2004 was the first election in which I voted. Yes, I was first legally eligible to vote in 1994, but took no interest in politics until 9/11/2001. I didn’t vote in 2002, because I still did not know enough about mid-term local candidates to know for whom I was voting.
But by Summer 2004, I was PSYCHED to cast my first ever vote to re-elect President George W. Bush.
In 2008, I was energized by GOP VP-candidate Sarah Palin, but not so much about GOP Presidential candidate John McCain. I was ready to not vote for President in the 2008 election… until I spent 2007 and 2008 researching the radical, despicable history of Barack Hussein Obama. I then spent all of 2008 doing my best to inform people of how radical was Obama and why we needed to vote for McCain/Palin simply to keep this radical and his radical associates from taking power in our government.
I managed to convince some, but, more often than not, I was faced with ignorance, apathy and racism. Not only people saying they were voting for Obama, because he was Black (the ultimate slap in the face to MLK, Jr’s dream), but also people calling ME racist simply because I disagreed with Obama’s policies…. none of which had anything to do with his skin color.
By the time November 2008 came, I was SO UTTERLY PISSED THE FUCK OFF at being called a racist for holding the same views I had held since 9/11/2001, that I was energized more than ever to vote for McCain/Palin and AGAINST Obama.
But, to no avail. I went into work that night (I was working 3rd shift as a CAD designer at the time) and was literally in tears of disbelief that America had voted Obama into office. It was one of the first slaps in the face of reality my naive self had experienced (the Islamic terrorist attacks of 09/11/2001 being the first), seeing bad triumph over good. I could not believe my countrymen could do such a thing. I was utterly heartbroken. And, as I said, I was holding back tears as I was utterly heartbroken, having my positive view of my fellow Americans utterly shattered in one night.
That night was arguably the night that I ‘became’ Rorschach: cynical, pessimistic negative about — and having lost all faith in — my fellow Americans.
The last four years have not gotten much better. Watching the utterly despicable behavior of the mass media serving as the propaganda outlet for the Obama Administration and Democrat Party; watching as every Democrat, every liberal, every media outlet turned every single criticism of Obama into accusations of “RACISM!!!”; watching as the Obama Administration did everything to actually make the American economy WORSE, yet seeing his poll numbers still stay high.
The last four years have been an absolute nightmare of epic proportions. Economy, Democrats crying “RACISM!”, unemployment, Democrats crying “RACISM!”, healthcare, Democrats crying “RACISM!”, demonizing “the rich”, Democrats crying “RACISM!”, promoting redistribution, Democrats crying “RACISM!”, foreign policy, Democrats crying “RACISM!”, religious freedom under attack, Democrats crying “RACISM!”, freedom of expresion under attack, etc RACISM!!! etc.
This is why I am even more psyched here in 2012 to vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and to evict the disaster that is SCOAMF Obama, his busy-body wife Michelle “you’ll only eat what I allow you to eat!” Obama, Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and all the rest of his radical czars and incompetent Administration cohorts.
November 6, 2012: the date my faith in America will be restored…
Wow. This comment pretty much describes to a TEE the few conversations on politics I have had at work. And I have come to the same conclusion as this person: there is just no engaging with liberals anymore. They are just so far gone in their delusions, they are beyond help.
You wasted how many words and how much of our time on this? Because you’re late to the party if you just figured this all out. THEY THINK WE’RE EVIL, AND THEY HAVE THOUGHT THAT WAY FOR SOME TIME.
About a year a ago, I was sitting and talking with a co-worker and of course politics came up (these people ALWAYS turn to politics, it has to be injected into every single area of life) and I mentioned I was a Republican, and he literally goggled at me.
“I’ve never met anyone who was a Republican before” he said. A 36 yr old man said that. The suggestion I made that he was ill-served hanging around in his little bubble, and maybe it would do him well to actually go out and meet people with different viewpoints simply bounced off of him. Then the conversation to Reagan.
“You liked him? But he was evil!”
I just looked at him for a minute. Then I pointed out some names: Hitler. Stalin. Castro. Chavez. Bin Laden. THOSE guys are evil. And you’re putting Reagan in there? For what? Well, lots of hemming and hawing, and no looking me in the eye either, but he didn’t back off either.
