AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

I Can Defeat Barack Obama, Because I’m Black and Sarah Palin Isn’t

I continue to be baffled by the density of ace at Ace of Spades HQ. Apparently, he thinks that it’s quite alright for the GOP to use identity politics. Brilliant. Fiorina: I Can Beat Barbara Boxer Because I’m a Woman, and Chuck DeVore Isn’t

I think it’s perfectly acceptable to play the “gender card” as regards electability. Whether or not electability matters all that much, and whether someone’s gender really has a big influence on electability, is a side question, which people can figure out for themselves.

But to merely make mention of it? That’s dirty pool?

I don’t think it is. Fiorina isn’t exactly playing identity politics. She’s not saying, as Sotomayor did, that she’s better qualified due to her sex. Instead, she’s saying that her sex might make her more appealing to female voters. That’s not claiming superiority in the way we usually speak of it. She’s saying that people vote for candidates for all sorts of reasons — being “just like me” being one of them — and that this will be helpful.

Perfectly acceptable, huh? Okay then, I’ll be waiting for ace to be perfectly okay with the GOP nominating a Black man (or woman) as their Presidential candidate in 2012 and rationalizing it by saying “I can defeat Barack Obama, because I’m Black and (insert qualified conservative candidate here) is not.”

Apparently, ace and many others are quite alright with playing stupid-ass identity politics, just like the Democrats do. Brilliant.

How about we rewrite ace’s rationale thusly:

I think it’s perfectly acceptable to play the “[race] card” as regards electability. Whether or not electability matters all that much, and whether someone’s [race] really has a big influence on electability, is a side question, which people can figure out for themselves.

But to merely make mention of it? That’s dirty pool?

I don’t think it is. Fiorina isn’t exactly playing identity politics. She’s not saying, as Sotomayor did, that she’s better qualified due to her [race]. Instead, she’s saying that her [race] might make her more appealing to [Black] voters. That’s not claiming superiority in the way we usually speak of it. She’s saying that people vote for candidates for all sorts of reasons — being “just like me” being one of them — and that this will be helpful.

Okay then. That settles it. I have to assume that ace is quite alright with a GOP Presidential candidate coming out and saying that we should vote for them, because, being Black as they are, they are the only one who can defeat Barack Obama in 2012.

This is what the GOP has devolved into. Brilliant.

Reading the comments, at least one person finds this rationale objectionable:

I actually find her quote objectionable. She is not merely saying that as a woman she has a better chance running against another woman. Her use of the phrase “white guy” is straight out of the Democrat’s playbook, whether or not she meant it to be. It implies that Republicans and conservatives are nothing but white guys… wink, wink — racists… and she will temper the racist tendencies inherent in the Party. F#ck her.

Posted by: Usful Ijit at November 23, 2009 03:31 PM

Yep, this is nothing but Democrat Party playbook bullsh!t. Identity politics.

Also, not only is it pathetic, but it is also condescending to women. Carly Fiorina is basically saying that women are so stupid, that they will vote for a radical leftist woman like Barbara Boxer again rather than for a conservative who will improve things. Thus, if the GOP wants to win, they have to run a woman, because women are stupid and only vote for women.

And another thing… ace wonders how this is any big thing. Well, this is a sign. It’s a small sign that Carly Fiorina is a typical unethical b!tch who will use all dirty tricks in the book, instead of debating on the merits of issues. That’s a sign of her being a “McCain maverick” type RINO Republican, in the same way that a guy being verbally abusive to his woman is a sign of him being emotionally and physically abusive later in the relationship.

The fact that ace doesn’t recognize this is downright frustrating and disheartening.

The fact is that true statesmen and conservatives do not need to play identity politics. We know that the Constitution and our principles speak for themselves. All we need to do is clearly articulate them, champion them and defend them and people will be inspired.

But, if people like ace have their way, we’ll be putting up candidates all across the country who will play identity politics and… lose. Because the majority of people are not idiots as apparently ace thinks them to be. The majority of Americans want to be inspired and want to be able to trust their representatives to walk their talk. And when they hear someone resort to playing the identity politics game, that is a sign of the same-ol’, same-ol’ slick talking, spineless, unprincipled, unethical politicians of whom we’re trying to rid Washington.

