accusations of accusing joe of rape in order for the female to avoid UCMJ, that no one knows what is true. But, the VA is reporting more women veterans as survivors (to one degree or another) of sexual assault.

There’s been no study of how to best integrate women into combat MOS – there’s been the political position with a veneer of statistics, but no serious, scientifically-based study.

Real-world, no-kidding issues are not, and will not be addressed. To do so may reveal truth. This amendment is not about truth, and it is not about women. It is about reclaiming the mantle of Feminist from conservatives.

fm2176 Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 12:52 pm

This infantryman is steadfastly against opening combat MOS’ to women. I have seen a very few women who might make average grunts on the line, and none who would be extremely impressive. The only female that made it past Zero day in my Air Assault class had a very impressive time on the road march, but that doesn’t mean she’d be able to keep up with us carrying a standard light infantry load. Let’s go through my limited military experience and interactions with females:

101st: About 45 days without a real shower or bath after entering Iraq. We had an Air Force unit sharing our tent complex in Kuwait that had a few females; we were all distracted by them and our PL one night found a porta-john occupied by one of them and a man one night. Not even two weeks into the deployment and they were already working hard. First four or five months we had no cots, power, or running water. After over a month of slit trenches and baby wipes we built a shower and outhouse and burned shit until around September 2003. Just before a parade through Clarksville when we got home a female Sergeant was recognized by one of the Afghanistan vets as part of a group whoring themselves out back in 2002. Go to Air Assault a 10 or so days after getting back home and watch 30 or so females wash out of the obstacle course.

TOG: A bit more interaction with females. MP company commander relieved (and Tomb Badge revoked) for having sex with enlisted Soldiers after pictures spread around. very few females on the field during ceremonies (of course, but even 289th MP Company had few when they were on the field). Went to PLDC, most of the females were at least proficient but one sandbagged the entire course. The instructors threatened to kick a few of the louder 11Bs out for continually pointing out the malingering nature of the female. I guess it’s better to send three or four good NCOs home to protect one POS.

Recruiting: Yay! A co-ed assignment. Work with two females directly, both are good at what they do and strive to participate in PT. Other females in the company? Not so much. PT days find them sitting down watching us. Despite the females I work with being squared away they still have their nuances–one time getting into an argument and refusing to talk or even work together for a few days.

#3 Ben,
I’ve seen that at work myself. Call me racist, misogynistic or whatever, but it seems that minorities (including women) are often promoted over white males in the Army (especially on the enlisted side). I’ve bitched about it before but I still find it odd that a non-deployable infantry unit could be so top-heavy in minority senior NCOs. My company had at most four blacks E-2 through E-6 (out of some 128 or so). Yet we had two E-7s, a 1SG and both CSMs. Our NCOPD one day had the author of “100 Sergeants Major of Color” as the guest speaker. I wonder how he felt about his profile of Staff Sergeant Stoney Crump (feels good to outrank that guy). On the flip side my unit in the 101st had very few minorities at all levels.

AW1 Tim Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 3:24 pm

For those want women in combat jobs, ask yourself this: Why aren’t women playing in the NFL? It has NOTHING to do with intelligence, marksmanship or communication skills. It has everything to do with physical requirements, and brute-force ability.

Hormones also play a VERY big part of that. I am so tired of all this craptacular social-engineering experiments being conducted by assmaggots who have never been involved in the military.

The crap will get people killed, and when it happens, those responsible for this legislation ought to be charged with murder and put to death. Publicly.

Matt Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 8:02 pm

I demand that our legislative body and executive branch prepare legislation that will effectively boycott the Olympic Games, both summer and winter, until the gender-specific events are eliminated. Participants should not be held back from achieving greatness by some arbitrary rule like gender-classification.

On the “study” that was perpetrated by this gender group, they mention that women are underrepresented in the senior ranks. Well, give me the number of women who stay in to serve in the senior ranks? Do women stay in the military as long as men? And this study concludes that women are hurt because they are not allowed to serve in Combat units, yet Service Support and Support units outnumber Combat units, 8-10 to 1. The tooth to tail ration favors the advancement of women. And plenty of them are in “combat” for women to receive the same “experience” as men. The majority of General/Flag Officer billets aren’t even “combat” related. There is no reason why a woman can’t be promoted to take over US Cyber Command or TRANSCOM.

jonp Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 8:38 pm

I had 6 women come into my airborne unit and within 6 months 4 were pregnant. Can’t see how this enhanced the operational readiness of my unit in the slightest

streetsweeper Says:
May 22nd, 2011 at 2:14 am

If you guys think having a woman that’s less than lack luster in infantry, armor or artillery try having several in an MP unit. Neither one carried their weight, our squad always had to mount their 60’s & load them in the gun trucks. All they had to do was woman(man)the 60’s and they bitched about that…the rest of us did ingress & egress.

Twas a damn good thing when Uncle Sugar Army gave us 6 of the V-100’s….they could hide inside them and not be a pain in our butts. Neither could shoot a .30, .38, 12gauge or M-16 worth a shit….Yet, they consistently passed weapons qual’s….go f’ng figure.

Doc Bailey Says:
May 22nd, 2011 at 3:31 am

I would like to point out that MOST women I talk to do not want to be ANYWHERE NEAR combat. Being on the FOB can be scary enough, and rolling up and down Predators or God Forbid Irish, sometimes felt like a fools errand, sure to get you wounded or killed. By my reckoning there are no “million dollar” wounds anymore, you get hit you’re probably losing something.

So I’ve got to ask a serious question here, and I’m asking mostly the women mind you; When did it become wrong for a man to want to protect a woman? Call me a chauvinist, but I’d really rather not have to treat women that get torn to pieces. I don’t want to treat guys that get torn up like that, but women getting hurt like that somehow seems. . . wrong. Is that really a wrong opinion to have?

No, it is not a wrong opinion at all.

And I will even take that one further. Forget the desire of men to protect women. Let’s just talk about simple science. Women are special in that they are the only ones who can give birth to our next generation. Losing 100 men in war is nothing compared to losing 100 women in war. That loss of 100 women means there are 100 less available to continue the next generation.

A society should treat its women special, because they are special. But our society has already proven that it does not consider life sacred and special by its acceptance and promotion of the mass murder of babies through the evil of abortion. So it should come as no surprise that no one even thinks to believe women should be kept out of the military — or at least kept out of deployment and combat — due to them being sacred life givers.

(Of course, considering it seems that half our female population now believes in the mass murder of babies through abortion as some sort of “right”, I guess we can stop considering women as special life givers, as they now seem quite happy with taking life.)

May 22, 2011 , 3:51AM Posted by | Democrats, Feminism, Liberalism, Military, Political Correctness | Comments Off on What an Absolute Joke Our Society has Become

If Liberals Really Want to Improve the Political Debate, Here are Some Suggestions on Rhetoric that can be Toned Down

I have been too infuriated with the MF-ing media, the Left, the Democrat Party and Obama himself using the mass murder of people in Arizona to their political advantage to smear conservatives, that I have not been able to start writing anything on the subject without going off on an angry rant. Thankfully, Rush has been expressing on his show everything that has been going through my mind on the subject this past week. Here’s an example:

Commentators right and left — make that left and far left, actually — are telling us that toning down the political rhetoric will improve our national body politic. Let’s take that premise. If liberals really want to improve the political debate, I have some suggestions on rhetoric that can be toned down. I would first ask the media and President Obama and the Democrat Party, to tone down all this class envy rhetoric. I’d stop with all the lies about the evil rich getting richer on the backs of the poor and about the rich who pay most of the taxes in this country not paying their fair share. If I were the far left, I would stop all this talk that is pitting one economic group of people against another. I’d get rid of it. It is creating a climate of distrust and anger and resentment. I would also ask the left and the Democrats to tone down the anti-business rhetoric. Try to acknowledge for once we have the best environmental track record in the history of the world, that we have the highest living standard thanks to American innovators.