So you see what we are up against.
Another idiot at my job, someone mentioned Palin (because we were discussing baseball and of course, politics must pervade EVERY SINGLE AREA OF LIFE for these people) and some woman just explodes “Oh, I hate Palin! She’s just like the Gestapo.” I just snapped on her. “The Gestapo? The f**king Gestapo? Tell me you stupid a**hole, how many Jews did Palin load onto boxcars to go to the deathcamps? How many women and children did Palin have a hand in murdering? How much genocide did she commit?”
And of course, I was the bad guy, because I yelled at this obviously well-intentioned and intelligent woman, and I called her a naughty name, and I dared to throw her stupid cow-like assumption in her face.
I no longer speak with people at my office unless it is work-related or the most tapioca of subjects. The minute the talk shifts away from sports or television, I walk away.
I no longer believe in engaging with these people. Because they can’t be engaged with. The only way to engage with them is through violence. And I don’t feel like going to jail.
Posted by: Trump at April 23, 2011 04:05 PM
Via the Maha Rushie today:
Here’s Paul Johnson in the Wall Street Journal: Sarah Palin “is in the good tradition of America, which this awful political correctness business goes against. She’s got courage. That’s very important in politics. You can have all the right ideas and the ability to express them. But if you haven’t got guts, if you haven’t got courage the way Margaret Thatcher had courage — and [Ronald] Reagan, come to think of it. … It’s the central virtue.” Courage is the central value of American politics. If you don’t have that the rest is irrelevant. Paul Johnson, brilliant British historian and journalist.
“Sarah Palin has more courage in her little finger than our presidential field. Same thing with Michele Bachmann. The gonads on our team happen to be wearing skirts.”
Sad, but true.
Speaking of the courage of Ronald Reagan, here he is in 1961 in the Operation Coffee Cup campaign against the Democrats’ proposed socialized medicine policy:
RUSH: Let’s listen to Reagan, 1961. This is the Operation Coffee Cup campaign against socialized medicine, as then proposed by the Democrats. This is a portion of Citizen Ronaldus Magnus from a recording distributed by the American Medical Association.
REAGAN: Back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas — six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket — said, “The American people would never vote for socialism, but,” he said, “under the name of ‘liberalism,’ the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.” One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.
RUSH: This is Reagan. This is 1961, fifty years ago. Fifty years ago! Another portion of what he said.
REAGAN: Let’s also look from the other side at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I’m only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms. It’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients; they’re equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town, and the government has the say to him, “You can’t live in that town. They already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else,” and from here it’s only a short step to dictating where he will go. This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being.
RUSH: Amen, and that is a superb way of looking at it: Do we have the right to take that way from anybody else, to dictate where they have to live. By the way, this was in HillaryCare. HillaryCare was going to apportion doctors geographically. Pure and simple. Here’s more: Operation Coffee Cup campaign against socialized medicine proposed by the Democrats, 1961.
REAGAN: You and I can do a great deal. We can write on our congressmen, to our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms, and that at the moment the key issue is we do not want socialized medicine. Write those letters now; call your friends and tell them to write them. If you don’t, this program, I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country, until, one day — as Norman Thomas said — we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.
RUSH: Fifty years ago. Five-oh, five-oh years ago. Now, many things become obvious and apparent, that is the left never goes away, they never stop. Look how patient they’ve been, 50 years they’ve been pushing for this. That health care bill’s been written, sitting in some staffer’s draw for who knows how many decades with just modifications made to reflect current times. Philosophically, they’ve had that health care bill that’s now Obamacare written for who knows how many decades. Now, how do you interpret Reagan describing this? I mean, that’s pretty tough here to talk about losing our freedoms. We’re losing our freedoms! That’s not an idly irrelevant thing to say.
It’s pretty hard hitting, but how many Republicans these days want to talk about in terms of the Obama agenda resulting in loss of liberty or freedom? Oh, no, no! I don’t know too many, how many, if any. When you constrain yourself simply to talking about policy, freedom and liberty are kind of tough to integrate as a policy. Now, how can you have an honest debate on policy when the other side simply lies about their policies all the time? It’s why it’s so important to talk about where they’re coming from and who they are, so that their real agenda — what the real policies are — can be explained and exposed.