The more I read through the comments… the more I realize I was correct about ace (and probably most political bloggers) all along: he’s an elitist.  He sees everyone and everything in terms of identity politics.  He doesn’t see us as fellow Americans, he sees us as voting blocs and identity groups to which to pander on issues for votes.  Just plain sad.

FINALLY! 80 comments in and I finally come across someone on a similar wavelength:

Issues, baby, issues.

I want to know what you think and where you stand on the issues. I do not want to hear vague platitudes and empty rhetoric. I want concrete statements and absolutes.

I don’t care if you’re white, black, orange with green polkadots or a woman or a man. I want to know you have an intellect. I need to know you can separate truth from fantasy. I need to know you won’t cave in to the screetching from the moonbats. I need to know you have real-world experience and real-world solutions to problems. I don’t want, nor will I accept any more BS from someone I elect to represent me. The time for games is over!

Issue, baby, issues…

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 23, 2009 03:51 PM

Nah, that makes too much sense and shows respect to too many people, let’s do ace’s way and keep playing games!  Let’s keep pandering to the least common demonimator among the populace.  Let’s play identity politics, use catchy, empty slogans, talk in vagaries and platitudes, pander instead of inform and inspire and lead.  Yeah, that’s the ticket!  That way, we’ll become an idiocracy (more so than we already have become) in no time!  Woohoo!


Yep, spot-on. At least I am not the only one who recognizes the signs of crappy, treasonous RINOs.

we have no idea if Carly is a conservative, right of center type of candidate or who knows what.

She’s evasive and probably has no considered positions on anything, but she’s evasive and positionless in the style of people who govern fiscal-lib and grandstand social-con. Like ’80s Gore or Lieberman before his VP run, when he was a fiery preacher against dirty music and video games and shit.

Plus, she’s A Strong Woman, so she’ll be all in for any lib bill that has “Women” in the name.

She’s exactly what the national GOP wants.

Posted by: oblig. at November 23, 2009 04:02 PM

Excellent… more proof that not everyone has lost their freaking minds.  I agree with both of these…

all i know is, if you go to Carly’s site, you get a bunch of mealy mouth platitudes in an excruciating series of videos. at Chuck’s site, you get plain, no nonsense words that state exactly where he stands, and where he’s voted in the past.

as a native of the PRC, i’ll take Chuck any day. Carly looks like just another pair of Boxer Shorts. if she’s the candidate, i’ll simply skip that office when i vote. better the obvious enemy than a so called ally.

no more RINOs!

Posted by: redc1c4 at November 23, 2009 04:20 PM


Forina is running against horrid Barbara Boxer-

TO imply that women can do better when running against another female who is corrupted to her core, is blind arrogance. I’m woman hear me roar, that’s pitiful.

If California women would even consider re-electing Barbara Boxer (since 1992) no matter who is on the other ticket, then let them re-elect their ugly slavemaster.

Screw the ‘womyn’ vote; let them suffer the 5% tax increase slapped on their botox bill, their silicon-bo0b bill while receiving fewer opportunities for those hip replacements they are going to need.

Posted by: syn at November 23, 2009 04:26 PM


What’s your platform and what’s your historical record, if any, to support that platform? And do you have the capacity to investigate or understand that which you do not know?

That’s all I want to know.

If your metric is that I’m this color not that color and this gender not that one, then you fail my test. If it’s your only metric, then obviously the choice is simple. If it’s a metric among other platform metrics which are sound, your chances improve from a politically tactical POV; however, those chances coincidentally drop because you’ve substituted identity politics for actual accomplishment. That illustrates weakness. Your mentioning it emphasizes that you cannot trust your own record.

