Why Sarah Palin Is The Future
Posted by Dirty Harry on Friday, October 31st, 2008
The only way Republicans turn their fortunes is to expose, shame, and go over the heads of the corrupt media in exactly this way.
But it’s more than that: The media is a threat to our liberty. Sarah Palin has come to both understand and articulate that better than anyone.
Better than Peggy Noonan.
Better than Kathleen Parker.
Better than David Frum.
That elite trifecta isn’t smart enough to see the bigger picture. Sarah Palin is:
ABC News’ Steven Portnoy reports: In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by “attacks” from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.
Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama’s associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate’s free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.
“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,” Palin told host Chris Plante, “then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”
You take the McCain camp’s restraints off this woman and we might have had a real debate on some very important issues.
Sarah Palin is the future. Frum, Noonan, Parker and all their fellow double-agents trying to take us down from the inside are as irrelevant as a Barack Obama tax-cut promise.
Filed in General |
CW Desiatoon 31 Oct 2008 at 9:54 am 1Right on.
Haven’t conservatives had enough of the stodgy “old school” Republicans? I mean, God love George Will but when I see him I think, “this is what people think of Republicans.” Not just the bowtie and glasses but the insider-speak, the “I’ve been on ‘Meet the Press’ about four million times, the “latest column” in whatever magazine/newspaper, etc.
Guys like the Machosauce guy are what we need and leaders like Sarah Palin, Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal.
We need a freaking makeover.
Christian Totoon 31 Oct 2008 at 9:56 am 2The media spin is that Palin is a drag on her ticket, and Biden was a great choice.
Yet Biden has been all but locked up during the last crucial weeks — little press, few public appearances. Palin is drawing massive crowds all over and taking to plenty of meda outlets.
Bobon 31 Oct 2008 at 9:57 am 3Knowing I no longer have to read Noonan allows me to reclaim 5 minutes of every Saturday morning, which I’ll particularly appreciate this weekend.
Danielon 31 Oct 2008 at 9:58 am 4I think the best thing to come out of the 2008 Presidential election is Sarah Palin’s promotion to the national stage.
And I also still think that this 2012 Republican Ticket is the last best hope for America.
But, according to the Left, since I’m a conservative Republican I am, by default, a racist and sexist and must be re-educated.
Lexingtonon 31 Oct 2008 at 9:59 am 5Man, if this is what y’all want for your future - craven whining that people saying things you don’t like is threatening your right to free speech - then go right ahead. I’m sure the Democrats won’t mind running against people who can’t even suss out the meanings of basic phrases.
Supramom2000on 31 Oct 2008 at 10:05 am 6Have you all been listening to Rush today? He is on fire with enthusiasm and finally saying his gut is telling him Obama is losing. Obama is scrambling for cover and re-visiting states he has already “won”.
Did you read my post yesterday about the inside info I got from McCain Palin HQ?
The campaign manager in my county told me yesterday morning that in a conference call with HQ and all campaign managers they were told they had beat the Carl Rove numbers for GOTV, doorbelling, fundraising, volunteers, etc. They said they never, ever expected to beat Rove’s numbers from 2004 - and yet they did this week!!
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!!!!!
Happy Halloween.
Matton 31 Oct 2008 at 10:47 am 7Palin says: “If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”
How exactly are Palin’s first amendment rights threatened? The first amendment does not protect a person’s speech from criticism or reporting in the press; it prohibits the government from creating laws that infringe on speech. In other words, it protects you from the government, not other citizens. How on earth does Palin “get it” if she doesn’t even know what the First Amendment does?
Secondly, she IS attacking Obama. This is a fact. Attack does not mean necessarily that she is unfair or misleading or even negative (which is why I prefer the word “attack” over “negative”.) When the Obama campaign puts out an ad that describes McCain has having voted with Bush 90 percent of the time, it’s an attack. Is that ad unfair or misleading? Maybe. But even if it is 100 percent accurate, it is still an attack.
Finally, I think it really says something about the sorry state of conservatism when writers like Noonan, Frum and Parker are considered “double-agents” for not toeing the line on Palin. (And they might be on to something if Palin can’t even define the First Amendment.)
They have doubts about her abilities. This does not mean that these writers are suddenly liberal. I mean, engage in some healthy debate, people. Disagree all you want. But, really, double-agents, traitors, turncoats? Your basically saying that a true conservative just does as he/she is told and says three bad things about liberals a day. How does a movement with that philosophy ever evolve and adapt?
Keetson 31 Oct 2008 at 10:48 am 8Keep in mind this awesome article from Michael Medved. (See Myth #4)
Stephanieon 31 Oct 2008 at 10:52 am 9GEE MATT ITS CALLED POLITICS! THATS WHAT PEOPLE DO ATTACK! WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT GET?! EITHER YOU CAN TAKE THE HEAT OR GET OUT OF THE FIRE! UNLESS THE ONE DEFINES THE WORD WUSSY..take the w out and add a P! Get a clue amature. I am sick you leftist victimhood crap. Your the victim of your own actions. No one elses. If Obie was a man he could deal with the politics. Apparently the coward and HE IS cannot. And you are a coward to. And a bully. A BULLY! I don’t like bullys!
Stephanieon 31 Oct 2008 at 10:53 am 10supra that makes me happy! Ohh soo happy!
Supramom2000on 31 Oct 2008 at 11:08 am 11Keets, that was a good read. But I did not like the part where he says that conservatives need to follow the model of Reagan and appoint moderates to cabinet and other positions. He uses George HW Bush and James Baker as examples.
The current President Bush did the same thing and did not clean out the CIA and FBI and State Dept moderates and look how they all betrayed him and our country!!
Matton 31 Oct 2008 at 11:11 am 12Um, Stephanie, I think you are agreeing with my point, which was that attacks are a part of politics and there is nothing wrong with the press pointing out that an attack has been made. I have no problem with attacks; I have no problem with Gov. Palin pointing out Sen. Obama’s associations. My problem is that Gov. Palin seems to have it in her head that media criticism and/or basic reporting infringes on her First Amendment rights. It does not. This has been true for more than 200 years.
What is even more disheartening is that in a dozen or so comments on this thread, not a single “pro-American” conservative on this site has pointed out that Gov. Palin does not seem to know what rights the First Amendment protects.
Dirty Harry's Momon 31 Oct 2008 at 11:22 am 13McCain’s own campaign is calling her a “diva” and a “whack job.” We knew that.