All of this talk about Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Plastic, Big Retail as being the enemies of the American people, stop it. What are you gonna do, require Target to change their brand name? How many Target stores are there with their logo and icon all over the store and their printed materials? You gonna take after them next? And along the same lines, those of you on the left, I would tone down all the anti-capitalist rhetoric. Acknowledge that free enterprise has brought more prosperity to the world than any other economic system. Tone down all the anti-doctor rhetoric. The president of the United States accuses American doctors of doing unnecessary surgeries for personal profit in the midst of the health care debate. And again, all the rhetoric against Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Oil, Big Plastic, Big Retail, big everything, Big Profit. It is the left that has an enemies list, and it is every high profile success story having to do with capitalism in America.

I would also say, those of you in the civil rights industry, how about toning down your rhetoric? What is it that gives you license to call everybody who disagrees with you on anything, from affirmative action to illegal immigration, racists? In fact, those of you on the left, you’ve gotta stop something else. Every time somebody disagrees with you, you call it hate speech. You gotta stop that. You’re creating a climate here that is unstable. You’re creating frustration and anger. Notice how the left gets a pass on all this, every time this entire topic comes up. The left, harmless little angels out there just trying to make sure all the bad guys don’t get away with it. What about Reverend Wright’s rhetoric? Obama said he could no more disown Reverend Wright for what he said than he could disown his own white grandmother. There’s some pure hate in Obama’s church that he heard for 20 years.

And then after you leftists start toning down your rhetoric, start toning down your policies that rob Americans of their freedom and their prosperity, if you do all of that, if you leftists take my advice, the political climate in this country will improve beyond measure, the happiness quotient will improve beyond measure, economic prosperity will once again become the order of the day. Happiness will spread far and wide throughout the country. But then that doesn’t help advance your agenda, does it? You need chaos. You need people feeling displaced and aimless. You need people feeling worried about the future so you can set yourselves up as the saviors and the solution. Yeah, it’s pretty offensive. Pretty offensive to listen to the architects of all that’s wrong with this country blame people who have literally nothing to do with anything they’re being accused of doing.

Offensive is an understatement. Sarah Palin was spot-on when she called it a “blood libel“.

Michelle Malkin is also spot-on to point out that we are being lectured on civility by people whose words and actions for the past decade have been the epitome of vitriolic hatred and incitement to violence and murder: The Progressive “Climate of Hate”: An Illustrated Primer, 2000-2010

The Tucson massacre ghouls who are now trying to criminalize conservatism have forced our hand.

They need to be reminded. You need to be reminded.

Confront them. Don’t be cowed into silence.

And don’t let the media whitewash the sins of the hypocritical Left in their naked attempt to suppress the law-abiding, constitutionally-protected, peaceful, vigorous political speech of the Right.

They want to play tu quo que in the middle of a national tragedy? They asked for it. They got it.


The progressive climate of hate: A comprehensive illustrated primer in 8 parts:

V. LEFT-WING MOB HATE — campus, anti-war radicals, ACORN, eco-extremists, & unions
VIII. HATE: CRIMES — the ever-growing Unhinged Mugshot Collection

Also see: Blame Righty: A Condensed History

January 16, 2011 , 11:48AM Posted by | Barack Obama, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Democrats, Liberalism, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Rush Limbaugh | Comments Off on If Liberals Really Want to Improve the Political Debate, Here are Some Suggestions on Rhetoric that can be Toned Down

You May Disagree with Sarah Palin’s Policies and Ideas, But Don’t Claim She Doesn’t Have Them

Good discussion in the comments to this post at AoSHQ: Meghan McCain: Sarah Palin Is Anti-Intellectual and Anti-Education For Using The Term “Blue Bloods” — PS: By The Way, I Had To Google The Meaning of “Blue Bloods” Because I Had Never Read This Extremely Common Term Before

Sorry, fearless leader. I disagree.

The problem that the right has had for some time is that we allow the left to play by one set of rules and then submit to their set of rules for us.

I give you Exhibit A: Ambush interviews of Palin from MSM cretins who, according to conventional wisdom, we are supposed to play nice with. While the President of the United States (not a candidate–THE President) disses conservative media voices by name.


Katie Couric is not our friend. Republicans who get the vapors over public disputes that they start and, God help us all, math should get over themselves. Screw the New York Times and Paul “There Will Be Blood” Krugman. The fate of this country is at stake — really.

We need to get serious and stop being distracted. Let’s begin by questioning why so many insist on trying to distract us with the same logical inconsistency they tried to force on us concerning George W. Bush: Sarah Palin is either an idiot or she is an evil genius plotting the creationist and snowbilly takeover of the country.

These are the same people who engaged in a conspiracy to ensure a thin-resume partial-term U.S. Senator with no executive experience was elected President. They do not get to question my motivations — or for that matter, anyone else’s. Including Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, the Koch family…anyone.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 01, 2010 11:35 AM


They are two sides of the same coin, with the exception that some of us would still support Palin’s political ambitions if she actually, you know, did something, and laid off the Facebook soapbox and the F#cks News tongue baths.

Dancing with Bristol and Sarah Palin’s Alaska probably induce more swing voter name recognition than would $250 million in direct political advertising.

Sarah “gets it”.

You elitist dinosaurs who think that we can still win by sending our candidates out once a week to be humiliated on Meet the Depressed, Slay the Nation, and This Week with Step-on-All-of-Us “richly” deserve the extinction you’re about to experience.

PS: The first rule of trench warfare in politics is to NEVER allow a smear to go unchallenged. And Sarah diligently responds to the smears with her counteroffensives on Facebook.

Again, she “gets it”.

Posted by: Lindsey Grahamnesty licking Rahm Emanuel’s salty shaven balls at December 01, 2010 11:37 AM


I disagree. The reason she keeps talking about the elites is that they are the source of the problem. We’ve been told that they are wiser, smarter, better. Yet they have made an utter hash of every sphere of policy since Reagan left office. There was a slight break in the 80s, when the man in charge was the first to reject the elitist consensus since Eisenhower. With HW it came back full force: people who went to Yale and Harvard law are experts at everything, even things that have nothing to do with law. It has continued for the last 20 years, this notion that a tiny subset of the subculture of academia is a wise priesthood that can guide the country, fine tune the economy, and fix problems if only you let them. It’s a bipartisan thing. Basically Harvard and Yale, especially the law schools, pick teams when they graduate. Then, they switch over running things as Team Red and Team Blue trade the White House.

The reason Palin attacks the elite is because they have run the country for 20 years and have utterly fucked it up. Yet they still claim the ability to decide if someone else is qualified. I reject that premise that the people who brought you the Iraq War, the TSA, the housing bubble, No Child Left Behind, and every other worthless governmental tumor on the body politic are qualified to judge a goddamn wet tshirt contest. I’m not judging potential leaders by the standards of the people who screwed everything up. That’s insane, and it’s asinine.

Posted by: Britt at December 01, 2010 11:46 AM


As for Palin needing to debate issues: Have you not been paying attention? Her tweets are mainly personal, ’cause there’s no room for real discussion in a tweet. Her interviews often get personal because interviewers ask those questions and she’s not going to lie. But look at her facebook posts. Look at her speeches and answers to substantive questions in interviews. She’s got the ideas/policy thing down. You have to be almost (almost) willfully ignorant not to be aware of that.

You may disagree with her policies and ideas, but don’t claim she doesn’t have them.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 01, 2010 11:46 AM


Palin is actually practising a bit of Alinski; the personal is political, in firing right back at her detractors. And frankly, the leftards have gone unanswered by the right for far too long, in the name of “comity” or some other high minded sounding concept that simply means surrender to the lefts demands.

I think it’s the appropriate response to the lefts PDS; mocking and ridiculing their hysteria and pointing out that the “credentialed” Ivy Leaguers have no special powers or gifts that promote them for Government power, over that of the rest of us. Which was the point of the Revolution.