As someone who believes in rewarding merit, I’m dinging both the candidate and the philosophy that indulges in identity politics. I’ll lose elections if I have to in order not to perpetuate this lazy, obscene, and culturally damaging calculus.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at November 23, 2009 05:10 PM

Wow, this Qwinn guy must be my twin, because 99.9% of the time, we are on the *exact* same wavelength and he expresses it pretty much exactly how I would… were I (1) able to express myself as well as he does and (2) still posting at AoSHQ…

So I guess we approve of anti-male bigotry at AoS now?

Cause don’t kid yourself – that’s what this is. That’s what you’re defending. You can make yourself feel better saying “it’s not anti-male, it’s pro-female”, but that’s bullshit and you know it. It’s both. You can’t have one without the other.

I don’t want to be a part of a conservative party that seeks to exploit bigotry for its own purposes. If the woman were the more conservative candidate, I’d be all for her. But to throw the more conservative candidate overboard because he doesn’t have a vajayjay? Why don’t we just -be- Democrats.


Posted by: Qwinn at November 23, 2009 06:21 PM

November 23, 2009 , 9:38PM Posted by | Barack Obama, Identity Politics, Republicans | 2 Comments

The Democrat Party: A Criminal Organization Masquerading as a Political Party

I have been saying this for MONTHS now. Conservatives just don’t get it (yes, I am looking at you, Ace and DrewM at Ace of Spades HQ and you, AllahPundit and Ed Morrissey at And I would add that not only is the Democrat Party and the Left the enemy, but so too is the mass media. Until conservatives understand that WE.ARE.AT.WAR in this country (politically), we stand no chance to get our country back from the radicals.

Yes, my friends, it’s once again time to quote Sean Connery’s famous speech from The Untouchables, written by David Mamet — the lecture the veteran Chicago cop gives a wet-behind-the-ears Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner, back when he was a movie star) while they sit in a church pew. “You want to get Capone? Here’s how you get him: he pulls a knife, you pull a gun, he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way!” If you just think of us — liberal Democrats — as Capone you’ll begin to understand what we’re up to. And we just put one of yours in the morgue.

I don’t know why I’m telling you this, but maybe now you’re beginning to understand the high-stakes game we’re playing here. This ain’t John McCain’s logrolling senatorial club any more. This is a deadly serious attempt to realize the vision of the 1960s and to fundamentally transform the United States of America. This is the fusion of Communist dogma, high ideals, gangster tactics, and a stunning amount of self-loathing. For the first time in history, the patrician class is deliberately selling its own country down the river just to prove a point: that, yes, we can! This country stinks and we won’t be happy until we’ve forced you to admit it.

In other words, stop thinking of the Democratic Party as merely a political party, because it’s much more than that. We’re not just the party of slavery, segregation, secularism, and sedition. Not just the party of Aaron Burr, Boss Tweed, Richard J. Croker, Bull Connor, Chris Dodd, Richard Daley, Bill Ayers, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Emperor Barack Hussein Obama II. Not just the party of Kendall “Agent 202” Myers, the State Department official recruited as a Cuban spy along with his wife during the Carter administration. Rather, think of the Democratic Party as what it really is: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party.

If you had any sense, you would start using our tactics against us. After all, you have a few lawyers on your side. Sue us. File frivolous ethics complaints against all our elected officials until, like Sarah, they go broke from defending themselves. (David Paterson would be a good place to start.) Challenge the constitutionality of BO2’s legion of fill-in-the-blank czars — none of whom have to be confirmed, or even pass a security check. (Come to think of it, neither did Barry.) Let slip your own journalistic dogs of war, assuming you have any, to find Barry’s birth certificate, his college transcripts, whether he applied to Occidental as a foreign student, and on which passport he traveled in 1981 to Pakistan with his friend Wahid Hamid, for starters.

You might also want to think about interviewing New York literary agent Jane Dystel, who a) contacted the totally unknown Obama in the wake of an adulatory New York Times piece in 1990 and b) got him a $125,000 advance for a memoir that c) he couldn’t write, even after a long sojourn in Bali, which d) got the contract canceled, whereupon e) Dystel got him $40,000 from another publisher, following which f) the book finally came out to glowing reviews and g) Obama fired her. Wouldn’t she have an interesting story to tell?