On another note, just voted. An historic vote I would not have missed casting for anything. As a young mother, I watched the Civil Rights Movement unfold before my eyes, day after day, on television. No one who saw the dogs and the fire hoses could possibly cast a vote for Sarah Palin. And they won’t.
Landslide coming–all evangelicals prepare for the restoration of the separation of church and state, and all supporters of GWB, if any are left, should prepare for a president and an administration of people that knows what it are doing. Shame on the USA for the past eight years. Praise to the USA for the next eight.
Dirty Harry's Momon 31 Oct 2008 at 11:23 am 14http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15073.html
Diva, whack job. We knew that.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 31 Oct 2008 at 11:35 am 15DHM
From the article, it could be the person that cleans the bus every day that is making those claims. And the person that puts air in the bus tires.
If you “knew” that then you probably believed everything Janet Cooke wrote for the Washington Post.
JBon 31 Oct 2008 at 11:42 am 16Matt, she must have learned from lefties that the Constitution is a “living document”. You know, right to abortion, foreign laws may be considered in interpreting it, per Breyer, etc.
You’d sound a lot more convincing if there was any evidence you or any of your ilk were strict constructionists.
Supramom2000on 31 Oct 2008 at 11:43 am 17The remarks from Gov Palin regarding the 1st Amendment are correct. Lexington, that is exactly what the media is doing. Whining that anything Palin and McCain say is racist, negative and a lie is a direct threat to where the 1st Amendment will lead.
If you can burn the flag and call a sitting president a Nazi and whatever despicable filth you want without fear of recrimination, they why cannot a political candidate ask about associations of another politcial candidate without being called racist, lying and a whiner?
The big whiners in this campaign have been the media and the Obama campaign. Equating the word “welfare” to racism? If that is not whining and despicable, then you are a lost cause.
Carolynon 31 Oct 2008 at 11:45 am 18DHM - the first on this blog to ‘praise Allah’ for Obama. Jeesh, creeps me out when they don’t even hide it.
whiskeyon 31 Oct 2008 at 11:47 am 19Matt And Lex –
Palin is objecting to criminalizing the criticism of “the One” as part of “Hate Speech” ala Mark Steyn.
Steyn was prosecuted in the “Human Rights Courts” for merely quoting a Danish Mullah and brought to the brink of financial ruin.
Others have been sent to prison and fined for criticizing gays, and so on.
“Hate Speech” codes shut down any criticism and essentially abolish the First Amendment by defining “Hate Speech” as anything Liberals don’t like. Yes Obama is indeed, as he likes to remind everyone, Black. That does not make him immune from criticism, nor should it make him immune from being criticized for his associations.
Danielon 31 Oct 2008 at 11:48 am 20DHM, don’t complain to us when you son is trying to fight court summons and attacks by the FCC led by your candidates fascistic tactics to shut him up.
On the other hand, clearly you support those kind of thugo-cratic tactics.
Michaelon 31 Oct 2008 at 11:49 am 21The people calling Palin a Diva in her campaign are the very ones who have all but destroyed her, and the campaign, by their incompetent mishandling of her from day one. They are trying to deflect the criticism from their own stunning failure.
The biggest Diva in this race is Obama. He is also the biggest whiner. He was whining about McCain using race against him when no one was using race against him. He whined that they would use the fact that he, “Doesn’t look like someone on the dollar bill.” When no one was doing or has done any such thing. I do not like the race card being played as a preemptive attack. It is yet another of Obama’s negative presumptions about America and his fellow Americans and I resent it. This country does not need that kind of manufactured animosity.
This guy Obama has been stroked with the mink glove Sean Connery used in Thunderball by every member of the media and all of the campaigns he has run against; and yet he still boo-hoos like a little girl nearly every day. (My apologies to all you little girls out there, Obama is actually worse because he is a grown man and should know better.)
Is it even possible for Obama to give a speech or interview without needing a lobster bib to catch the tears of his own self-victimization?
I am sure that Vladamir Putin will let Obama cry on his shoulder as he steals Obama’s lunch money in any negotiation in which they engage.
Danielon 31 Oct 2008 at 11:53 am 22You write about dogs and fire hoses?
What do you think you’re going to get when your guy is saying in 5 days he is going to “fundamentally change the United States of America.”?
I hate to break it to you Obamunists, should, God forbid, your Dear Leader win, he won’t be sworn in until 1/20/09. Or is Congress going to hold a special session to “fundamentally change” that to, say, 12/1/08?
Danielon 31 Oct 2008 at 11:59 am 23Keets, I think Medved will be wrong about Palin.
I also know that he’s wrong about Myth #5. When Democrats lose they do not move to the middle. They move further Left. Proof: Obama - Pelosi - Reid.
Growltigeron 31 Oct 2008 at 12:05 pm 24I had to smile at Dirty Harry’s Mom’s post. She’s terrified of Evangelicals. What does she think they’re going to do? Pray at her? On the other hand, what does she think the Taliban wants to do to her?
The lack of critical thinking in these people astounds me. Jim Jones’s Kool Aid drinkers have nothing on the Obamatons.
the bookkeeperon 31 Oct 2008 at 12:06 pm 25saying things you don’t like is threatening your right to free speech
sometimes it even gets you thrown off of the imperial O force one, eh lexington.
pandaxon 31 Oct 2008 at 12:07 pm 26Lexington
Man, if this is what y’all want for your future - craven whining that people saying things you don’t like is threatening your right to free speech - then go right ahead. I’m sure the Democrats won’t mind running against people who can’t even suss out the meanings of basic phrase
Craven whining when people say things we don’t like? So what really mad about is you think Palin is acting like a liberal?
pandaxon 31 Oct 2008 at 12:08 pm 27Dirty Harry
Think you better go check on your mom. I think you might want to lossen her foil hat.
Leo Grinon 31 Oct 2008 at 12:09 pm 28Lexington, Matt, Keets,
I stand with all of you on this. Drumming some of our most accomplished conservative thinkers out of the party is stupid beyond belief. The problem hasn’t been Will, Noonan, Frum et al, it’s been the Republican leadership (McCain prime among them) abandoning conservative principles again and again for spurious electoral or emotional reasons. The people that need to be drummed out of the party are the failed, corrupt, inept leaders, not the canaries in the coal mine sounding the alarm.
Get out and vote for McCain. I know Noonan, Parker, Frum, Buchanan, and virtually everyone else on our side will be.
Rusty Jameson 31 Oct 2008 at 12:14 pm 29I know it’s getting old from me, always showing up and laughing. But it’s just really funny to me, and not just in a shadenfraud way.