I’m not too concerned with her acting “Presidential” as she isn’t the President. Given the choise I think I would rather have her in attack dog mode than as our President.

Also, most of the criticisms of competence or comportment that are showered on her could easily be applied to Obama (or any number of the over-educated idiots walking around DC of both Partys), who is much less accomplished personally and professionally. But somehow Obama got a pass. Why? It was based, partly, on great speeches. But mostly he got a pass based on the expectations of his competence due to his Ivy League credentials and being elected to the Senate as a liberal Democrat, which is elitism defined.

Palin is doing a good job hammering the governing elites. They deserve that hammering. They have completely fucked our nation.

Posted by: SGT Ted at December 01, 2010 11:48 AM


There have been enough classist knocks on Palin’s background to lend weight to her charge that many of her fiercest critics are elitists. As a populist leader, she is right to seize on this argument.

1. It emphasizes her unique frontiersman biography.
2. It reminds people of her reformist credentials.
3. It distances her from both Bush and Obama, whose policies are similar.

Sure, it’s about as effective as Obama’s race card. But that’s pretty effective, and it’s fun watching her beat up on the media.

At some point, she will have to discuss policy. But Palin outmaneuvers the media who are very good at distracting from serious issues during an election. If McCain’s campaign had let her be herself, Obama would have lost.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 11:50 AM


But do I SAY that? Unless you come off as the sort of guy I can say that freely to, then no, I pitch it terms of performance and elegant german engineering, right? I let YOU figure out that attractive women will give you handjobs if you drive this car.

52% of the electorate voted for the guy that promised them handjobs and skittles in the last election. So yeah, I want our candidate to do what will win. I simply don’t care anymore about winning nice. And that means getting personal.

And yes, this then requires follow through. We need someone that can ‘seduce the electorate’ who also has the ability and willingness to push the country back away from socialism.

I don’t know if Palin can do all that. But I *like* the fact she hits back just as hard as she gets hit with every method at her disposal and tells the nominal rule keepers to go lewinsky themselves.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 01, 2010 11:52 AM


Nobody deserves what Palin gets.


Paris Hilton gets better treatment by the media.

You expect her to act “presidential”? I would too, if Obama got treated this way. But presidents don’t get treated this way. Not even W. If you remember, we blamed him for not fighting back. Well, Sarah fights back.

As to whether it’s the elites against the non-elites? Look at the food bill. Who cared about it? Nobody? Cui bono? Agribusiness. Look at the health bill — excemption after excemption.

We have an entire government of rent-seekers and it goes very deep. It isn’t about elitism? Look at what is happening: Bank bailouts, union bailouts, have the ear of the right politician and you are in like Flynn.

It’s not surprising, of course, that the elites hate her. Palin didn’t do the ultimate rent-seeking — go to law school. Isn’t that what you are supposed to do? You’re supposed to party hard, avoid difficult courses like math, take the LSAT, sleep for three years of a bastardization of an easy polisci master’s, take a bar prep course and rake in the dough.

And every law school grad hates her for it. Every law school grad thinks they are a fucking god entitled to 1/3rd of the wealth and toil of every other American. If they get to be a judge, so much the better, they are so wise that their decisions have to be “independent.”

Of course they don’t like Sarah Palin. They’d handle her lack of an Ivy League education or lack of a law degree if she’d just know her place like Patty Murray. They’d be OK with her being so damned (ick) working class if she’d just hide away and take corrupt money like Charlie Rangel.

I am a research mathematician under 40 who was educated in American public schools and whose parents never went to college. So, I know what wisdom comes more often from people who do not venerate their weak educational credentials (Obama) or the arrogance of those who believe in their own wisdom (Sotomayor).

Sarah doesn’t have the patience for the surface trappings of intellectualism — the academic angel-counting, the creased pants, the raised chin, the interminable “er”s and “ah”s, the tedious pompousity. She knows what’s important and what the essentials are. That’s good enough for me.

Ace, if you want to bitch about Palin or wring your hands about her candidacy, fine, but don’t act like she’s doing any of this on her own. Her use of “blue bloods” is in response to an attack. When you accuse her of being too gratuitous with the burnishing of her working class credentials, make sure she’s actually being gratuitous.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 01, 2010 11:57 AM


What about ideas? Why is every dispute being turned into a personal one, a dispute in which the power of ideas matter far less than the personal credentials of the person offering the idea?

It turned into a personal dispute when every f#cking establishment critic decided to make their criticism of Palin personal, and by extension insulted every non-establishment conservative living in flyover country.

A lot of Palin’s appeal stems from people’s personal connection to her background and apparent values.

And when every snotty Ivy League type lined up to take a shot at her, it felt like a personal attack on us. And you know what? It was. When liberals and establishment Republicans make snide comments about hillbillys and huntin’, I think, “Motherf#cker. You just insulted my in-laws, who I love, admire and adore.”

Palin is as much the face of an ongoing cultural battle as much as she as political one. One that wouldn’t likely exist, I might add, if we didn’t have a bunch of self proclaimed elites ceaselessly lecturing the rest of the country about how stupid and backward we all are.

The old appeal to authority is rotten and horrible, you should not credit anyone who says “listen to me because I hail from the credentialed elite;” that’s why we need to replace it with a new appeal to authority: “Listen to me because I hail from the striving low-to-middle class.”

This appeal resonates because the “credentialed elite” have had their way with things for quite some time now … and have done nothing but make a mess of our country. People are damned tired of being governed by a bunch of arrogant, incompetent crooks who’s only relevant credentials appear to be theirwealth and personal connections.

None of this is a defense of Palin’s approach, but there’s a reason for why it attracts followers.

Posted by: Warden at December 01, 2010 12:06 PM


How many people here know who Luigi Zingales is? Don’t google it. Or knew who he was before Palin talked about him in her latest book?

He is a respected economist known mostly in academic circles who teaches at the University of Chicago. I attended a lecture given by him once as I live in Chicago and work in investments. She draws a great deal from his economic writings. He is a free marketer, who also understands the difference between pro-market and pro-business. IE, he and Sarah are against crony capitalism where the government jumps into bed with big business.

This is policy. This is the foundation of an economic agenda. It is all written out for you in plain english by Sarah Palin herself.

Why is it ignored?

Posted by: Dan at December 01, 2010 12:08 PM


Look at her speeches and answers to substantive questions in interviews. She’s got the ideas/policy thing down. You have to be almost (almost) willfully ignorant not to be aware of that.

You may disagree with her policies and ideas, but don’t claim she doesn’t have them.

That’s the thing isn’t it? “She isn’t serious, I haven’t heard her talk about policy.” Except she does.

Why are we talking about her blue bloods comment? Because Meghan McCain ain’t gonna write an article about QE2.

I cannot tell you how many times I have seen people post, “Why doesn’t Boehner say something about this?” Then you find out that he did — both in an interview and a written statement. The media just doesn’t report it.

Why is Palin so shallow? Because everyone reports only her shallowness. We only hear what the media tells us.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 01, 2010 12:13 PM


It isn’t both ways. She is not “only” relevant because she is dangling the possible run out there. I saw the tents in the Costco parking lot LAST YEAR. And it was farging cold.

Here is what people are missing – she was a journalism major. Think about that – she READ THEIR BOOKS! She knows how it works.

We don’t have to get in lock step with her, but we should 1) not impose on her rules and strictures that we do not ask of others on our side 2) not impose on her the rules that our opponents want us to use 3) not go out of our way to personally insult her. She is on or side and she carries a big stick. Come on, wanna be pragmatic, what could be more pragmatic than treating a powerful friends with RESPCT? It isn’t fealty, it isn’t obeisance, just RESPECT.

Next year we will be arguing about some other person who is a candidate – but it will be on turf prepared by Palin and the Tea Parties.

