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
Good comment left in response to this story at Big Hollywood: Palin Derangement Syndrome: Bristol’s ‘DWTS’ Success Drives Man to Shotgun TV
The list of [alleged] angry, violent libs grows longer:
11/16/10 – fired shotgun into television and engaged in standoff with police: Steven Cowan accused (hated Bristol Palin on Dancing With the Stars)
09/09/10 – Philadelphia Kraft factory shooting killed 2, injured 1: Yvonne Hiller accused (angry about Ground Zero Mosque protesters and call for Koran burning)
09/01/10 – Hostage standoff at Discovery Channel: James Jay Lee accused (angry about lack of “Climate Change” programming)
08/25/10 – stabbing of Manhattan cab driver for being Muslim: Michael Enright accused (Ground Zero Mosque supporter [likely attempting a “false flag” attack])
03/04/10 – shooting of two pentagon police officers: John Patrick Bedell accused (9/11 truther, anti-Bush obsession)
02/18/10 – Austin IRS plane crash guy: Joseph Stack accused (angry about healthcare not being passed, anti-Bush obsession)
02/13/10 – University of Alabama shooter: Amy Bishop accused (reportedly: “obsessed with President Obama to the point of being off-putting”)
11/05/09 – lone gunman at Fort Hood leaves 13 dead, 30 injured: Major Nidal Hasan accused (anti-war obsession)
06/10/09 – U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum shooter: James von Brunn accused (anti-semitic, 9/11 truther, anti-Bush obsession)
The left might not want to claim them. But these folks are definitely not right-wingers. Still, the right is repeatedly accused by the left of violent rhetoric and hate-speech.
Think there might be some “projection” going on?
Other than the guy who murdered partial birth abortion doctor George Tiller (an action which all pro-lifers on the ‘Right’ immediately came out 100% against), the ‘Right’ has not been committing any crimes over the past 10 years. It has been the unhinged liberals… continuing the great tradition of our President’s best buddy, domestic terrorist William Ayers.
We can also add to this list:
Okay, one new thought… RCP has one poll on the House race in Delaware (from PPP in early September) shows the Democrat leading the two possible GOP candidates by 16 and 18 points.
Why does anyone think a state that is going to elect a Democrat to the House this year really wants to send a hardcore conservative about whom there are a lot questions to the Senate?
Remember, Delaware has one house seat, so it’s the same electorate. Do you really think they are going to split their ticket for a Democrat and O’Donnell? This is probably one of 3 or 4 Democratic pickups in the House this year but on the other hand they are just dying to send a Palin/DeMint backed candidate to the Senate?
How does that make any sense?
I just read this dribble and shake my head.
Back in 2008, all these eeyore squishes did was tell conservatives that we had to support RINOs in general elections, because “the time for voting for conservatives is in the primaries”.
Well, now that we have a conservative vs a RINO and people are leaning towards voting for the conservative, out come the Squishy eeyores to move the goal posts and say “well, what good does it do to vote for the conservative when they probably won’t win in the general election vs the Democrat?”
Goal posts successfully moved.
Well, what good does it do to have a bunch of RINOs in the GOP who end up voting with the Democrats on key statist legislation like Cap and Trade and will not fight to repeal the statist monstrosity that is Obamacare?
These people don’t seem to understand that just having a majority of Republicans in office does not equate to having a majority of conservatives in office willing to fight against Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s — AND the RINO’s — statism.
These people just don’t seem to get that the GOP doesn’t care about conservatism, it cares about power. That is why they push people like Dede Scozzofava, Charlie Crist, Lisa Murkowski and now Mike ‘Cap and Trade’ Castle. I don’t care who you are, if you are stupid enough to support and push Cap and Trade, you have NO business being anywhere near public office.
These people also don’t seem to have a memory that goes back even 5-10 years when the GOP had the leadership in Congress. Did the GOP push conservatism? Nope. They were Democrat/Statism-lite… which is why we VOTED THEM OUT OF POWER IN 2006!
The goal is to have a conservative GOP leadership and majority, not a Republican leadership and majority. Having a strong conservative GOP minority willing to fight and block and provide conservative alternatives to Democrats’ and Obama’s statism is better than having a RINO GOP majority which just gives us Statism-lite.