It’s funny that you see this brilliant visionary out manuevering all her opponents. Even though she *ucks everything up and is obviously costing McCain votes and America hates her.
“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,” Palin told host Chris Plante, “then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights”
Apparently when you heard her say this it sounded like some smart insightful comment that a statesman would say. But to the rest of us it just sounds like she’s been driven insane by her close, momentary brush with power.
It’s like one of those movies where someone’s pet dog can talk but only when no one else is around.
And she’s a maverick too! At least I think I heard someone say that somewhere. Maybe it was war vet down at the bait n’ tackle shop. Or maybe it was her, repeating it about herself 6 or 7 times on national television. I can’t remember which one.
wfon 31 Oct 2008 at 12:19 pm 30DHM,
No one who saw the dogs and the fire hoses could possibly cast a vote for Sarah Palin.
That is the most unthinking, vile nonsense. You have no rational base for saying something so hateful. And it doesn´t seem like you need one. It tells me this: It is only by chance that you weren´t on the other side manning those hoses.
You are all about hatred of religion, but you are a most irrational person yourself. If I were thinking like you I might say that it´s all about abortion for you - you want all those black babies aborted and Obama will get it done. Hey, that´s your kind of logic, not mine.
As an atheist - but an atheist who knows a bit about the foundations of our civilisation - I have no more respect for you. Goodbye.
Kon 31 Oct 2008 at 12:26 pm 31Speaking of NRO, I found this most amusing and haven’t see it posted here:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/
rrpjron 31 Oct 2008 at 12:27 pm 32“No one who saw the dogs and the fire hoses could possibly cast a vote for Sarah Palin.”
This is too silly for response, but I still need to acknowledge the perfect distillation of Palin Derangement Syndrome.
The Left’s hatred of free expression isn’t going away. It can’t — it’s who the Left is; it’s their survival mechanism. It’s like the Alien’s acid blood. They know they can’t win sustained good-faith arguments. So they must suppress dissent whenever they can, slander the dissenter at all other times. It’s playbook stuff. It never changes.
Matt, do you also find it disheartening not to see any “civil liberty” voices on the Left rising to defend the rights of Joe the plumber from attacks by major media institutions? Or the Obama-supporting Missouri state law enforcement hierarchy threatening to prosecute opposition advertising?
Are you disheartened when a reporter is attacked and her private life scoured on leftist websites for asking four simple and civil questions of a Vice Presidential nominee?
How about when three reporters are kicked off a candidate’s plane because their newspapers didn’t endorse the candidate?
Or that the FCC, under Democratic party pressure, is now investigating for possible prosecution several individual military analyst’s on various networks for expressing their views that happened to parallel the Pentagon’s views?
As Rosa Luxemborg famously said, “free speech means nothing if it does not not free speech for the person who disagrees with you.”
It’s a tragedy that in our time we are in the position not only of having to remind people of this, but to be facing an entire political party that doesn’t accept it.
Vinnie Plumberoon 31 Oct 2008 at 12:31 pm 33This Palin is a complete moron!
She seems not to understand the first thing about the Constitution!
Hey Sarah - the First Amendment is not designed to protect politicians from criticism by private sector journalists, or anyone else.
What kind of sick perverted mind thinks that media criticism of a politician is something bad - or something that might even be illegal!
What a complete embarrassment this person is. Future of the GOP? Hah! - I guess the GOP has no future!
wfon 31 Oct 2008 at 12:35 pm 34Biden
Pelosi
Reid
Boxer
McKinney
Frank
Franken
Dodd
Murtha
Cantwell
Moseley-Brown
Mahoney
Jefferson
Kilpatrick
Granholme
McGeervey
Torricelli
Gray Davis
Blanco
Yep. Veritable party of geniuses. Corrupt and/or stupid. And that´s just recent years and off the top of my head.
pandaxon 31 Oct 2008 at 12:37 pm 35rusty
It’s funny that you see this brilliant visionary out manuevering all her opponents. Even though she *ucks everything up and is obviously costing McCain votes and America hates her.
No rusty only you and the other liberals hate her. Of course she’s no Joe Biden, gotta give the guy credit he is very limber to be able to stick his foot in his mouth so often.
pandaxon 31 Oct 2008 at 12:39 pm 36I know it’s getting old from me, always showing up and laughing. But it’s just really funny to me, and not just in a shadenfraud way.
So if McCain wins can we laugh at you?
JJHon 31 Oct 2008 at 12:44 pm 37Sarah Palin’s complaint was stupid, and brought to mind her other stupid statement of this campaign — her praise of small-town “pro-America” areas of the country. This can’t be blamed on not being familiar with the issue. Everyone knows what the first amendment says (even non-Americans like me). She lazily attempted to raise doubts about Obama’s respect for freedom of speech in a ham-fisted way (Dirty Harry has done a much better job in pursuit of the same goal), apparently counting on listeners not to notice what she said makes no sense.
To trot out the foolish argument that populist appeals from the Right and sending principled conservatives into exile despite their unsurpassed intellectual legwork for the cause (David Frum’s An End to Evil is a must read) will win elections is ludicrous. Take it from someone who’s lived though the consequences of failed conservative leadership — the public won’t vote for you unless you mold yourself to them. Then you make the case for free markets, a hawkish foreign policy, etc. — after cultivating trust and a moderate image.
I’d better get out of here before Steph runs me out on a rail. Forgive the length of this post.
Rusty Jameson 31 Oct 2008 at 12:45 pm 38@ “Or the Obama-supporting Missouri state law enforcement hierarchy threatening to prosecute opposition advertising?”
are you talking about this?
http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1
A lot of you guys have an obnoxious habit of crying wolf at every flicker of a shadow. It’s obstructs real debate and is alarmist.
If you’re actually concerned with this issue you should direct your anger at the campaigns of Norm Colman and Kay Hagen. Both of whom are suing their opponents for misleading advertising.
Avery Bullardon 31 Oct 2008 at 12:47 pm 39Matt: I mean, engage in some healthy debate, people. Disagree all you want. But, really, double-agents, traitors, turncoats?
I think Steve Sailer made an excellent point a few years ago when he said Bush and Rove have dumbed down the GOP. The party partisans are now at the point where I don’t think they are even capable of debating issues. It’s either you toe the line or you are not loyal. GOP partisans now shout racism, sexism etc, just like the left.
By any reasonable standard the Bush administration has governed America from the left. Whether it is spending, immigration, multicultural matters, or even the Wilsonian foreign policy the current GOP administration has been left wing. All it has given its supporters is Jesus rhetoric and patriotic symbolism. The left’s insane hatred of Bush is cultural and aesthetic. On most issues there is little of substance between the Dem and Reps.