Posted by: blaster at December 01, 2010 12:22 PM


Look, something that our team has to remember: We aren’t going to win on ideas alone. WE HAVE THE RIGHT IDEAS. Our ideas are the timeless ones with a lineage going all the way back to the Revolution. Their side has vague feelings about “fairness”, envy of the rich, watery internationalism, and pseudo-Marxist claptrap. If elections were about ideas alone, we’d win every one. But the reason why their team wins is because of IMAGE. They are the “cool kids”, the urban trendy hipsters, while we are the old boring fuddyduds. So we have to hit back on the image front. We should be the team of the common man, fighting against the entrenched elitist snobs who deign to rule over us. So as much as I think Palin is unelectable in a general election, I’d still take her over a real blue-blood snob like Romney.

Posted by: chemjeff at December 01, 2010 12:32 PM


“Let’s win on ideas, not snarky back and forth garbage.”

Yeah but let’s try to remember that if our ideas that we “win” with are just rehashed slightly watered down left leaning ideas then WE DIDN’T WIN. We got PLAYED. We got shucked, jived, ground, mixed, kneaded, baked, iced, sold, and dunked in fucking coffee at breaktime.

Also, just who the f#ck do you think your are kidding with this ‘fair play right here and now’ horse sh*t under a banner about hoisiting roger and slitting throats with a scary eqok picture labeled by threatening sexual jargon? You aren’t on the high road. You don’t even know where the high road is and neither does your Garmin or your smart phone apps.

Most “criticisms” of Palin so far have been some combination of venality, dismissiveness, knee jerk anger, strained misconstructions of her statements, wild stretching disguised as code-breaking(Sullivan, McCain), or other lame cactegories of worthless shit wrapped up in a very thin wash of serious policy oriented criticism that just about everyone sees well through before the criticism itself is has even been finished.

It HAS been elitist and for the most part it HAS been stupid as hell and has made the would be ‘serious objective yet regretfully iconoclastic critic’ look like some nervously hysterical wack-tard trying real hard to fit in with other hysterical wacktards who they just got a mild stink-eye from at the buffet table.

Maybe the calls for serious criticism of Sarah Palin have seemed so shrill because of the laughably dishonest tone with which they have generally been uttered after the usual round of “already heard em all” gratuitous potshots and the sneers and winks. One seems to kind of kill the fuck out of the other.

If you want to criiticze her in a serious objective way on the grounds of her supposed professed policy and principles and what she stands for then go right ahead but spare me the whole ‘Palin supporters are always flinging dookie and never listening to the dulcet, well aged enlightened wisdom of their glistening elf-haloed betters’ crap. Just get to the ‘your policy vs. her policy’ differences and tell me what you think it all means.


Posted by: cackfinger at December 01, 2010 12:33 PM


Here’s another take on this — maybe after suffering through some of the nastiest, most personal attacks ever visited upon a modern candidate and her family … and maybe after facing financial ruin due to frivolous lawsuits … maybe …

just maybe …

Sarah Palin decided that no one ever again gets away with a personal cheap shot against her or family without getting a dose of their own medicine right back.

And that includes bitchy, comments from former First Ladies.

And maybe …

just maybe …

This is good for our country.

Maybe it’s good for the Joe the Plumbers of the world. Maybe it’s good for all of us for the establishment to finally get the message that they can’t smear their opponents with impunity.

I don’t think Sarah Palin can win the presidency. I won’t be supporting her in the primary.

But the more I think about it, I can’t see how she can be blamed for responding to all these nasty personal attacks by fighting fire with fire.

She didn’t make the rules. They did. What the hell is she supposed to do, just take it?

Posted by: Warden at December 01, 2010 12:34 PM


And Chris Christie shrugged off the flack from the teachers union wishing that he would die? No. he turned it around and used it in two ways; he gained attention calling out the duisgusting behavior AND made the claim that he was interested in improving the state and that the union was simply fighting anyone who dared oppose them.

Personal AND policy.

He and his campaign did the same thing when the ‘fat’ slurs came out.

He also called out a reporter for using charged words in a question. How is that staying strictly on policy?

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 01, 2010 12:37 PM


But the more I think about it, I can’t see how she can be blamed for responding to all these nasty personal attacks by fighting fire with fire.

She didn’t make the rules. They did. What the hell is she supposed to do, just take it?

Rape victims were often asked ‘why didn’ you just lay back and enjoy it?’ (Because rape hurts?)

Conservatives keep telling their candidates to take the high road which is pretty much saying lie down and smile while being sodomized. The issue is, NO one respects the victim and everyone fears/respects the attacker. So that high road really leaves you all alone in the midde of nowhere.

Again, when it comes to political fighting, conservatives are wimps.

Posted by: EZB at December 01, 2010 12:41 PM


“I’m really not digging what I find to be a crudely reductivist, single-dimensional model of politics that many have seized on (Palin most prominently), that politics currently consists of almost nothing at all but “elitists” vs. the common.”

I’m not digging what I find to be Ace’s crudely reductivist, single-dimensional model of Palin’s politics: that it currently consists of almost nothing at all but “elitists” vs. the common. I would love to see discussion of her stands and actions on various issues in comparison with other prominent Republicans, but some people don’t want to discuss her anymore, even though she’s been the most substantive Republican politician on the national scene for many months.

What other leading Republican has Barbara Bush ever made such a snide remark about? I believe it’s a short list. Palin seems to be on everybody’s short list of snark victims.

Posted by: Ken at December 01, 2010 12:46 PM


If Palin runs…she will debate, put out position papers, etc….just like she did for her other campaigns. Adding to the many, many, positions she has taken for the last two years in her writings.

Why all the pretense that she and only she must speak as if she is NOW a candidate??

And why all this faux “disappointment” that she responds to the establishment and elites?

THEY started the fire.

THEY are teaming up and demanding that she “stay in her state”. Why tell a good conservative and Republican that they dare not even run??

THEY are telling/joining the MSM, the Democrats; “how dare she run for President of the United State”, “how dare she even think that she is capable to do this job”.

THEY are telling an American who is thinking of running in the Republican primary, that they are not good enough, nor educated enough.

And it is THEY (the smart set) who got the US in this mess in the first place.

So ACE….no more lectures on shutting-up…it is way too late for that….as a matter of fact, we have waited way too long to begin speaking up and protesting the DC elites, the MSM and RINOS that ruled our lives for 40 years running.

Posted by: pam at December 01, 2010 12:50 PM


See, I like Sarah Palin, but I agree that I don’t want her as President, or even a presidential candidate. This kind of one-upmanship and “I know you are but what am I?” behavior is unbecoming of a President, which is one of the critics’ biggest knocks against Obama and his infamously thin skin. In a candidate it’s more allowable, but even then it has to be tempered with policy discussion so that the electorate understands that you’re serious.

But I like how Sarah Palin doesn’t just sit back and let the leftists swipe at her. She swipes back. Wasn’t this one of the biggest complaints a lot of us had in the middle years of the W presidency? The liberals and the media (I know, the same thing) would talk all kinds of smack about him and his administration, and there’d be crickets in the Oval Office. Again, a President shouldn’t strike back like a tempermental toddler, but nor should he (or she) simply sit back and let the opposition’s poisoned arrows fall like rain.

Like it or not, a lot of average people view Palin as an Everyman (or should I say Everywoman), but an Everyman with a voice loud enough to be heard. The old media and the old Washington are used to all but their most laudatory words disappearing into a vacuum, never to be resurrected. Palin turns that on its head and holds up the mirror to them. “You’re not used to this kind of treatment, huh? You’re used to being fawned over, right? Well not anymore. Taste your own medicine.” She brings the embarrassment, and she brings it hard, and the Average Jane on the street — whose congressman only ever acknowledges their existence via a form letter asking for campaign contributions — CHEERS. “At last, someone who’s NOT a “blue blood political elite” is saying what I’ve been saying for years!”

That’s why I want Sarah Palin to stay where and what she is: a political firebrand. Do the lecture circuit; gin up support for conservative candidates; keep the GOP establishment on their toes; and above all, keep holding up that mirror. I think she can do acres more good as a private citizen with political clout than a career politician with no room to flex her muscles and let loose the dogs of scorn (sic).