Of course, you won’t. You’re too nice, too enamored of history and tradition to realize that the rules have changed. Remember, I live and work in a town where, “Hello, he lied,” isn’t a joke; we men of the Left are perfectly comfortable lying, cheating, and stealing — hello, Senator Franken! — in order to attain and keep political power. Not for nothing is one of our mottos, “By Any Means Necessary.” You see, we’re the good guys, and for us the ends always justify the means. We are, literally, shameless, which is why Bill Clinton is now a multi-millionaire and Eliot Spitzer is already on the comeback trail.

In Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, “the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.” This is the book that “Reset” Rodham (what ever happened to her?) and BHO II grew up reading and continue to live by. If you don’t understand that that’s the way we see you — as the enemy — then you’re too dumb to survive. Remember that for us politics is not just an avocation, or even just a job, but our life. We literally stay awake nights thinking up ways to screw you. And one of the ways we do that is by religiously observing Alinsky’s Rule No. 4.

Just adding a few comments I left at Ace of Spades HQ, as I was incredulous (to put it lightly) that Ace himself and many of his commentors actually did not understand this article:

“The important thing is the hate.”

Posted by: ace at July 07, 2009 02:04 PM

Bingo. That is the entire point. The Left, Democrats and mass media HATE us. Hate conservatives, hate Republicans, hate non-elites, hate Uncle Toms, hate Pro-lifers, etc etc etc. And they use that hate to utterly destroy us “by any means necessary”. The ends justify the means.

And yet, I would say most people on our side STILL do not get this. The fact that you are baffled by this article shows you don’t understand it, or refuse to admit it.

People refuse to admit that the Left intends to destroy this country and remake it in their own communist image and they will do it by any means necessary and tear down and destroy anyone who tries to get in their way, Sarah Palin was simply the first. If anyone else gets as popular with conservatives, they will Palin-ize them as well. And the next one and then next one and the next one, getting even more dirty and despicable each time.

UNTIL people wake up and realize this is our current atmosphere with which we have to deal.

That’s why many of us are pissed off about many of you who so easily discarded Sarah Palin (and refused to stand with Rush “I hope he fails” before that). Because it shows you STILL just don’t get what’s going on in this country.

Which shocks me, since I know you all have been paying attention to what has been going on the last 8 years. I just don’t understand anyone who does not realize that the Left is our enemy, the Democrat socialists and communists are our enemies and the mass media is our enemy.

Many out there call that wacko talk and conspiracy talk. Seriously? A mass media outlet cooking up fake documents to take down a sitting President? And the thousands of other mass coordinated attacks of anyone GOP or conservative and mass coordinated apologizing and covering up for anyone DEM or liberal? Come on, wake up.

We are at (political) war here.

Posted by: Michael in MI at July 07, 2009 02:17 PM


“I sense anger and perhaps frustration but no hate. I think he’s pointing out the hate on the Left and saying, “Hey, a-holes, the Democrats hate you, so smarten up.”

Posted by: Unicle tweets at July 07, 2009 02:14 PM


The fact that that is flying over the heads of ace and others here shows that they still don’t understand that. Very disheartening.

Posted by: Michael in MI at July 07, 2009 02:24 PM

#89 Michael in MI

Some of us do get that, which is why Val-U-Rite is more important than water.

Look: We still know more about Joe the Plumber than any of the plants Dr. Utopia has called on at his town halls — that’s sad and pathetic. Their fucking shills, hacks and acolytes shift in and out of the propaganda sets and no one, not one of the GOP dares expose them.

Ace ditched his data-mining project that would have done this, that we who still give a shit about this country could have done what needs done — and for what? Scary letter from an attorney, I suppose.

Read any lefty blog and you will come to understand that as long as there is one, single person in the United States that calls themselves a Republican, they will not rest: They intend, they wish, they plan (many of them) to exterminate–literally, not just figuratively–anyone who calls themselves Republican or conservative. And they, the cowards, the sidelong, shuffling bastards have and are wielding the lumbering machinery of government to do so. So long as any Republican lives, every failure, every evil, every crime will be nailed to his back; for it is his failure to complete their perfection that caused the ill.