She goes on about Palin shaking feminists by presenting a different ideal, an idea that others have noted.
And as I always note: Yes, that’s true, but liberal men were just as aghast at this performance. Sarah Palin committed two crimes that night: She spoke of Obama as if he were not, in fact, an earthbound god, but an unqualifed, shady pretender, a figure not ripe for worship but for lampooning; and therefore she threatened the chances of a liberal winning the White House.
It has to be remembered that before her speech, Obama won every poll, easily; it was no an election so much as a coronation. After that speech, at least for two weeks, McCain/Palin surged ahead of Obama/Biden; she scared the shit out of them. I still think that when they see Sarah Palin, she reminds them of those weeks of terror, the same way you’ll always be reminded of a death if you see the person responsible for it. It’s emotionally wrenching just to be reminded that for three weeks in September and October of 2008, A God Bled.
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.
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: http://tinyurl.com
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
Simply outstanding comment/commentary:
When you step into the voting booth on November 2, you will make the most important decision of your life. You’ll literally be voting on your future – or, more precisely, whether or not you and your country will have one.
Would you like to live in Cuba, own a business in Venezuela or have the civil liberties of an Iranian? Without a radical reversal of course, those happy fates could be yours.
Think of the watershed elections of our lifetime – Nixon-McGovern (1972), Reagan-Carter (1980), The Contract With America (1994), and Bush-Gore (2000). None even comes close to the importance of what will happen in less than two weeks.
You won’t just be voting for a House member and, in some cases, a Senator. You won’t just be voting on whether Nancy Pelosi (“We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it”) remains Speaker of the House, or whether Harry Reid (town meeting protesters are “evil-mongers”) is still the Senate Majority Leader.
You will be voting on whether Obama will still have a rubber-stamp Congress on January 3, 2011 – where a Democratic majority (liberal pod people) vote robotically for whatever economy-annihilating measures the administration dreams up.
If you want a snapshot of Obama’s vision of America (a Kodak moment from Hell), consider the political mutants who descended on our nation’s capital on October 2 to push his agenda.
Along with the usual assortment of labor hacks, educrats and racial guilt-mongers, One Nation Working Together included the Communist Party USA, the Democratic Socialists of America, the American Muslim Association (People for the Jihad Way), the U.S. Campaign to End the (alleged) Israeli Occupation, and the National Council of La Raza (The Race).
If these are the people you want to chart our national destiny, then, by all means, vote Democratic this year. Then put a bullet in your brain – so you won’t have to live in their America.
On the other hand, if you have an ounce of survival instinct, you’ll vote Republican. Not that some Republicans don’t want to make you tear your hair out. But, basically, it comes down to this: With Republicans, there’s a chance of saving America. With Democrats – no chance. Compared to America with Obama and a Democratic Congress in charge, a snowball in Hell is the odds-on favorite.
Instead of a chicken in every pot, the Democrats’ slogan should be “A mosque on every block and an unemployment insurance office just down the street.”
With an unemployment rate of 9.6%, we lost another 95,000 jobs in October. The unemployment rate has been above 9% for 16 consecutive months. If you include those who work part-time because they can’t find full-time jobs and people who’ve given up looking for work, the real unemployment rate is 17.1%.
In 2007, before a Democrat-controlled Congress crafted the current recession, the economy was growing at 3% a year, 1.33 million new jobs were created, and unemployment was 4.6%. (Obama calls this the “mess” he inherited from his predecessor.) I’m hard at work on my latest opus, “Economics for Clueless Community Organizers.”
And there’s worse in store. As Wednesday Addams says in “Addams Family Values”: “Be afraid. Be very afraid.” (I stole that from a Moron yesterday)
With support from a compliant Congress, the Obama administration has become the NASA of national debt – taking it from the stratosphere into orbit. In FY 2009 and 2010, Obama posted the two largest deficits in U.S. history – $1.416 trillion and $1.294 trillion.
In his first 19 months in office, Obama ran up more cumulative debt than every U.S. President from George Washington to George H.W. Bush combined. No slouch himself when it came to deficit spending, George W. Bush added just under $4 trillion to the National Debt in 8 years. Obama has added around $2.7 trillion in just 2. “Yes we can” – bankrupt America, in the blink of an eye.