Posted by: MWR at December 01, 2010 01:04 PM


If a man was fighting back against the smears and lies.. he would be a hero. (Chris Christie comes to mind… even though he is for 90% a conservative hates.)

A woman does it.. …

She does write policy stuff all the time on Facebook. NOBODY covers it. Wonder why? The media prefers the little woman to be labeled an idiot.

Amazing ACE wont even read it.. guess the media is doing a good job when a conservative wont even read what she writes.

Posted by: Timbo at December 01, 2010 01:08 PM


And also please notice that people here are buying into the “I don’t think that she’s very smart’ meme. Based upon what? In comparison to whom?

You just mentioned the tip of the iceberg! Name one other candidate who has had people brag on HuffPO about trying to hit their baby with rocks at a book signings. Or long gang rape scenarios written out on DU. Or had their daughter named the most despicable person in the world? I have never in my life seen things said about any politician that I’ve have about her– just for existing.

The fact that Palin is still smiling and hasn’t gone on a machine gun rampage says that she has more internal strength than 99% of the pencil dicks being offered as candidates.

Posted by: EZB at December 01, 2010 01:10 PM


But praising her because she — or someone who advises her — cites Sowell? I can do that. You can do that. Charles Johnson can do that. I’m not impressed.
I would still prefer to see action, not talk. You don’t hire someone who quotes Sandy Koufax to pitch in the World Series unless you’ve seen them on the mound first.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 01, 2010 11:55 AM

I’ve got news for you: supply-side economics wasn’t Reagan’s idea, it was Art Laffer’s (and he undoubtedly drew on Friedman’s ideas, and Friedman on the ides of previous economists). Paul Ryan’s Roadmap isn’t exclusively his either, it’s an amalgamation of ideas put forth by think-tanks that he (or most likely his staffers) fine-tuned and ran the numbers through the CBO. Fred Thompson’s economic platform last time around looked awfully similar to Ryan’s Roadmap.

I don’t see why it’s a problem that Palin cites and gives credit to Tom Sowell, Luigi Zingales, Art Laffer, and the rest of the economists she reads and consults with for the policies she supports.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at December 01, 2010 01:10 PM


As a strong Palin supporter I think these are all good points about Sarah. Regarding the comment about why we Palinistas don’t often debate about Sarah’s policies, in general, we don’t have to. If you go down the list of conservative issues Sarah gets a checkmark on every single one of them. She has no RINO one-offs like RomneyCare, anti-Iraq war, pro-abort, pro-bailout, pro-amnesty, anti-gun, etc. So, among true conservatives, there’s essentially nothing to debate about her policy platform.

Should she be snarky and personal if she has presidential ambitions? Probably not, although I’m glad someone has the balls to put Obama and the Bushes in their place. But looking at the flipside of the critique, are you more concerned about your preferred candidate acting presidential or going in with the right policy ideas about everything?

Posted by: Crusty at December 01, 2010 01:20 PM


Sarah not only likes to win, she likes to fight. A lot.

Posted by: SurferDoc at December 01, 2010 01:20 PM

This is the best thing about her. The general unwillingness of Republican candidates to actually FIGHT the f*cking enemy is a source of frustration and anger for me year after year. I hate their weakness – their chinless, limp-dicked persona of passivity. That’s a big part of why those who vote for them are simply voting “not-democrat.” The Reps are all to often nothing more than the lesser evil – especially the worthless RINOs. We’ve not had a real fighter in the ring since Reagan.

We need candidates who not only have the right ideas, but also a Patton-like love of smashing the foe.

Posted by: Reactionary at December 01, 2010 01:26 PM


“I am focused on whether or not she’s got the chops to be an effective POTUS, not just a right-thinking POTUS. In my opinion, she doesn’t. And all of the potential candidates out there who left public life and are just talking heads are in the same boat. The longer they are out of public life, the less interested I am in their experience. And, let’s face it, some of them have much more experience than Palin, whom I prefer on philosophical grounds. It sickens me to think that Huckabee has a better chance to be the nominee than Palin when, had Palin stayed in office or chosen some other public role (meaning CEO of company, non-profit, or in governance) she would blow him out of the water in the 2012 primaries.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 12:23 PM

This is just not very compelling.

As if two more years fighting frivolous lawsuits in a remote state would have somehow made her the political heavyweight that is Mittens/Huck/Newt. Yep two more years as AK’s guv would have given her “chops”. Please.

We have career politicians who have run this fucking country in the ground and are determined to start digging. I know these guys have these magic “chops” to which you refer.

You don’t want to repeat the mistake of electing someone without whatever this intangible level of experience you’re focused like a laser on (see Obama), so you’d rather see other people who have the street cred of socialist lite, or have a history of running their home state into the ground? Seriously, your argument sounds good upon first hearing. Put in a realistic context, not so much.

Honestly, I’m in the camp that thinks she’s damaged goods form the media’s bullshit coverage and that’s why she should stay out of it. But all this crap about not having “chops” or enough “experience” (when you prefer her philosophy???), or not having positions on policy (when she obviously does)?


Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 01, 2010 01:27 PM


Because part of the reason we hate her critics is that they choose the low road? Let’s win on ideas, not snarky back and forth garbage.

Posted by: robviously at December 01, 2010 11:29 AM

In 2008 the Presidency was given to the guy who was “cooler”. Most people don’t follow politics closely and it is actually more important to win on the personal stuff then the political points in the area of elections.

So, yeah, I’d love to live in a world where the public is actually swayed by detailed, accurate discussions. But we don’t live in that world.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 01, 2010 11:35 AM

Yep. Let’s recall that too many people formed their opinion of Sarah Palin in 2008 not from her RNC speech nor her campaign speeches, but from Tina Fey mocking her on SNL.

I was talking with a former friend of mine about a month before the 2008 election and she asked me my opinion of Sarah Palin. I told her how I was impressed with her background and went on to detail her political history, accomplishments and her fight against corruption in Alaska at every level. I spent about 5 minutes talking about her. She responded in a silly, mocking tone with “and she can see Russia from her house!”

She went on to tell me how she was so impressed with Obama and she was wearing an Obama pin on her purse and was proud to put an Obama sign in her parents yard, etc. I then went on to ask her how in the world she could support such a radical leftist for the Presidency given his background and went on to detail all I knew about him, from Ayers to Raila Odinga to the Born Alive Infacts Act to “voting ‘present'” to Rev Wright. She responded with “uh, where do you get your information?” When I told her that I do my research online, reading blogs, etc, she responded with “oh, okay, good, just wanted to make sure you don’t get your info from Fox News”. Yet, she was a big fan of Olbermann and Maddow.

We then got into a debate over why she didn’t like Republicans, because they didn’t provide funding for her line of work (she was a social worker working with foster parents). I asked her if she was referring to the S-CHIP program, which was in the news at the time and she said she didn’t want to go into it at the moment. Well, I researched S-CHIP and the Wisconsin S-CHIP program (State in which she worked). I wrote two long e-mails detailing my research about the program, giving examples of corruption and inefficiency and why the Democrats’ proposals for reform were ridiculous and the GOP’s ideas were better. She responded with… nothing. Never answered any of my policy arguments. Which told me she didn’t really care about them.

And this is the case for too many Americans these days. They could care less about policies, they form their opinions based on SNL, Comedy Central and the lies and smears spewed by the MF-ing media.

By the way, as I understand it, the general consensus of Ace and the rest of the blog authors here is that ‘policy positions’ do not win elections, selling a brand wins elections. Wasn’t that the mantra by Ace and others during the 2010 elections? That we shouldn’t focus so much on specific policies, but general talking points? But now Ace is saying that Sarah Palin should not be selling a brand, but focusing more on policy positions (which she actually does in her Facebook posts and her discussions on FNC)?