Some good comments:
I live in Ohio as you can tell by my moniker. We have Voinivich. I heard today that son of a bitch will be reaching across the aisle to be the 60th vote for the new small business bill the Dems are pushing right now. Nothing demoralizes our side more than knowing the guy you voted for over the Dem is helping the Dems. He’s retiring. He doesn’t give a flying you know what. It’s not the first time either. He joined McAmnesty in the gang of 14 and a bunch of other Rino shit. Screw the Rino’s. I’d rather march on the enemy with people I can trust. And who knows, Maybe she can win.
BTW, The Small business bill gives tax breaks to small business to them if they spend their money the way the government wants them to.
Posted by: Ohio Dan at September 12, 2010 11:39 PM
Never, ever, ever, ever, trust a RINO.
On balance, their betrayals hurt us more in the long run.
They switch parties. They HATE conservatives, they agitate against conservatives in the press, the MSM uses them to hurt conservatives, the MSM uses them for cover in liberal policies claiming to the public that this was bi-partisan legislation, Obama will use them to claim bi-partisanship……
These are just some of the reasons they hurt the Republican brand.
There are reasons why DeMint says he would rather have 30 Conservatives than 60 Rinos.
Posted by: pam at September 12, 2010 11:41 PM
The whole judicial appointee argument is bunk as long as Grahamnesty sits on that committee. To those making that argument, it isn’t O’Donnell that is crazy, it is you.
Kagan could have never made it out of committee, but good Ole’ candy-ass RINO, you know that guy who called his own party racist, thought she was an honorable woman.
O’Donnell supporter: Castle voted for cap and tax, has a lifetime ACU of 52%, and an F rating from the NRA.
Castle supporter: She’s craaaazzzeeee1111111eleventy!!!.
You are either a conservative, or you are nothing more than a power hungry whore that sells out principles for temporary power.
You are everything that is wrong with the GOP.
Posted by: Old grizzled gym coach at September 12, 2010 11:53 PM
House Republicans who received campaign donations from environmental groups helped make up the narrow margin of votes needed to send the Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” bill over to the U.S. Senate. The legislation passed by a vote of just 219 to 212 on Friday with critical assistance from eight Republicans.
They are: Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Mike Castle (Del.)
Anyone so economically-illiterate and gob-smackingly stupid as to think that slipping the US economy a fucking suicide pill is a fabulous idea is unelectable.
Posted by: Waterhouse at September 12, 2010 11:59 PM
Oh, yeah, this surely makes me feel better about Castle:
Funny thing: As RINO as he is, I think he would have escaped this if he hadn’t voted for Cap ‘n’ Trade. The irony: I think he only voted for it to shore up his lib credentials in DE. I honestly think he wouldn’t have done it a year ago.
Posted by: AmishDude at September 13, 2010 12:15 AM
In other words, he has no principles and wouldn’t think twice about screwing over conservatives — and the nation as a whole — on key statist legislation Just like RINOs like John McCain did all throughout the Bush Administration when the GOP had the leadership in the House and Senate.
Again, it does not matter if the GOP has a majority in Congress, it matters that the GOP has a conservative majority willing to fight to stop and repeal statist legislation. If we’re going to just go back to get the same RINO Statist-lite GOP we had from 2000-2006, we don’t gain a thing.
This reiterates my main point. We were told by “moderates” and RINOs that the Primary is where we get to vote for those politicians who mirror our principles. After that, in the general election, vote for the Republican who wins the Primary. There were no exceptions as far as “unless we tell you that your candidate can’t win” or “unless we tell you that your candidate is crazy”. But now, we’re being told that the rules have changed. Now, our moral betters are telling us “sorry, we lied. You can only vote for whom we deem okay for you to vote.” Brilliant.
As much as the crazy label is thrown around can’t help make you think of how that has been used in the past by others against political opponents.
This is a primary. You choose to support someone because you believe they can win the general and not because you agree with their political positions. Others feel that if you can’t vote for the person you agree with in the primary where can you vote for them?
Since you can’t argue with her political positions, you have intimated that she is crazy. As you said about ODonnell before. Way to keep it classy.