That mountain of debt towers over a shrinking economy. If this continues much longer, your children and grandchildren will inherit an America that looks like Lower Slobbovia. (see video rdb posted)
Get set for the largest tax hike in U.S. history – and Congress won’t even have to vote on it. Unless Washington acts pronto, the Bush-era income tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 will fade into the mists of time.
Taxes will rise for every bracket. Taxpayers presently paying 10% of their income will pay 15%. Those paying 25% will pay 28%. Other brackets will go from 28% to 31%, 31% to 36% and the top tax bracket will rise from 35% to 39.6%. The marriage tax penalty will come back, and the standard deduction for dependent children will be cut in half.
Didn’t the champion of the middle class promise no tax hikes for those earning less than $250,000 a year? But they’re not tax increases, President Orwell and his Congressional servitors insist. We’re not passing new taxes, just letting old tax-cuts expire.
Here are a few examples of the way Nancy, Moe and Curly’s (H/T Logprof) tax hikes that aren’t tax hikes will work.
Stephen Moore writes in The Wall Street Journal that a family of four with an annual net income of $45,000 will pay $2,083 more in taxes. A single mother earning $40,000 will shell out an extra $1,607 per year. But Democrats love the middle class – as long as they’re transgendered Islamicists in the country illegally with mortgages they can’t afford.
The so-called super-rich will pay more too – which will keep them from investing in business expansion and new jobs – another way to help “the folks from the bottom,” as the president condescendingly calls them.
On the campaign trail in 2008, the president explained his economic philosophy to Joe the Plumber: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Notice he didn’t say create more wealth (Heaven forbid!), but redistribute that which already exists.
Okay, according to the White House’s resident Alinskyite, it’s good for the super-rich (which, BTW, includes many small business owners) not to have the funds to invest in economic growth and job creation. Funny he didn’t get a Nobel Prize in economics.
But that family of four with a net income of $45,000 per, where does their “wealth” get spread around – to the welfare mooch-ocracy, to illegal immigrants to Michelle Obama’s travel agent? The U.S. tax dollars in Spain fall mainly in Costa del Sol.
But income tax hikes are only part of the grim picture. Unless it’s repealed, over the next 10 years, Obama Care will cost an estimated $500 million in direct levies. That’s why one provision of the 2,000-plus page law (the one that Pelosi said had to pass before we could find out what was in it) provides for hiring an additional 16,500 IRS agents.
Payment for Obama Care – designed to destroy private health insurance – won’t be denominated in dollars alone. You’ll be forced to pay for abortions. But insurers won’t be able to provide the life-saving equipment and procedures which will never be developed, because Washington doesn’t think you’re worth the investment.
We’ll also pay in blood, through rationing, or (as the president put it in a 2009 speech) there will be “incentives” for physicians to “avoid unnecessary hospital stays, treatments and tests that drive up costs.”
Say goodbye to Grandma who needs a pacemaker and to your disabled child who’s considered not worth the cost of an expensive operation.
Obama is also working to euthanize our domestic oil industry. Two-thirds of the oil the U.S. consumes is imported – much of it from his Muslim friends in the Middle East and his Marxist friends in Latin America.
In terms of increasing our dependence on foreign oil, the president thinks we can do better. It drives him nuts that we consume 20% of the world’s oil. Maybe he should apologize for that the next time he’s in Saudi Arabia.
One of his first acts as president was to cancel domestic drilling leases. The enviro lobby, which has more clout with Congress than Planned Parenthood and the ACLU combined, has successfully pushed to put more and more federal land off limits for domestic exploration.
After the Gulf spill (courtesy of BP, an Obama campaign contributor, but aided by the president’s own ineptitude in handling the disaster), the administration put a six-month ban on deep-water drilling. Since fighting alleged global warming is another of Obama’s passions, $7-a-gallon gas (plus commensurately higher food prices) would suit his administration just fine.
One thing which will never be in short supply – thanks to the One whose birth certificate is still AWOL and a feckless Congress – is illegal immigrants, currently 11 million to 18 million. In June, Sen. John Kyl disclosed that the president told him he was holding border-security hostage for GOP support for another amnesty. Kyle: “The problem is, he (Obama) said, if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.” The White House claims the conversation never took place.