I really don’t know why Sarah Palin is being held to this ridiculous, impossible standard. If she doesn’t take on the smears and criticisms, she’s allowing the Left to define her and that’s not good. If she does take on the smears and criticisms, she’s not being Presidential and that’s bad. When she takes on Obamacare and talks about “death panels”, she is criticized for not having used the right words.

She just can’t win, no matter what she does. And that’s fine, but it would be nice if her critics would stop with the “she needs to do this instead of this, etc” stuff and just come out and say you don’t like her and there’s nothing she can do to change that opinion.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 01, 2010 01:35 PM


Okay, Ace. Why don’t you write a book review of Palin’s latest opus? I’ve not read either of her books, but it appears that they include plenty of policy positions. Pick a couple and have at it. There’s more to the lady than the latest episode of Sarah Palin’s Alaska, or the latest slam in Politico or the Atlantic.

Her Facebook post du jour supports renewal of the Bush ’43 tax cuts. And she quotes Thomas Sowell. Man, that’s real personal stuff, there.

Oh, and … Death Panels

Posted by: mrp at December 01, 2010 11:39 AM

I get the feeling that this is the core problem with people like Ace and others regarding Sarah Palin: they don’t actually follow Sarah Palin, they follow others who follow Sarah Palin, and then come to a conclusion about her based on the summation of others. This is like coming to a conclusion about a movie by reading a review instead of watching the movie yourself.

Ace — and other bloggers as well — do this a lot with Rush Limbaugh as well. Instead of actually listening to his show on a daily basis, they form their opinion of him based on someone’s article about his show or listening to a short clip of a segment of his show.

I think Ace’s decision to not write about Sarah Palin based on “it gets too emotional” is a copout. Ace could easily write on a weekly basis about Palin regarding her Facebook posts on policy, her appearances on FNC where she discusses policy or by reading her books and writing a review of her policy positions she articulates in there. But he chooses not to do so. He instead only writes about her when there are these ’emotional’ topics regarding her. I think Ace would garner a lot more respect from Palin’s supporters if he would simply not write about Palin regarding the emotional issues and focus on writing about her only regarding her policy positions. Why he chooses to do the reverse, I don’t know.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 01, 2010 01:47 PM


It’s a fair criticism of Palin… but I don’t really think putting on thicker glasses and just really starting to talk about boring policy wins the White House anymore. Outside of complete political junkies, it’s just not what people want. And reacting against the elites on a gut level is at least something back int he right direction.

I mean, come on, if knowing all the ends and outs about how to reduce the budget worked, people would be demanding Paul Ryan for President. And they hella aren’t.

Posted by: Will at December 01, 2010 11:40 AM

Yep, we have to remember how the Democrats and Obama won. They railed against ‘the rich’, ‘evil corporations’, ‘big oil’, ‘special interests’, etc. Did they talk about policy and how things actually worked? Hell no. They used emotional talking points, class warfare, etc.

Recall when Obama was asked about lowering the capital gains tax rate. He was explicitly told that lowering it brings in more revenue and would help lower the deficit. He responded by saying he didn’t care about that, he cared about ‘fairness’.

Recall Obama’s bumbling and stumbling about something to do with healthcare and a boy using a breathalyzer. Or his claim that doctors were amputating legs, etc.

Or just recall whenever people talk about Social Security. The GOP talks policy and how SS needs reform, while the Democrats reply with “Republicans want to take money away from the elderly!”

Or how about the debate over S-CHIP. The GOP talked policy, while the Democrats trot out some poor, poor family which would be worse off if the Republicans get their way.

This is how the Democrats win EVERY issue: on emotional bullshit.

The GOP have the facts on their side, have the policies on their side, have history on their side. Yet, all that gets trumped by the Democrats and MF-ing media trotting out their emotional bullshit, mud-slinging, smears, hate and vitriol.

The GOP is not losing, because of a lack of focus on policy. The GOP is losing, because the electorate cares more about emotional bullshit than they do about policy.

That’s why Obama won, despite having a background proving he is an America-hating, Marxist radical.

Hell, just look at the debates. Do they ask about policy? No, they ask about stupid bullshit and just touch on policy.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 01, 2010 02:04 PM


I’ve always been a staunch Palin defender, and I’d vote for an inanimate object over Obama, so if Palin’s the nominee, she’s my nominee.

I appreciate the fighting fire with fire ethic she’s got. I get it. I’m a conservative in a voting district that went 86% for Obama. I’m a conservative in a fairly liberal profession. At some point, I decided, I’m surrounded by people who hate me, so why don’t I speak up anyway? They’ll continue hating me, but at least I’ll have made myself heard. So I understand the perspective and I think a certain amount of vitriol that the establishment lacks is necessary.

That being said, conservatives don’t have the requisite “herd immunity” to get away with this on the regular. And the catch-22 comes about oweing to the fact that we don’t have it because when someone like Palin comes along, conservatives eat their own (I’m looking at you Ace), play circular firing squad in front of the MSM, or retreat into safe harbors like talk radio to defend ourselves. The early defense of Palin never took place with sufficient consistency and force, so, for better or worse, Palin’s become an isolated animal who’s perceived as lashing out with hackneyed phrases and folksy repetition. This is all chicken/egg stuff at this point. The brand’s been irreparably damaged in the eyes of the wider public.

As one of my friends said, the job of conservtives is to make other conservatives feel comfortable enough to speak out and be conservative. It seems like Palin has taken this on as her primary mission, but whether one person can maintain that as a long-term position in the face of so much effrontery remains to be seen. She’s a strong person, but I don’t want to see her “lose it”.

Posted by: La Mauvaise New Yorkaise at December 01, 2010 02:04 PM


I don’t want to hear policy wonk speeches from a President. They don’t have to be experts in anything besides communication and high level management guided by a strong backbone and an adherence to conservative principles. That is enough to serve this country very well, much better than it is being served now.

I heard an anecdote about Reagan via a friend who knew someone who served at the White House under his administration.

Basically, the story goes like this. There is an introductory meeting with key cabinet officials and presumably big-wigs from the Fed, and Reagan walks in and says that he wants his administration to work on three things: reduce the size of the Federal government, end the cold war, and kill inflation. He then said it was up to them to figure out the details, and then walked out. While I heard this second hand, it certainly does ring true to Reagan’s style of governing.

If Palin were elected her job would be to appoint competent officials, clarify the principles and priorities to everyone, spend time understanding what they are doing so she can articulate and sell it to the American people, and be willing to fire anyone within a nanosecond if they deviate from said priorities and principles, or show themselves to be incompetent and don’t show results quickly.

She can communicate very well. I don’t think she suffers fools. Her principles are intact and she is extremely tough. And there are lots of talented folks who can be delegated authority and live within the parameters set by the Commander in Chief. A few token firings of those who wander off the range would serve as a nice head adjustment for the entrenched bureaucrats.

As to the personal mud-slinging? You are in Washington D.C. Get a dog.

Posted by: fapo at December 01, 2010 02:23 PM


Takes some amazing mental gymnastics to turn “beautiful” into a vicious personal attack.

Oh, bullsh*t.

It’s called damning with faint praise.

If she had been asked about Mitt Romney and responded, “I think he has very nice hair and I hope he stays in Massachusetts,” would you be slinging this bullshitty argument that she was being complimentary?

Jesus Christ. Talk about being willfully obtuse.

Posted by: Warden at December 01, 2010 02:30 PM


Palin is a woman who kills and skins moose. For fun.

Is it any wonder that our sissified cultural elite finds her horrifying?

She’s a serious person. She shouldn’t be underestimated.

Also, I absolutely refuse to accept that the media has made her unelectable. I refuse to give the likes of Tina Fey and Katie Couric veto power over our presidential candidates. We can’t allow them to have that power . . . and they can have it only if we give it to them.

Posted by: tsj017 at December 01, 2010 03:13 PM


It’s always personal, it’s never about ideas or policy, huh? Overgeneralize, much?

How about TODAY:

Or, recall how she popularized the term ‘Death Panels’ which instantly changed a lot of the policy discussion surrounding Obamacare.