Posted by: polynikes at September 13, 2010 11:30 AM
Also, to the complaint that O’Donnell is “crazy”… the argument from “moderates” and RINOs is that we need to accept RINOs, so long as they vote the right way. And they point to “moderate” Democrats whom the Democrat Party accepted in order to get their majority. Well,
(1) those “moderate” Democrats had to be dragged kicking and screaming, and bribed, to vote with the Democrat leadership. We all know RINOs don’t mirror their Democrat counterparts. They go “maverick” and screw the Party over for their own personal political benefit and celebrity. So accepting RINOs does us no good. And
(2) the Democrats also accepted crazy nutjobs like Al Franken in order to get their majority. So one can argue that “moderates” need to accept some nutjob conservatives, so long as they vote the right way.
If the ends is that we get Congressmen and Senators who vote the right way, who cares if some are nutjobs? Do the Democrats care about their nutjobs? No, they care that they vote the right way come legislation time. And with regards to conservative nutjobs who will vote the right way on key legislation vs RINOs who go “maverick” at the most inopportune times for their own benefit, I’ll choose the nutjob every time.
Is this really the best place and best time to make our stand for a deep red Senate?
I thought the primary was exactly where we do this. Remember? Argue it out in the primary and get together in the general. That’s what we were told was a good strategy, right here on this blog.
I look forward to Ace & Co.’s hearty endorsement for her after she wins the primary.
Posted by: countrydoc at September 13, 2010 11:40 AM
And another who echoes my earlier point about her supposed “craziness” not mattering, so long as she votes the right way:
It doesn’t matter if O’Donnell wins; it only matters that Castle loses. Castle is the same thing as a democrat. And, we will have one less RINO to contend with in 2012.
So what if she’s nuts. As if she’d be the only one. Besides, all she has to do is run her mouth on Fox and vote the way Miller, DeMint, Angle, and Rubio tell her to. How hard can that be? [ … ]
Posted by: VADM (Red) Cuthbert Collingwood RN at September 13, 2010 11:46 AM
This is the way that Castle votes and they’re calling O’Donnell crazy? Oy vey. And this is in addition to Cap-n-Trade!
Castle’s BI-PARTISAN votes:
Impeachment investigations for Pres Bush for “lying” about Iraq.
Defunding missile defense.
Drivers licenses for illegals.
No-confidence vote against the surge.
Can’t wait for Castle’s presser with Obama, endorsing him for 4 more years!
Posted by: pam at September 13, 2010 11:54 AM
AMEN to all of this:
Sorry Ace, but if I had to choose, I’d throw out Castle.
A guy who can’t break 60% support for the party he supposedly represents is a major power-broker in a close Senate.
IMO, the last thing we need are more RINO power-brokers.
We don’t need control of the Senate this cycle. I think it has been argued at least to a draw on the merits of a weak Senate majority populated by RINOS, vs a strong Conservative minority in the Senate with the prospect for more gains in ’12.
We expect to have control of the House, which should be all the buffer we need to defang Obama’s agenda, and demonstrate a set of principles for further gains in ’12.
I don’t have a vote in Delaware, so my opinion matters little. But I’d look at people like McCain & Graham and Specter and Jeffords and ask you to remember how often you have hated yourself “the morning after”?
If being a liberal means never having to say sorry, being a conservative to me means never having to regret your vote for opportunistic career politicians.
I think those of you who are hell-bent-for leather to have a Senate majority are letting yourselves forget just why the Republican brand was in the shitter last couple of cycles.
I think you are emotionally tied to the prospect of giving the left the what-for, to salve just how badly you felt the last couple of cycles.
I think we are better than that when push comes to shove. Yes, we’d all love the instant gratification of taking control of the Senate as well — but at what cost?
If we learn nothing else from the Left’s march through the institutions, it must be that an ideological war is one that spans many elections, and many generations, with many individual battles.
You do not have to win all the battles. For the sake of our country, we must win the war.
Ideological wars are not won in single elections. But they can be significantly derailed by single elections where a minority set of principles is given much larger influence over the majority platform.
When these sorts of people must be feted just to get them to not torpedo critical legislation, you risk watering down that legislation to the point that it leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth and accomplishes little if any of what it set out to do. When critical legislation fails, it counts against the movement – not against that little egomaniac with disproportionate power. Witness: John McCain et al.
Posted by: krakatoa at September 13, 2010 11:56 AM
And, yes, let us not forget all the different ways that McCain SCREWED Conservatism over the past 10 years. McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Kennedy, Gang of 14, going against the Bush Tax Cuts because of a class warfare rationale, just to name a few. And those are KEY, important issues, so the whole “70% for – 30% against” BS does not cut it. When the 70% is meaningless legislation and the 30% is Statist legislation, the RINO is no better than a Democrat and is actually WORSE for watering down the Republican brand and making it Statist-Lite, as the RINOs did from 2000-2006.