With the Tea Parties breathing down his neck, Obama is desperate for new voters – voters who can’t speak English, voters who have no stake in this country’s future, newly minted “citizens” who’ll vote the way LULAC and the National Council of The Race tell them.
This summer, rumors were flying that El Presidente would try an end-run around Congress, by amnestying millions of illegals by executive order. Eight GOP Senators gave enough credence to these reports to sign a letter to the president asking him to repudiate the strategy. A cabinet officer said they were merely discussing the best options. But open borders and increasing our dependence on foreign oil are only two of the ways the administration and its congressional lackeys are working overtime to make you and your family less safe.
With Obama in the White House, the only thing more dangerous than being an Irish nun at an airport security checkpoint is being a U.S. ally.
Barack Hussein’s scandalous treatment of Israel (our ally of 62 years, based on shared values) and Iran (our sworn enemy, based on its demented ideology) is the most glaring example. While he bashes Israel for building Jewish homes in Jewish Jerusalem and drives it toward establishing a terrorist strip mall on the West Bank and Gaza (“I’m Crazy Mahmoud. Come on down!”) he practices diplomatic soft love with Iran’s lunatic President Ahmadinejad to get him to abandon his quest for nuclear weapons.
Obama has won the war on terrorism by declaring that terrorism doesn’t exist. When Americans go into combat abroad, they’re not fighting terrorism; they’re engaged in “overseas contingency operations.”
The chief of his Keystone Kops, Homeland Security Director Janet (illegal immigration isn’t a crime) Napolitano, prefers “man-caused disasters” to describe incidents like the Fort Hood massacre, where Major Nidal Malik Hassan murdered 13 of his fellow soldiers while shouting “Allah is Great.” Obama’s Department of Defense refused to use the words Islamic terrorism in its report on the murders.
The president is engaged in a relentless drive to remake America. The long march through the culture is accelerating. B. Hussein says: “I consider it part of my responsibility as president to fight negative stereotypes of Islam.” (Try finding that in the oath of office.) He doesn’t feel a responsibility to defend Catholicism – which gets smeared on a daily basis – or Judaism, or evangelical Christianity (let alone to speak out against the persecution of Christians and Jews in the Muslim world) only stand up for Islam.
Unlike his predecessors, this president passed on a White House National Day of Prayer event, for the past two years. He couldn’t find the time to visit Arlington National Cemetery to honor our fallen heroes on Memorial Day, but hosted Iftar dinners (to mark the end of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan) in 2009 and 2010. At this year’s shindig, he announced his support for the obscene Ground Zero Mosque.
America isn’t a Christian nation, or is no longer a Christian nation, the president proclaims. In a recent speech to an Hispanic audience, he even edited the Declaration of Independence to make our founding document more politically correct, by taking out the reference to rights “endowed by their Creator.”
Give him a Democratic Congress for two more years, and you won’t recognize America by 2012. And NPR won’t go away either.
The Constitution is also on the line. The Supreme Court is currently split down the middle – with four conservatives, four liberals and Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote. Kennedy is 74, as is constitutionalist Antonin Scalia. If something happens to either, without a Republican Senate to filibuster his worst choices (Sotomayor on steroids, Kagan on crack), Obama will have a Supreme Court which will take the Constitution and drop-kick it into the Potomac.
That’s what’s at stake this year. If Obama has a Democratic Congress in 2011, it’s Armageddon, Ebola, “The Day After Tomorrow” and “2012” all rolled into one.
In case you’re one of those who thinks there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the parties, think again.
Based on ratings compiled by the American Conservative Union, in the current Congress, Republican Senators voted for fiscal responsibility, national security and traditional values 82% of the time, compared to 15% for Democrats. In the House of Representatives, it was 89% of Republicans on the side of sanity, versus 12% of Democrats.
One thing more: Not a single Republican in the House or the Senate voted for Obama’s socialized-medicine in stages – not one.
If there’s no check on the last two years of the Obama presidency, you can kiss your country goodbye and assume the position for a forced landing in the People’s Republic of Bill Ayers. Just sayin’…
Posted by: sickinmass at October 21, 2010 08:04 PM