What I tire of, Ace, is the hyper-criticalism aimed at Sarah Palin…from our side. It’s expected from the left, but really. In the words of the first Republican president: We can’t spare this woman — she fights.

Posted by: BobInFL at December 01, 2010 03:14 PM


The bigger problem is that everyone — often led by the MFM coverage — covers the personal tussles, and ignores the policy and ideas since few attack her there.

All in all, though, she should be steering her responses to the personal attacks in ways that address the ideas and policies that tend to initiate the attacks.

Posted by: Dusty at December 01, 2010 12:21 PM

This is exactly what the MF-ing media does with Rush Limbaugh. If he talks about 10 topics per day and 9 of them are brilliant monologues about policy and 1 is a silly segment for entertainment purposes, guess what is talked about? They ignore the 9 brilliant segments about policy that matter and choose the 1 silly segment to smear Rush.

Then, you get bloggers like Ace — who refuse to listen to Rush on a daily basis and instead just read articles about his show — who listen to the media reports and then form their opinion of Rush based on that alone.

The same thing is happening with Sarah Palin. 9 out of 10 things she’ll talk about will address policy, while 1 of those will be something personal. Instead of Ace choosing to write a post about the 9 policy issues she addresses, he chooses the 1 personal one and ignores the rest.

As far as your latter point, it really doesn’t matter. Rush, on a daily basis, connects his silly segments to larger policy points and it doesn’t matter. The MF-ing media smears him anyway. Just take the “Barack the Magic Negro” song for example. That was about Black liberal journalists pontificating about Obama not being “Black enough”. Rush made it into a funny segment for entertainment purposes, but also to articulate a broader, valid point. But what did the MF-ing media do? They smeared Rush as a racist.

This is the game the Left has set up, rigged in their favor. And many people on the Right just don’t seem to get that.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 01, 2010 03:47 PM


This seemed like two different posts to me. I completely agreed with the first part about MM and her drivel but the second half left me scratching my head. I agree with arhooley in Post #29 and Rocks in Post # 167 more than anything Ace wrote in the second half of that essay. What, is Palin supposed to just lay back and enjoy the inevitable? By striking back she is essentially saying F*ck You to the media and those who continue to take cheap shots at her. And like Rocks I think she should strike back and blow up their narative. Why let them set the parameters for political dialogue anymore since they blew all credibility by going ‘all in’ for Obama in 08. When they hit you, hit back at them twice as hard! Didn’t somebody just say that? Dont Believe The Hype Ace! These same people told us that Reagan would push the button and get us all killed! Then by the mid 80’s you couldn’t find anyone that would admit to voting for Jimmy Carter. B. Obama is this generations Jimmy Carter ( he is Jimmy Carter with a tan!) You don’t have to like her, just don’t shit on her with the rest of the usual suspect fuckwits.

Posted by: hughie at December 01, 2010 04:14 PM


281 In other words, she’s a nice person but doesn’t want to see her run for President. How is that a personal attack?

No, the old bitch said she once sat by Palin and observed she is “beautiful.” That means she had no interest in speaking to her and implies she is an idiot trading on her good looks. Then she said she hopes Palin “stays in Alaska.” That implies she is not qualified to run for POTUS, another personal attack. That was some incredibly weak defense for weasel wording.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 12:28 PM

Okay, I just gotta ask here…are you fucking serious? Takes some amazing mental gymnastics to turn “beautiful” into a viscious personal attack. Exact;y the shit people are getting tired of.

Posted by: Paul at December 01, 2010 12:53 PM

I think Tattoo’s take is spot-on. It’s basically akin to a response of “she’s beautiful, but she should just stay in the kitchen”. If a man dismissed a woman in that manner, he would be called a misogynist. Mrs. Bush gets a pass on the misogyny since she’s a fellow female, but she did dismiss Palin, so it’s credible to interpret the dismissive comment as stemming from elitism (‘blue blood-ism’)

Again, this is really just another form of misogyny, only in this case instead of a man being dismissive of someone because she’s a woman, it’s an elite — blue blood — being dismissive of Palin because she’s not an elite.

Imagine back during the women’s liberation movement if a man were asked about the chances of a woman making it in the business world and responding with “oh she’s beautiful, but she should stay in the kitchen”. That’s what Mrs. Bush is saying here. Think of this as the non-elistist liberation movement. Instead of men telling women to just “stay in the kitchen”, we have elistists telling the non-elites to “stay in Alaska”.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 01, 2010 04:27 PM

December 2, 2010 , 11:07AM Posted by | Conservatism, Media Bias, Meghan McCain, Political Correctness, Politics, Sarah Palin | Comments Off on You May Disagree with Sarah Palin’s Policies and Ideas, But Don’t Claim She Doesn’t Have Them

What Do You Do When You Have a Populace that Does not Want Freedom?

I don’t have an answer to that question. Very sobering thoughts from Entropy:

“There is non-controversial stuff here like the preexisting conditions exclusion and those sorts of things,” the Texas Republican said. “Now we are not interested in repealing that. And that is frankly a distraction.”

What the GOP will work to repeal, Cornyn explained, are provisions that result in “tax increases on middle class families,” language that forced “an increase in the premium costs for people who have insurance now” and the “cuts to Medicare” included in the legislation…

If they run on that…

Fuck em.

No use. What you’re doing politically is no different then what we’ve all done fiscally. Borrowing against the future. ‘Just give me 6 more years of only mildly debilitating socialism before you crush me outright’.

The whole damn government is insolvent and they’re just gonna repeal the part that made spending cuts to medicare.

Fucking goobers are less realistic and more Unicorn then Obama.

They’re going to repeal the tax increases, repeal the spending cuts, repeal the premium increases, and keep the mandated extra costs coverage.


Posted by: Entropy at March 23, 2010 06:17 PM


Get the Presidency and Congress(es) first.

Then use the Democrat-pioneered winner take all strong-arm tactics to not only force repeal, to roll back major elements of the welfare state.

That requires a political party to do it.

One we do not have.

We might as well plan on using the Omega-9 Neutron Starburster to terraform Iraq. Perhaps we’d advise George Washington he should have just sent 43 million infantry to invade Essex.

Oh, but there’s Republicans. They’re not “as bad”.

Yes yes. Let us seceed from Britain by declaring allegiance to the Crown of Louis XVI.

Posted by: Entropy at March 23, 2010 06:27 PM


If you don’t have a political party to do that, then you certainly don’t have a sufficient cadre to successfully rebel against the United States government, even if and when it has (or has already) slipped in to tyranny.

The colonists had no political party in Britain.

We have no whole party in the 2-party-only system of DC.

And armed revolution is not the only course available.

India kicked them out as well, through non-violent civil disobediance.

And the kooky Russian Rand had some ideas of her own, ones that have not yet in history been tried, the willfull acceleration of phenomena and natural causes that in their own way, did more then Reagan to bring down the Soviet Union.

You could attempt to create a 3rd party.

Humanity is full of innovation.

But if Cornyn’s plan is the best we can do in Washington, even now, then he is not even an option.

If democrats get elected once every 10 years and serve only 1 term by ruthlessly expanding the welfare state into as much of the US economy and our lives as is humanly possible for them to accomplish, and Republicans roll back ‘parts’ while leaving the precedent of government jurisdiction and control, and half the parts that are ‘too popular’ with the very people who cheered and enabled the democrats to sieze it without any legitimate right in the first place, WE LOSE.

Statists win.

It is a cultural civil war.

You can ignore it if you please — it will not go away. By not making any choice, you’ll have made a choice anyway.

A weaponized political party to match them, or do not bother me with political parties at all. Reform from within is then impossible, the whole edifice must be toppled, or else we bicker over the date but accept an inevitable subjugation.

If it can not work, if it can not win, it does not matter. We fight or we do not. If we do not fight to win, there is no purpose in struggling at all.