Rusty Jameson 31 Oct 2008 at 12:48 pm 40@ “So if McCain wins can we laugh at you?”
do you really need my permission?
pandaxon 31 Oct 2008 at 12:49 pm 41do you really need my permission?
No, but I thought it would nice to at least ask first.
Rusty Jameson 31 Oct 2008 at 12:50 pm 42@ “No, but I thought it would nice to at least ask first.”
That is nice.
The answer is no.
pandaxon 31 Oct 2008 at 12:51 pm 43The answer is no.
Noted. But as you said it doesn’t matter.
Rusty Jameson 31 Oct 2008 at 12:52 pm 44Avery, you make some good points. One of the qualities that made Bush such a terrible president was that he combined the worst qualities of the right and left.
Though ultimately the undoing of Bush was administrative not ideological.
Matton 31 Oct 2008 at 1:07 pm 45rrpjr:
“Do you also find it disheartening not to see any ‘civil liberty’ voices on the Left rising to defend the rights of Joe the plumber from attacks by major media institutions?”
No, but that is because Joe “The Plumber’s” civil liberties have not been violated. Joe’s right is to voice–or not voice– an opinion. It is Joe’s right to campaign with the candidate of his choice. It is Joe’s right to publically or privately agree with statements like, “An Obama presidency means the death to Israel.” It is Joe’s right to grant media interviews. It also is the media’s right to report and/or comment on Joe. You can discuss fairness and piling on all you like, but none of that has anything to do with civil liberties.
“Or the Obama-supporting Missouri state law enforcement hierarchy threatening to prosecute opposition advertising?”
I have to plead ignorance about this, so I cannot comment.
“Are you disheartened when a reporter is attacked and her private life scoured on leftist websites for asking four simple and civil questions of a Vice Presidential nominee?”
If you are talking about fairness or tone of discourse, that’s one thing and I would be happy to voice an opinion on that matter. But, again, not a violation of civil liberties or the First Amendment. Her right to ask those questions was not infringed upon by the government. Nor by anyone else. Similarly, Charles Gibson’s right to ask Palin questions was not infringed upon; nor was your right to criticize the tone/content of that interview.
“How about when three reporters are kicked off a candidate’s plane because their newspapers didn’t endorse the candidate?”
I think that if Obama did it because of endorsements, it’s petty and wrong. But, again, not a violation of civil liberties. And, really, this is my whole ever-loving point! You guys are running around with your hair on fire over Obama’s supposed plans to destory the Constitution, and you don’t appear to even know what the Constitution says! If Sean Hannity, for example, wants to interview Obama and Obama says no thanks, Hannity’s rights have not been infringed upon! If Obama says, I do not want Hannity on my plane, Hannity’s rights are still there!
“Or that the FCC, under Democratic party pressure, is now investigating for possible prosecution several individual military analyst’s on various networks for expressing their views that happened to parallel the Pentagon’s views?”
Well, that is one way of phrasing it. Another way to say it is that this is an investigation into the Pentagon’s military analyst program. The analysts who appeared on these news programs claimed to be independent, but there is evidence that some of these individuals have direct ties to contractors. Not only is this a severe ethical dillema, there are concerns that American tax dollars were spent on these talking heads to “sell” the war. You might also consider that this investigation extends to the networks themselves. Pleanty of information about this program has been released by the Pentagon due to an FOIA filed by the NT Times. http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/milanalysts/
moviebobon 31 Oct 2008 at 1:09 pm 46She knows how to do it effectively, but she doesn’t understand (few do, to be fair) WHY the media is how it is about Conservatives. It’s not a “liberal” thing - most media/entertainment figures aren’t genuine political “liberals” when you actually hear what they’re personal beliefs are - most of them, in fact, would be well to Obama’s RIGHT on the actually definition of liberal vs. conservative (i.e. small gov/capitalism vs. big gov/quasi-socialism) if they bothered to look at what those terms actually mean (again, to be fair few really do these days.)
The media/entertainment biz isn’t monolithically “leftist,” it’s monolithically SECULAR. They don’t fear/despise her because of her views on the size of government - most of them know even less about economics and government than SHE does - they fear/despise her candidacy because of her SOCIAL policies… i.e. her proudly-zealous religious superstition-mongering and the way it influences her decision making as a politician. You can’t be “the future” if everything about your value system is practically prehistoric, after all
If she had the same “act,” the same rube beauty pageant contestant schtick, the same everything else… but she wasn’t anti-choice, anti-gay and anti-science, she’d be A.) a Democrat and B.) a media darling.
gmkon 31 Oct 2008 at 1:14 pm 47Blacks commit violent crime on whites 43 times more often than the reverse. But hey, you saw some firehoses on the television. I guess we should just line up for our stabbings, we deserve it.
Growltigeron 31 Oct 2008 at 1:18 pm 48“The party partisans are now at the point where I don’t think they are even capable of debating issues. It’s either you toe the line or you are not loyal.”
Excellent point. Just as every conservative web site has its trolls, they also have their rabid partisans where any disagreement with “the party line” is met with furious rhetoric, ad hominem attacks, accusations and attempts to silence the dissenter or drive him or her off the site. This is ridiculous. It shows the same lack of intellectual integrity evident in the Leftist cant. I think the majority of the posters here want to engage in honest intellectual exchange and behave accordingly.
Win or lose, I think the GOP has to take a long, hard look at itself. Do the far right really want to drive away moderates? If so, say so. Do moderates (like Noonan) really want to banish the conservatives like Palin? If so, say so. What’s wrong with “Rockefeller Republicans”? Don’t they belong under the “big tent”? Who is the Republican most of us admire most. Ronald Reagan. Why not follow his example?
The GOP is never going to get the blacks. They’ve been indoctrinated too deeply. Stop trying. Do what’s right for them and all Americans without thought of cultivating their vote.
And win or lose, the grass roots, out of the Beltway, conservatives are going to have to do something to neuter the tremendous advantage the MSM gives Socialists, Leftists, Neocommunists, Democrats. Using the web someone should initiate a boycott. Not every advertiser of MSM - we need to focus. Why not GE? They own NBC. Why not start a grass roots boycott of all things GE including lightbulbs. I’m willing. Same with Hollywood. Pick a month and don’t go to the movies. Why not March or April (whichever month the Academy Awards fall in this year)?
wfon 31 Oct 2008 at 1:23 pm 49Yes, it all comes down to killing unborn babies. Secular people are so narrowminded and uneducated, I´m ashamed to call myself one.