Geez luiz, if this is true… I have to research it to verify it, but if true, Castle’s supporters are the nutjobs. We do NOT need a Statist like this in the GOP. If it is between Castle and the Democrat, just let the Democrat win. We do NOT need any more Statists in the GOP. PERIOD.
Castle’s BI-PARTISAN votes:
Tax hikes, card check, pork bills, light-bulb bans, 10-commandment bans, drilling bans, in-state tuition campaign-finance reform, TARP legislation, Disclose Act, extension of McCain/Feingold to the Internet.
Doubling of S-CHIP, a “bipartisan” tax-dollar giveaway to Planned Parenthood.
Castle votes with Pelosi 72% of the time.
Can’t wait for the MSM and Obama to boast how the climate change Republicans fended off vicious attacks from that fringe/extreme/marginalized Conservative Tea Party movement.
Posted by: pam at September 13, 2010 12:10 PM
Bingo, this echoes the point I just made:
I just find it amazing how invested a lot of people here are in supporting a guy who’s got a worse voting record than Arlen Specter.
You all say “Well, he’ll vote with us at least 30% of the time, which is more than Coons would!”. Yeah. Except that when you look at the record of the Specters, Snowes, etc., the problem is that that 30% is always on votes that were completely ours anyway. They’ll vote conservative when we’ve got more than enough votes anyway. Whenever it’s a -close- vote, they always, always vote with the Dems. Their 30% votes are completely meaningless, because they’re always strategically calculated to never actually make a difference.
Posted by: Qwinn at September 13, 2010 12:17 PM
This isn’t about O’Donnell. This is about principles.
Conservatives have much work to do. Education, the press, popular culture and institutional government are all in liberals hands and have been for a very long time. They got there because they were unfailing in prclaming and standing by their sole principle of progressivism. Race, feminism etc were and are all just means to an end.
How do you ever expect anybody to take our (your?) principles seriously if you are willing to abandon them for an empty victory? Believe me they don’t. I think your principles [are] fungable and I’m a conservative. Any smart liberal will know that your priniples are very negotiable (always in their direction – not ours).
Posted by: Repeal at September 13, 2010 12:48 AM
This explains perfectly the point about having conservatives in office, not RINOs who will screw us over on key issues:
The left leaning democrats put up with the blue dogs, and Nelson in the Senate, and look what they got. Healthcare, two Left wing supreme court justices
Nelson voted for Obamacare, and the Dems didn’t need his votes for the Court and let him take a gimme for his reelection because, ta dah, a herd of Rinos trampled over to their side to kill any danger of filibuster.
Today’s yes votes included Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the lone Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee to support Kagan when the panel recommended the nomination to the full Senate on a 13-6 vote. Other GOP yes votes came from Richard Lugar of Indiana, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.
Nine GOP senators voted for her confirmation… Among them were four Republican senators who will be retiring at the end of 2010, including Sens. Kit Bond of Missouri, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Mel Martinez of Florida and George Voinovich of Ohio. Other GOP senators who cast an “aye” vote were Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Richard Lugar of Indiana, and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.
And need we point out the family resemblance between the Republicans above and Castle?
Posted by: Laurie David’s Cervix at September 13, 2010 12:50 AM
Another point I made earlier:
Blue Dogs dont vote against liberal legislation…. they don’t trash and campaign against liberals, they don’t haunt all the networks spouting conservative talking points against liberals, the press does not use them against liberals, they DO NOT damage liberals one bit.
A Rino is a completely different animal.
Posted by: pam at September 13, 2010 12:58 AM
Another good point:
Ok it’s DE. Don’t expect to ever have your ‘principles’ win the day if you don’t have the courage of your convictions. You do have those right?
Since fear of defeat prevents us from presenting our arguments in DE then obviously we souldn’t present them in NY, CA, NJ, ME, IL, MD, MA, VT, RI, HI, MI, WI, MN, WA, OR, NH and CT. That’s a majority of the country. We might as well surrender.
Castle will debate with the libs about a slightly smaller tax increase or a slightly smaller expansion of government. He will not debate about actually making government smaller. Some victory.
I believe in smaller government. I believe in the message of smaller government. Everywhere.