A cultural change is needed. This system was founded by men who said you may kill them, but whether in life or in death, they would not comply at any price. For too long we’ve accepted too much. From the Federal leviathan right down to the state and local level, we’ve shown them we have been unwilling to pay the price of discomfort they’d be sure to exact should we disentrench them.

McCain? To delay it? Save yourselves 5 more years of good times? A tolerable 15? To croak before being called due and pass the burden to your children? If you will not fight for your liberty, you do not deserve 5 more years of it. You are not entitled to it.

You’ve spent the inheritance of your grandfathers past and borrowed against the future of your grandchildren. Not just fiscally, but morally, we have bankrupted not only ourselves but 3 generations.

If you’ll accept any form of tyranny, accept it now. In full. Maneuver for your position in the new pecking order. Fight over the handle of the whip.

One way or another.


Posted by: Entropy at March 23, 2010 07:13 PM


I still say winning elections is the first step. If you can’t win elections, then, well, you’ve lost the people and if you believe in democracy, they get to choose.

Democracy is mob rule.

If 4 of my 5 neighbors say they wish me to wash their floors and cook their dinners I will tell them to fuck off.

Had they held a popular vote, the revolution which created this country would not have proceeded, and the men who started it knew as much.

Posted by: Entropy at March 23, 2010 07:20 PM


That’s the reality.

It’s bad enough. Get a grip.

I agree….

What bothers me is they’re less vehement about opposition than I am.

And yet their impression of the situation they’re in is a thousand fold more dire.


I do not think there is a limit to what most people will put up with.

Personally… I’ve recently converted and become a dove on military issues. We needn’t so much. In fact, I’ve been wrong – it was never wise.

Posted by: Entropy at March 23, 2010 08:15 PM


Elections and the power that flows from them is part of the structure of your Republic.

Elections were part of a structure of a republic that was created 300 years ago and long since became, in all likelyhood, FUBAR.

And for that matter – elections as they are today is not what those men necessarily thought of as even workable. You had to own land.

Such elections today may be very different in outcome.

I have no opposition to representative democracy within a constitutional republic to elect the arbiters and stewards of the law. So long as the law is in stone.

In fact, it is probably the least of all evils. The fairest and most stable and lasting way to determine it.

But I have come to realize (and it is a realization I have come to with a bit of shock, as I was taught the same meme’s as anyone else) it is not necessary. So long as those who arbitrate the finitely limited law faithfully arbitrate the finitely limited law, it does not much matter whether they are men elected representative by plebicite, or nepots in the lineage of the toughest thug, or the most diabolical aristoi.

Liberty and freedom are not about democracy. They aren’t about the masses getting what they want.

In fact, it’s the exact opposite. They’re about the masses not getting what they want. It’s about all getting only what he entitled, and all that he’s entitled whether he wants it or not.

When you add the people who’d sell themselves for profit to the people who’d buy them, they quite outnumber the number left, and always have.

That is the neocon dilemna. What do you do when you have a populace that does not want freedom? Can you ‘force democracy’? It’s an arrogant assumption to think they’d all vote for such a thing if they only understood, while WE OURSELF piss it away and vote it out. They want our prosperty, sure. They don’t understand the slightest what it’s cause are. Many of WE do not understand. They want the power of self determination, sure. They do not restrict themselves. They want power of any and all determination. WE know them well.

So what do you do if you give everyone liberty and a vote, and they use it to vote for depency and slavery? For thugs and thieves who’ll take away the vote with the power of the vote?

Well – all populaces are such populaces. Even Colonial America in the 18th century too, was such.

They (the people) may not vote so. Can you force democracy? Yes. You MUST force democracy.

Our founding fathers were very much warmongers. Such a conflict was not desired at large, and certainly not necessary at all. But they instigated and agitated for it, for years, because it was desired by them. They propogandized, hyperbolized the policies of the British, obsfuscated and sabotaged. They said war was necessary, but they lied because war was desirable. The early adopters were at it for years, to sow tension and dissent, to bring it to a boil.

On account of Natural Right, not plebicite.

They called the upper house the Senate. They called the lower house the people’s house, and they set the houses in opposition.

The people voted for Gaius Julius. The Senate killed Julius Caesar. The people marched with Marcus and Octavius and killed the Senate.

The upside is, everywhere liberty has been had, it has not taken a majority to demand it. Just enough of those extreme enough to accept nothing less. Any single man can have it, if he takes nothing less. If he’s icognito, he’s free. If he is an outlaw, he is a free outlaw. If he’s dead, he died free. No one can take it without your consent, when you realise that acquiescence is consent to acquiesce.

If we are a 1/3rd, there’s another 1/3rd who’ll back out of any conflict in cowardice, and they will side with whomever wins, or whomever seems most dangerous and aggressive. Pacifists always aid the aggressor. These people will sell themselves to anyone at all for a moments security.

So by all means, we must maintain decorum and apologize for calling those Marxist fucks the babykillers that they are. For 1/3rd will not rest until we are dead, and another will not love us until all are resting.

Posted by: Entropy at March 23, 2010 09:11 PM

March 24, 2010 , 1:36AM Posted by | American History, Democrats, Economy, Liberalism, Political Correctness, Populism, Republicans, Socialism | Comments Off on What Do You Do When You Have a Populace that Does not Want Freedom?

Debunking Stupid Liberal Memes, Part III: “Coexist!”

Back in 2006, Bill Whittle wrote a brilliant piece entitled “Seeing the Unseen” in which he dismantled many of the typical Liberal mantras, most of which could be found proudly and ignorantly plastered on the back of their car bumpers. This post by Mr. Whittle was the first one I read by him and it made me an instant fan of his work. Read on and you will soon see why:

Bill Whittle:
Pajamas Media
PJTV Afterburner Series
Big Hollywood


You’ve probably seen this word spelled out with various religious symbols.

Who can argue with this? Not me, certainly.

What I CAN argue with is the idea that if only enough stupid, warlike Americans would just get on the Coexist train, then the world would be a happy and peaceful garden. Who else are the people with these bumper stickers preaching to, if not their ill-informed, knuckle-dragging neocon fellow commuters?

Unfortunately, here’s where reality inserts its ugly head. There is no more multi-cultural society on earth than the United States. The United States owns the patent on Coexisting religions and ethnicities. Drive half a mile though any major US urban area and you will see more ancient ethnic enemies living cheek by jowl in harmony than any other spot on the planet. Thursday morning water cooler conversations about Dancing with the Stars wallpaper over more ancient ethnic and religious murders than history has been able to record, and this despite Hollywood and the news media’s deepest efforts to remind you on a daily basis that the black or Hispanic or Asian or white friend in the next cube is secretly seething with racial hatred just beneath that placid veneer.

Americans are able to coexist because they have subjugated, if not abandoned, those ancient religious and ethnic hatreds to join a larger family, that larger family being America. And this is why, if you truly value the idea of coexistence, you should be dead set against multi-cultural grievance and identity politics, which do nothing but pit one ethnic group against the others and reinforce, rather than dilute, ancient resentments and grievances.

Now as it turns out, there is one member of the human family that seems to be having a little difficulty with the whole coexist thing. Muslims are at war with Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are fighting Animists in Africa, Hindus in Kashmir, Buddhists in Southeast Asia — they are blowing up nightclubs and schools and police stations and trains and buses and skyscrapers and are under daily orders to kill Jews on sight anywhere in the world.

I don’t mind preaching so much as preaching to the choir. When I see Coexist bumper stickers in Islamabad and Cairo and especially Riyadh to the degree I see them in Venice, California, I will be a happy man. They will make a very welcome sight covering over the Death to the Infidel! stickers that seem to be somewhat outselling Coexist messages in that part of the world. Until then I think we should coexist and carry a big stick.

March 6, 2010 , 11:35PM Posted by | Bill Whittle, Dhimmitude, Islam, Jihad, Liberalism, Political Correctness | Comments Off on Debunking Stupid Liberal Memes, Part III: “Coexist!”