Growltigeron 31 Oct 2008 at 1:29 pm 50Good point(s) MovieBob.
I would add that Sarah Palin’s “choice” to deliver a Downs Syndrome child was the coup d’grace. Very few secular, liberal or even moderate women would “choose” not to abort such a pregnancy. So her standing on stage and holding that baby probably was interpreted by many who aborted fetuses based on convenience as the ultimate poke in the eye. If they don’t get rid of her, that picture is going to be replayed over and over and over.
Sarah Palin’s “choice” put a lie to the “pro choice” movement.
They are not “pro choice” but rather “pro abortion”, something they’ve been very careful to conceal.
Unfortunately neither side is willing to rationally discuss the issues that are always the subtexts in most political discourse.
Continuumon 31 Oct 2008 at 1:43 pm 51If Palin is the future of the GOP, then then GOP has no future.
ScottDSon 31 Oct 2008 at 1:46 pm 52Growltiger -
As a pro-choice person myself, I admit my first thought was “Good for her! That’s where the word ‘choice’ comes from.” It would be hypocritical for me to call her out on it; she made the choice that was right for her and her family. But sadly, there are many who wished she had an abortion instead. I don’t get it.
When people ask me, I tell them “I’m pro-choice but in a perfect world, there wouldn’t be a need for abortion and it would cease to be a political issue.”
Bennett Marcoon 31 Oct 2008 at 1:47 pm 53From the NY Observer (via Drudge):
“Erica Jong Tells Italians Obama Loss ‘Will Spark the Second American Civil War. Blood Will Run in the Streets’”
I’m kinda outta shape, but I’m pretty sure I can take Erica Jong.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 31 Oct 2008 at 1:52 pm 54Bennett:
If you take Jong I’ll take Sandra Bernhard. And Matt Damon.
Mighty Skipon 31 Oct 2008 at 1:57 pm 55Wow. DHM’s statement is perhaps the most truly enlightening of what liberals here write. Not for her obvious bigoted attack, that is par for the course. But this line, “Shame on the USA for the past eight years. Praise to the USA for the next eight,” is far more illuminating.
Okay, she doesn’t like Bush. No problem. Praise to the USA for the next eight years… so no worries about Obama (should he win) accomplishing anything. No need for any kind of perspective or analysis, his brilliant career and re-election are already history. This is worship. Much like the evangelicals she seems to be hostile to, just a different Messiah.
Although, Lexington, Matt and Rusty do have somewhat of a point. I disagree with their interpretation. Perhaps Palin wasn’t being clear enough. After reading through the article I don’t see her saying that her First Amendment Rights are being threatened now but she is speaking to media spin becoming media intimidation. She says, “then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.” That is, can hiding behind the curtain of free speech be used as a weapon to suppress dissident voices? You might find her evidence lacking, but it is a fair question to ask.
I’m not sure where you guys are getting she said her civil liberties are under attack, she never says such a thing. It’s a whole cloth issue. Joe the Plumber’s civil liberties aren’t under attack, but you can definitely make an argument that is privacy rights have been when agents of the state go through his records for political reasons. There is no express right to privacy in the Constitution. It is drawn from the Bill of Rights (1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th) and the 14th Amendment. Palin over simplified the matter by speaking of only the First Amendment. Can you blame her though? She had a five minute blurb and it would take a course by a constitutional scholar to properly explain it.
The vicious personal attacks parroted by the mainstream media against her are also compelling. Obama kicking opposing voices from media contact, not a violation again but part of the weave and you can keep piling up instances like this. The media turning a blind eye to all these activities for the apparent reason that it is just because it is Obama should make someone raise the red flag and Palin was trying to do that here.
Bennett Marcoon 31 Oct 2008 at 1:57 pm 56JEB:
Deal. Damon shouldn’t be any trouble, but I’m a little scared of that Bernhard woman(?).
Growltigeron 31 Oct 2008 at 2:17 pm 57ScottDS
Without divulging where I stand on this particular issue, everyone should agree that Sarah Palin put her pro-life ideology on the line and proved to everyone she honestly believes and is no hypocrite. That tells us what kind of woman, governor and human being she is. Now let’s talk about Obama’s “share the wealth” ideology and whether or not he’s willing to share his (and Michelle’s) wealth. I think the comparison between the two speaks volumes about who is authentic and has integrity and who is a sham. Throw in Charlie Rangal, add Chris Dodd, and you have the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.
T.S.Benchon 31 Oct 2008 at 2:21 pm 58…….No, but that is because Joe “The Plumber’s” civil liberties have not been violated. Joe’s right is to voice–or not voice– an opinion. It is Joe’s right to campaign with the candidate of his choice. It is Joe’s right to publically or privately agree with statements like, “An Obama presidency means the death to Israel.” It is Joe’s right to grant media interviews. It also is the media’s right to report and/or comment on Joe. You can discuss fairness and piling on all you like, but none of that has anything to do with civil liberties……
It also appears to be Joe’s right to have the state government use state resources and payroll to do, out of nowhere, a background check on him. I guess that wasn’t an attempt of government to suppress free speech, it was a attempt to make his life easier by making sure he was in compliance with all state laws. For some reason, even the newspapers weren’t buying the ‘official’ explanation.
Regards,
TSB
kinlawon 31 Oct 2008 at 2:24 pm 59DHM:
You are pathetic. You make a comment, then run away. Do you ever answer those who challenge you?
And I don’t just mean this post; you alway do this.
This is so typical of a liberal: make a snarky childish comment and then run away.
Claiming the McCain said those things about Palin is just pure bs, and you know it. Some unhappy insider wanting to get in good with the media maybe, but not the campaign.
And going to Politico for proof? Are you out of your mind? Do you ever read this blog? Harry just slapped them down for their ADMITTED bias. Do you read anything but the Huffpo or Kos?
T.S.Benchon 31 Oct 2008 at 2:31 pm 60…… Now let’s talk about Obama’s “share the wealth” ideology and whether or not he’s willing to share his (and Michelle’s) wealth……
It appears it’s more of a ’share your wealth’ ideology since, although he’s a millionaire, his relatives, at least those who can be tracked down, live in squalor, and the sainted aunt of his autobiography lives in a deteriorating housing project in Boston, with the good folk of Mass picking up most of her rent tab.
Regards,
TSB
eeyoreon 31 Oct 2008 at 2:33 pm 61“No, but that is because Joe “The Plumber’s” civil liberties have not been violated. Joe’s right is to voice–or not voice– an opinion.”