Posted by: Repeal at September 13, 2010 01:16 AM
Here, here. Good comment:
What are the odds that Castle is the 51st and final Repub in the Senate this year anyway? My guess is less then 20%. And this is the Castle supporters main argument. He could easily be number 53 or 52 or 50 or 49 or 48 or 47, making their case moot. I think 20% is the high end.
And whats the odds that if the Repubs end up with magical vote number 51 that they actually play hardball on appointments? And whats the odds another gang of 14 developes making hardball nearly impossible anyway?
Now, whats the odds Castle jumps to the Dem party? Or the odds he votes with the dems on most issues giving more cover for the Maine twins? Or goes on meet the press and bashes every conservative and issue?
And how many Senate, Governship, and House seats will be lost in 2012 if the Dems have a 51 Seat Repub majority to slap around and blame? And how many more votes does Obama get in 2012? Remember Clinton in 1996? Maybe 50 is the better number to have in the Senate and look at this as a two election cycle like the Dems in 06 and 08. Make it a one-two double whammy. Sixty is the key number in the Senate, not 51.
I think O’Donnell has a better chance then many are giving her credit aswell. She lost by only 2 points more then McCain lost by in 2008 to a stronger canidate[Biden vs. Coons]. And this election is going to be a tsunami with the 20+% of blacks sitting home in Delaware. And Coons is a crappy canidate. She was losing by only 11 and 7 points in the last two polls I saw against Coons. A victory here should give her some positive mojo. She could win.
I say vote your consciences. Vote for the best man or woman and let the chips fall where they may.
Posted by: Keven at September 13, 2010 01:54 AM
AMEN to all of this:
I was assuming we were all on the same side (other than that snark about Move-on but thats ok), I get both of your arguments completely.
I used to make them myself just a few years ago.
For me, the clear evidence shows that it has not worked, government is bigger than ever, we are losing more and more citizens.
How much longer can conservative politics win? How can conservative candidates campaign against healthcare? They cannot even campaign against ANY entitlement NOW. SS? Medicare? Federal Education?
We need VERY strong men and women for this…not weak Rinos (which is what defines a rino…weakness)
This is where Rino propaganda comes into play, it is not about leaking “secrets”, it is about them being unable and unwilling to articulate and teach liberty and conservatism in the press.
They work against us in the press because they want to be re-elected by buying votes with entitlements.
This gets us no where.
It gets worse every year the public more dependent on gov for their very lives, and their livelihoods.
So again, it is you guys who want to keep the same strategy year after year, maybe you are both correct, and I am wrong.
But I don’t see a speck of evidence that your way is working.
I think we ought to at least give the tea party a chance and see if they can get rid of as many rinos as possible, scare the rest into not running, and even give some who are weak chance to go before the press and press for conservatism, now knowing that a large group (tea parties) has their back.
Why isn’t it worth a try?
Posted by: pam at September 13, 2010 02:12 AM
I don’t expect to roll back to before the new deal in one election. But I don’t expect to EVER get there if we don’t fight for our position.
We fight for our position by standing up for what we believe in all venues and articulating our values. People will listen. They are correct. That is assuming mine are the same as yours.
Fear of losing or desire for worthless power will not get us anywhere.
By worthless I mean the type of power we have held in the past wherein our side grew the government. (50’s, 70’s, 90, 00’s) That is why people think there is no difference between the two parties.
If we ever actually want to win, and I mean ideas not individuals then we must stand behind our ideas. The liberals did and they managed to transform this nation into a Euro state despite the Constitution.
That is the power of standing behind your ideas.
Posted by: Repeal at September 13, 2010 02:24 AM
Well here we are, the PPP folks, who we must remember are liberal and favor Dems, have done a poll since the Palin and DeMint endorsements and DIABLO Castle has fallen slightly behind. That represents a HUGE swing.
It also represents DE voters possibly picking up on the fact that 99.9% of the negative crap about O’Donnell that is out there is unsubstantiated BS and the other .1% is distortion.
And no, this is NOT a “purity” issue. Castle doesn’t have enough “conservative” in him to be enriched to weapons grade Republican.
And no, the “only Castle can win” argument is pure BS. That argument never was very good and using it became ludicrous after 2008.
In any case it will be over for the primary after tomorrow.
Posted by: Vic at September 13, 2010 06:40 AM
Well I have just read the first 100 comments and it is simply a repeat of the same tired arguments from the past two weeks.