If you don’t get that, if you think, “Oh, that’s just crazy talk from Looney Town, it’s just a mild difference of opinion; the people of the two parties are mostly the same.” you are so stupid I imagine you have to remind yourself to breath.

Posted by: jimmuy8 at July 07, 2009 02:41 PM


“That’s the thing. We don’t even need to play dirty. There’s no reason to lower ourselves to their level.

They file baseless ethics complaints. We should file real ones targeting actual ethics violations. We don’t.

They lie like mad about us. We could tell the truth about them. We don’t.

Recriminations about how we don’t fight dirty enough are missing the point. We don’t even fight -fair-.


Yep. And this relates to the Rep. King thread. What he said was considered mean. People come out of the woodwork to scream that he is mean. Squishy republicans tell him to shut up because he makes us look mean.

The squishes think we lose votes becuase we are PERCEIVED as mean but the truth is we are PAINTED to be mean. It doesn’t matter what we say, it will be twisted to be mean. So why the hell not tell the truth? Bush wouldn’t even prosecute criminal vandalism of the F**KING WHITE HOUSE because he wanted to be a uniter. How did that work out for him?

Posted by: kidney at July 07, 2009 02:58 PM


By the way, if people can’t figure out the article, I’ll point out what should be obvious. The article is in National Review (the conservative magazine). It’s obviously written by a conservative who is pretending to write from the perspective of an honest radical Democrapper. By portraying what Democrats really believe, the author illustrates to his fellow conservatives what they are up against. Namely, the other sides hates you. Despises you. Will dance on the grave of your newborn baby. That level of hatred. I can’t believe anyone couldn’t figure that out.

Posted by: Realist at July 07, 2009 03:06 PM

July 7, 2009 , 12:53PM Posted by | Barack Obama, Class Warfare, Conservatism, Democrats, Identity Politics, Leftist Groups, Liberalism, Marxism, Media Bias, Racism, Reverend Dr Jeremiah Wright, Saul Alinsky, Socialism, William Ayers | 1 Comment

Identity Politics vs Ideology Politics vs Issue Politics

I left this comment at this post by Mike at Flopping Aces: Fred’s Revenge!

Nice analysis, Mike, but I really wish the blogs and the mass media would stop with the identity politics and ideology politics and get to ‘issue politics’. I don’t care how self-described churchgoers or conservatives or independents voted. I am more interested in seeing how people voted on the issues. Because then we can all get to work on educating these voters on the issues.

For example, let’s say that 40% of people who wanted a tough policy on illegal immigration voted for John McCain. To me, that makes no sense and I would question whether or not those voters know all about John McCain’s stance on illegal immigration. I would take from that, that they do not and then would know that voters do not seem to know about the illegal immigration issue and would work to get that info out.

Another example would be say 40% of voters whose first priority is the economy voted for Mike Huckabee. This also makes no sense to me, from what I know of Mike Huckabee’s big government, high taxing stance. So I would take that info and then work to get out the facts about Mike Huckabee’s economic policies.

The only thing I get out of “evangelicals voted this way” or “conservatives voted that way” is a way for us to all say “man, evengelicals are idiots for voting for X”. And someone who identifies as a “conservative” tells me nothing. On what issues are they conservative? Fiscal? Social? Foreign Policy? Are they “neo-cons” or Ron Paul foreign policy conservatives?

See what I mean, Mike?

I don’t necessarily blame the blogs as much, since I figure that you are just working with the data you have from the mass media.

BUT, even so, you are still pushing that mantra, which, I believe, is intended to divide people, instead of focus on the issues. I see this happening on a lot of political blogs or blogs which are just covering this Primary campaign. Instead of talking about issues, people are ripping into States, groups of people and religions based on these “exit polls” focusing not on issues, but on identity politics.

I believe this is hurting us and splitting the Party apart. And I believe that is exactly the intention of the mass media in focusing on identity politics instead of issues.

January 21, 2008 , 7:18PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Identity Politics | Comments Off on Identity Politics vs Ideology Politics vs Issue Politics