His right at the time may not have been violated, but the actions the government did afterwards will have an effect on any who speak out later. Why did the government run so many checks on the man, just because he was in the public eye?
The media can search for information they want, but the government looks like fishing for dirt. Do you think if any were found in their files it would have stayed secret? They found out about taxes and being unlicensed (even though apprentice plumbers use their bosses license). Would they have heard worse when a search was done on child support?
The actions these officials take do have a dampening effect on us all. Obama’s campaign wants the government to stop ads from PAC’s. Has McCain done the same? Many Dem ads say the mortgage crisis was all of Bush’s fault. Their fault by turning down regulation has been glossed over. If McCain went after these ads, would you be so glib?
The free press has much blame. On PBS, Gwen Ifill says, “We won’t tell you what to think. We tell you the information to make your decision.” But if they withhold information, how can we really make informed decisions?
Palin was talked about on may sites as a potential VP selection. The Dems didn’t think she was possible and neither did the press. When selected, the first thing they said was McCain didn’t properly vet her. It was only because they didn’t look at her at all. But Palin did energize most conservatives to look at McCain.
The press hasn’t looked at Obama for many of his years. Much of that investigation has gone on the web but most people will never see it. This is the failing of the press.
The one thing I want is a fair press as that is the only way for most people to know what really goes on in government. In a two elections here, the same newspaper won’t endorse a candidate because they are new and don’t know enough on the issues. A second candidate is endorsed despite they are new and don’t know enough on the issues. Fair press?
Regarding the military consultants, how many times have you seen someone proclaimed as an expert of something, like global warming, while their ties to environmental groups are not discussed? This is part of the free and fair press. If someone is on as an expert, tell us everything about them, their past and current group/employer associations, any books or articles they have written, and if applicable, their political party. We, the people, can then judge what they say in that regard.
rrpjron 31 Oct 2008 at 2:34 pm 62Matt: your legalisms are either incorrect and/or miss the point and reflect a certain disregard for the spirit of free speech.
First, Joe was indeed violated. His confidential profile on a state database was plundered by Ohio democrats. The case is being investigated. Beyond that, huge liberal media institutions bore down on him with sickening, outsized vengeance. If the fact of the “nation’s newspaper” singling out an American citizen for political impertinence doesn’t alarm you, you cannot be an authentic liberal. And the point isn’t if a “law” was broken. The point is to chill other citizens from speaking up (that is, “speaking truth to power”). How many people would risk a comment if they knew their private lives and records would be splattered over the op-ed pages of leading newspapers? I believe Cyndi Sheehan churlishly confronted George Bush once and was lionized by the Left for it. But Joe, despite the civility of his comments, was eviscerated. An example had to be made.
(Note that when Barack Obama’s passport file was opened, hysteria broke loose among civil libertarians. Bush was blamed, of course. It turned out the file was opened by a state department employee, a democrat. Yet Sarah Palin’s private emails are ransacked by a partisan who asserted his intent to embarrass her. Not a word.)
No, Barabara West’s rights were not infringed upon by the government in the process of asking four inconvenient questions of Joe Biden or in its aftermath. But the man who presumes to be Vice President of the government shut out her and her TV station from further access to his campaign. He even said she would have trouble gaining access anymore to democrats. Her private life was soon the subject du jour on the Daily Kos. Illegal? Rest comfortably knowing it was not. But is this your model for national discourse? Are these men your exemplars of free speech?
As for Rusty James’ misleading conflation of Obama’s enlistment of Missouri state officials in a preemptive intimidation tactic on one hand with candidates suing each other for lies on the other — if you can’t see the difference, I’m sorry for you.
I’ve been to too many leftist gatherings not to know the score. My sister was dragging me to them when I was 10 years old. I saw the price paid for heterodoxy again and again. It doesn’t change. It doesn’t have to be illegal. You either believe and embrace what Rosa Luxemborg said and what Americans have died defending for generations, or you don’t. The Left doesn’t.
Mikeon 31 Oct 2008 at 2:46 pm 63Fascinating reading for ten minutes. Nice debating all. An example of good quality blogging.
Personally, I’m a little scared of Sarah Palin, very excited about Barack Obama, and disappointed that the Phillies beat the Rays.
God bless America.
Troyon 31 Oct 2008 at 3:01 pm 64I hate to be nitpicky, but the media is protected by the First Amendment FROM the government. I love Sarah Palin — voted for her already and hope to vote for her again in 4-8-12 years. BUT — the media is not controlled by the First Amendment — the government is. They are free to attack her all they want — that is why it is incumbent on us to boycott, cancel subscriptions, blog, yell, whatever to bring the NY Times, LA Times, CNN down, etc. That is the free market of ideas at work — not censorship — which is what governments do.
The media does not threaten her free speech — they just make it more difficult. Whomever holds government power is the real threat — always has been — always will be.
Floyd R. Turboon 31 Oct 2008 at 3:07 pm 65Joe the Plumber’s rights HAVE been violated. Whenever the State of OH undertook to rummage through his state protected records in response to his challenge to the Obamessiah they “chilled” his right to speak. THAT is government — action the First Amendment was designed to protect.
Supramom2000on 31 Oct 2008 at 3:12 pm 66rrpjr,
thanks for that. Very nicely done and right on the money.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 31 Oct 2008 at 3:41 pm 67Troy:
It is not just the press that is protected from the government by the 1st Amendment.
Individuals are also protected.
What Palin is saying is that when the press uses the government against opponents, as they did by using the Ohio government against JTP, there is a 1st Amendment issue raised.
If you know anything you say could result in the government investigating you because of what the press reports, there can be speech suppression. The government should not take a press report as a signal to investigate a citizen.
The liberals talk about vote suppression but there is also speech suppression.
wanketteon 31 Oct 2008 at 3:56 pm 68Eeyyeeeuuuwww, I go to do a bit of GOTV & the place gets overrun by astroturfers. Harry, you forgot to spray!
Stephanieon 31 Oct 2008 at 4:00 pm 69To Mike I despise Barack Obama and anyone who is stupid enough to vote for him but then its content of character which he has none and not color of a mans skin which he seems to shove in peoples faces whenever he fears his polls falling.
Sarah Palin is a goddess. Only an insecure putz of a male unit of the human species would be afraid of her. You must really be in control of your masculinity to fear Sarah.