We have reached an impasse in which neither side is going to budge. When this argument first started I looked at Castle’s record and said to myself this guy is a flaming shitbag DIABLO; no way I can support him. But I saw all of the stuff about what a loon O’Donnell was and I said WTF? can’t the Repubs in DE get their shit together? My first post was “we have lost this race already, neither candidate is worth a shit”.
But then I started looking into all the allegations. I found they were ALL either distortions or BS rumor in the same manner as the Palin attacks of 2008. That is when I said better O’Donnell support.
The Palin and DeMint weighed in with their support.
Posted by: Vic at September 13, 2010 06:55 AM
I have been in a lot of the threads, but what is the deal with O’Donnell and her house being paid for by the campaign?
Like a lot of people in politics with little money, her house in the city IS her campaign headquarters. She runs her campaign out of the same house she lives in (rents). She used some campaign funds to help pay that rent. That is perfectly legal AND is not unethical.
Look back through some of Fox’s articles from the past several weeks. They looked into a lot of this stuff and seemed to be OK with what she had done and her explanations. Add to that the fact that NONE of the attacks that have been posted on here ever provides a link to anything of substantive evidence, or the link provides a site with an ax to grind and the article is distorted as hell (Weekly Standard civil suit article)
Also, I would submit that Palin and DeMint with their political connections would be a lot better able to sift out the BS from the truth than any of us and their endorsement in this case means even more than it normally would.
Posted by: Vic at September 13, 2010 07:36 AM
In other words, Congressman Castle is the quintessential Democrat Statist residing in the Republican Party, working to move the Party leftward. Brilliant:
From Castle’s web page: “Congressman Castle is the quintessential moderate, both in ideology and in temperament, and knows how to work across the aisle.”
Q. Why is my stomach lurching at these words?
Posted by: alwyr at September 13, 2010 09:36 AM
Gotta include the insight from the ‘Maha Rushie’ on this matter. From his show today: Republicans Are Blowing Their Best Chance to Beat Liberalism
[ … ] I said, “The thing that concerns me the most is that we are, the Republicans are, blowing the single greatest opportunity we have ever had to blow liberalism out of the water forever and to establish a party that can roll back big government, intrusive government, and fix this once and for all. I don’t know why we don’t learn from the eighties. I don’t know why people do not learn that liberalism fails and is misery every time it’s tried.”
And somebody brought up the Delaware race, and I said, “Well, you know, I have no brief for Christine O’Donnell. But I’m just going to tell you a Senate full of Mike Castles is not gonna get us anywhere. It’s gonna get a bunch of Republicans their chairmanships on the committee but it’s not going to do anything to reverse Obamaism. Not one thing. If that’s our majority with a bunch of Mike Castles there, we’re in trouble.” I was the only one at the table who thought this. Yeah. And this was a table of Republican conservatives. I was the only one, at least the only one who was willing to say it. I think some people did chime in later to one degree or another. (interruption) Some were Northeast Republicans, yeah. Some were Northeast Republicans. Don’t misunderstand. I’m not trying to put feathers in my cap. That’s not the point here. It’s just that in a lot of places Republican victory is all that matters, no matter who the Republican is. And now the Republicans and some official Republicans are actually in a panic over the fact that this Christine O’Donnell woman is leading Castle by three points. [ … ]
This blogger’s theory is that, well, some of these people who are ripping into Angle and ripping into Christine O’Donnell are really insecure about their own status in the ruling class and they want to remain in it, and they see what the power brokers of the ruling class are doing opposing the Palins, the O’Donnells, the George Demos’s, all these Tea Party people, and they’re taking their lead from that. They don’t want to lose their status in the ruling class. The reason why it’s interesting to me is because on the surface it is hard to understand. Okay, here are conservative candidates. We have to acknowledge every candidate is going to have some baggage, personal and otherwise. But if you have a moderate RINO Republican versus a conservative Republican, and both have baggage, I mean it’s unreal to think that the RINO Republicans are clean and pure as the wind-driven snow. Why all of a sudden do we now want the RINOs, after all these years and years and years of somewhat unity on the conservative side saying RINOs are not good for the party, not good for the country? So this guy’s theory on status intrigued me. I’m still examining it, still looking into it. I’ll find the blog. I’ll read the exact words to you.