Major Grahamon 31 Oct 2008 at 4:09 pm 70All,
Check this out at American Thinker. Very encouraging and looks real. Check out the video put out by a “progressive Pennsylvania” group. Tremendous lines of folks to go see Sarah who are jeering and mocking the stupid hippies. The video is meant to show how bad the conservatives are - but it had the opposite effect. Cheered me up and has got to be very demoralizing to any leftard who sees it. Enjoy!
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/notes_from_a_battleground_stat.html
steevyon 31 Oct 2008 at 4:36 pm 71The left is so sure that they will win yet so afraid they will lose.Either way wont change much of anything.The bureacracy is already in control and only interested in staying in control.Congress critters are wrangling idiots who can’t agree on anything except keeping their own perks and staying in office. A Republican president can tie the majority in knots.A Democrat president will find that they aren’t so friendly when the time comes to pass legislation.Remember Clinton from 92 to 94?I’m voting McCain and I think he has a chance of winning.I don’t fear Obama because I know what he will be up against if he wins(see the above).Conservatism wont be dead it will be rejuvenated,the dead wood will be cut.Fight the good fight and be upbeat, we may lose a battle now and than but we will win the war.
Scotton 31 Oct 2008 at 5:14 pm 72Who is it that doesn’t understand the Constitution?Show me where the words “abortion”,”separation of church and state”,and “penumbra” appear in the Bill of Rights?I can wait…
Kenon 31 Oct 2008 at 5:14 pm 73Palin may well be the one to revitalize the Republican wing of the Republican party and take the GOP back from the neocons. See:
http://www.middleclassimpact.com/2008/10/will-sarah-palin-lead-middle-america-back-to-the-gop
Mikeon 31 Oct 2008 at 5:16 pm 74Well Stephanie, there doesn’t seem to be much we agree on. Are you perhaps a Tampa Bay Rays fan?
Johnny Ed's Babyon 31 Oct 2008 at 5:19 pm 75Scott:
Those words will be in the new version of the Obama constitution along with redistribution on wealth. Not that Obama wants to talk about that.
I wonder if our astroturfers will be back here after Nov 4 or if Axelrod will continue to pay them after the election.
Stephanieon 31 Oct 2008 at 5:54 pm 76Mike I only respond to real men. Go and bother some skanky hollywood bimbo. Thats more a leftist males speed, as in dumb, easy and amoral. I am sure a woman who shoots guns, hunts deer and guts them herself would be far more than a wussy girly man like you can handle and oh..base ball is for wankers. Football…only football. And my hubby is a military man. See I learned a long time ago if a woman wants a real man she hunts for a man in a uniform.
Scotton 31 Oct 2008 at 6:07 pm 77Yes,JEB…it is the Left’s ignorance of the Constitution which is astounding…recalls to mind something Hugo Black said in his dissent to the decision of (I believe)Griswald v. Connecticut..just because a law is stupid does not make it unconstitutional
Bennett Marcoon 31 Oct 2008 at 6:09 pm 78Just for the record, I am voting for Mac and Sarah even if I can’t get a written statement from the campaign guaranteeing that Stephanie will have no official (or unofficial)role in a McCain Administration.
Stephanieon 31 Oct 2008 at 6:16 pm 79Why Bennet would say something so crappy about me? What did I do to you? Exactly? What is your glitch?
Mikeon 31 Oct 2008 at 6:20 pm 80Stephanie - I think if we met we’d be friends. You sound like a nice woman with a nice family. God bless.
(PS I actually prefer soccer, although I’m English so I call it Football. It’s also interesting that you use the term “wanker”. Don’t hear that a lot over here. A nice, solid insult.)
Bennett Marcoon 31 Oct 2008 at 6:24 pm 81Stephanie,
You bad-mouthed the National Pastime!
thudon 31 Oct 2008 at 6:26 pm 82I love this site and have followed Harry’s writing for as long as I have followed any blog…but perhaps the intolerance of some here is becoming rather wearing and infantile. We have an enemy and he and his followers are clearly identifiable….lots of work to do ahead folks.
Stephanieon 31 Oct 2008 at 6:28 pm 83I’d only for Sec. of Defense Bennet. Watch the fleet grow to 21 carrier battle groups and all four existing battle ships refitted and ready for kicking arse and taking names. Watch the Marin Corps grow, the Army and Navy, and Air Force. The bad guys wanna play? OK…..Peace through strength. We carry one hell of a big friggen stick.
Stephanieon 31 Oct 2008 at 6:29 pm 84Baseball is soo booring. Baseball National Pastime, Football America’s Passion.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 31 Oct 2008 at 6:38 pm 85I want to see Steph appointed RINO hunter in a McCain administration.
Or press secretary to deal with Helen Thomas and David Gregory.
That would show Scotty McClellan how to deal with the a-holes in the WH press corp.
Jimbo2on 31 Oct 2008 at 6:43 pm 86The Trolls (Matt, et al) are out tonight.
Mikeon 31 Oct 2008 at 6:47 pm 87I’m proud that men like Stephanie’s husband are out there fighting for our rights: allowing us to vote for whoever we want to; McCain, Palin, Obama. That’s what makes America America. A great Democracy!
Stephanieon 31 Oct 2008 at 6:48 pm 88MIke your English your not an American. He isn’t fighting for you nor would he. Now please go stalk some other woman. Or maybe I’ll hunt you down…
Stephanieon 31 Oct 2008 at 6:49 pm 89Yep Matt, Mike, and other less than welcome members of the under the bridge or Momma’s basement brigade.
Bennett Marcoon 31 Oct 2008 at 6:52 pm 90You know who else didn’t like baseball?
Those SS commandoes dressed up as GIs during the Battle of the Bulge. That’s who.
Just sayin’…
thudon 31 Oct 2008 at 6:53 pm 91See what I mean…mike is English…isn’t he one of the bad guys?…steph…does this site belong to you…is there anybody you or your fan club have not attacked?…believe it or not there are many of us here as conservative as you..if not more so why not give people a break?
kevin J waldroupon 31 Oct 2008 at 7:00 pm 92(Dinosaur Media DeathWatch™)
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/dbm/index
Stephanieon 31 Oct 2008 at 7:04 pm 93Thud he is a liberal and he bad mouthed Sarah. He uttered the typical leftist shrill sillieness that someone who doesn’t know anything about American would about OBAMA. It was in my mind bigoted towards blue collar Americans who WORK FOR A LIVING….it was elitist. Mike isn’t a Thatcherite. Look at what he wrote.
thudon 31 Oct 2008 at 7:09 pm 94Steph..he may well be…and I doubt he is a fan of the blessed Lady Thatcher…but we are better than mud slinging liberals are we not….decency,honesty,loyalty and truthfulness are our hallmarks.