[ … ] “Leftists try to rationalize the hatred by claiming that Palin is an extremist, but that is easily disproved by comparing where she stands on various issues versus how many Americans hold the same views. Moreover, if she truly were an extremist, she wouldn’t be a threat because she would have no electoral base. No, the best explanation for the left’s bizarre Palin obsession is status-anxiety. Status-anxiety occurs when a person believes that their position in a real or imagined social hierarchy is threatened. Leftists react emotionally to Palin because of the threat she poses to their own individual sense of status. All their other arguments are just put forth to rationalize that emotional reaction.
In short, it is not the ideas she puts forth, it’s that someone like her is significant at all.”
This blogger goes on to say that this is the same kind of thing that may be happening out there in the upper tiers of conservative intellectualism, which you’ll find the same attitudes about Palin as you’ll find on the left. You’ll find the same attitudes about this Christine O’Donnell woman in Delaware, Sharron Angle, or the guy in Alaska that beat Murkowski. “Leftism at its heart holds that a small percentage of humans have a vastly superior understanding of everything compared to ordinary people. The point of leftism is to empower these superior individuals to impose their superior understanding upon society by the force of the state. Leftists must be viewed by themselves and others as superior human beings if they are to have a claim to power and status.” And then along comes somebody who does not fit their mold, who is more popular, makes more sense, has a bigger electoral base than they do, and there you have the threat. It gets back to Mr. Codevilla, ruling class versus country class. It gets back to the high school clique versus the people not in it. Essentially we never get outta high school. The problem is that the people in the cliques, the minority, the elites, the superiorists, now have a stranglehold on the country. [ … ]
One of the ways they talk about Castle is, “I am not ‘anti-Mike Castle,’ but I do have a problem with someone who was willing to destroy the economy by signing on to Nancy Pelosi’s cap-and-trade plan.” There are people attacking Castle that way, but the point is they’re doing it on his issues; they’re doing it on his ideas. Nobody is out there calling him names. “The vigorous attacks on Castle have been focused almost exclusively on his record and policy prescriptions. Almost none of the attacks on O’Donnell focus on her policies or political agenda,” which, if you’ve been paying attention, is true. Not one attack on Christine O’Donnell because of what she believes. No, she sued a think tank, got the IRS after her, other personal attacks they’re going after her with. That’s why I keep saying I guess Mike Castle is clean and pure as the wind-driven snow; he doesn’t have any baggage. There’s not a person in the country that could run for office that doesn’t have any baggage. [ … ]
The Republican Party establishment is out trying to, A, tell everybody their RINOs are conservatives. The Democrats are running away from liberalism as fast as they can which they always do every election, and the genuine conservatives are being trashed by everybody while the other candidates are saying that they’re the most conservative out there. It happens every election, don’t misunderstand, but it’s never been like this in our lifetime. Meanwhile, the Democrat media complex is trying to portray the Tea Party and middle America as kooks, as radicals. Now, if Christine O’Donnell is such a crazy and is so unqualified for office why did the state Republican Party nominate her to run against Bite Me in 2008? Only when the sitting ruling class guy comes along and wants to be Senator, which is what happens, it’s like the Specter business versus Toomey, “Well, he deserves our support, been a Republican for all these years. This is how you climb the ladder in party politics and loyalty, there’s a two-way street and so forth.” They’d be supporting O’Donnell now if Castle didn’t want to be a Senator. He’s been governor; he’s been a member of Congress. But I find it refreshing in a way, encouraging in other ways. Everybody is trying to convince voters how conservative they are. All the while, the Democrat media complex is out there trying to tell everybody in the country what a bunch of kooks Sarah Palin is, the Tea Party, middle America, bunch of kooks and radicals. So it really is like Mr. Codevilla said, it’s the ruling class, whatever party identifier attaches to them, versus the everyman.
Via Jake Tapper on Twitter:
POTUS: when you ask GOP leaders “what programs they’d actually cut, they usually don’t have an answer.”
Maybe if Obama spent more time governing, and less time vacationing and partying, he would know about the GOP proposals for spending cuts that have been proposed for the past 6 months.
JULY 23, 2010: YouCut — A project of the economic recovery working group
Maybe the Republicans usually don’t have an answer for Obama, because he hasn’t bothered to even ask them. Instead, he just goes on the campaign trail and does what he has done since he was elected to the Senate: LIES.