Mikeon 31 Oct 2008 at 7:09 pm 95I kind of liked Maggie actually. Very tough woman.
Bennett Marcoon 31 Oct 2008 at 7:17 pm 96Lady Thatcher is one of my heroes.
And Tony Blair is what we used to call in the old neighborhood “a stand-up guy.”
I welcome our “cousins” to the debate.
thudon 31 Oct 2008 at 7:18 pm 97kind of liked?…with mrs T I’m afraid it has to be all or nothing.
Jack Marinoon 31 Oct 2008 at 7:49 pm 98Palin is fantastic for this ticket and she will be great as VP. She will do thing no other VP ever did and make changes for the better for all.
The liberals HATE her guts and call her everything that they can. A few people on McCain staff want to blame her in case they lose, but the blame is on their lack of how to run a great campaign. But in spite of all this McCain is going to win, the left knows it, the media knows it and this is why they have to attack Sarah they way there are, because they are scared shitless of this gal, who will get this country back on track after years of democratic messing things up. They fear her because of abortion and how she has galvanized the republican base the way Ronnie did. I hope she NUKES everything the liberals hold dear and near. America needs an enema and she is the doctor.
Stephanieon 31 Oct 2008 at 7:56 pm 99Look I don’t care what you say Thud he proved his utter charmless ignorance by pouncing like a typical BBC watching fop on Sarah Palin. No idea who she is, what she stands for. And you know something Thud, its bigoted. I am sick of it. Its elitist…well Obama…why MIKE because Obama looks good and says pretty things? SO DID HITLER! Din’t he?
You look down your nose at Sarah because she doesn’t act like a stuffed shirt, shallow posh pain in the butt. She wouldn’t know Madge or Baby Spice from Adam and I am pretty sure Princess Di didn’t mean one way or another to her. You don’t like her because she would rather get things done. I find your attitude hateful, towards Americans because MIKE most Americans are LIKE SARAH PALIN! Not like that utterly shallow, lying windbag Barack Obama. Your judgement of the woman is utterly colored by those propagandists you watch and trust me my bro in law knew plenty of BBC and London Times scribblers, one more useless and shallow than the other. Sarah Palin has done more in her life, and accomplished more in her life than any woman in Britain has since Thatcher. But there you are Mike looking down your nose at a woman who has gone from being a hockey Mom and small business owner to the cusp of the Vice Presidency of the United States. Well Mike thats what AMerica is all about, folks like her, me, DH, hell anyone with gumption and a dream can do that. Its called hard work, faith and believing in ones self. She did. You can’t do what she did in other places in this world. Only in America. Its called why we rule.
Stephanieon 31 Oct 2008 at 7:58 pm 100Decency honesty and loyalty THud? Hmmmm where is it in the remarks he made about Gov. Palin? She is a mere Hick. To be laughed at at the Ox and Hound.
Jack Marinoon 31 Oct 2008 at 11:08 pm 101The mad dog liberals are attacking Palin, Joe the plumber and anyone who dares to oppose the Lord Vader Obama. These are acts of desperation not acts of a winner who has the election in the bag.
The race is over my Master…
wfon 31 Oct 2008 at 11:57 pm 102I.
If MovieBob is right that the secularism of the media is setting them against Palin, what does this prove? It proves that secularists can be as intolerant and bigoted as the worst religious hypocrite (plenty of examples on this site to prove that point). It also proves that secularists are even less rational than the religious. After all, they are hurting themselves and the country by getting distracted over Palin´s religion and stance on abortion.
Victor Davis Hanson: “We know now almost all the details of Sarah Palin’s pregnancies, whether the trooper who tasered her nephew went to stun or half stun, the cost of her clothes, and her personal expenses — indeed, almost everything except how a mother of so many children gets elected councilwoman, mayor, and governor, routs an entrenched old-boy cadre, while maintaining near record levels of public support.”
While the secularists wet their pants because Sarah Palin doesn´t go to church just for political expediency, they are blinding themselves to the consequences of a Democrat supermajority. Barack Obama and congress are poised to enact the biggest expansion of government power in our lifetime. They have hubristically vowed to “fundamentally change” the country top down. And for the first time in human history, it will work. Really.
Rational people would not vote against the national interest because on a gut level, the vice presidential candidate doesn´t belong to the right club. If your secularist narrowmindedness gets you to buy into liberal fascism, it´s clearly not working very well by your own standards.
II.
Those who complain that the “religious right”has “dumbed down” the GOP also display their historical ignorance. The same charges were leveled against Reagan, as I remember well. In fact the real constant is the demonisation of conservatives as basically “insane”. It began with Barry Goldwater in 1964. So please spare me the lie that only McCain´s nomination of Plain has sadly discredited him for you.
III.
McCain was smeared as a right-wing tool even before the nomination of Palin, by the same Obama surrogates who derided his service (remember them?) and described him as old and infirm. They also never came up with a case for Obama having the necessary experience to be president. That is why the rage about Palin had to be manufactured.
McCain has not changed a single position to pander to the right except in your fevered imagination. Neither has Sarah Palin, whose positions are close to the mainstream (well, not unless you are an intolerant secularist but most Americans outside the media and Hollywood are not).
IV.
Now let us look at what you are buying into. First, let´s get over this bullshit that we are all patriots.
Barack Obama has given plenty of evidence that he does not like the country or respects its culture, especially the parts that need “fundamental change”, including the constitution. HE SAID SO. Of course with many things he said, he also said the opposite or reversed himself - behavior that fairminded people would describe as “dissembling”. But the pattern coming from him, his wife and his buddies is clear: America sucks and needs to taken to the woodshed.
Think that´s unfair? Well that´s tough. Obama has also questioned the patriotism of McCain (”Which country?”). Pelosi has questioned the patriotism of the House GOP. Biden has questioned the patriotism of people who do not like tax hikes. I don´t think they give a damn about the country as it is, except as a system to give them power.
How many ranking House members have to tell you that improvements in Iraq “would be very bad for us” before you believe them?
How many liberal professors wishing for “a million Mogadishus” do you need until the penny drops?
How many liberal bloggers need to exult over the killing of Americans until you are repulsed?
Which part of “God Damn America” don´t you understand?
Isn´t a copkiller saying “We didn´t do enough” a pretty clear statement?
Doesn´t “Civilian National Security Force” sound ominous enough to warrant a few questions?
Especially for a so-called liberal?
And I´m supposed to fear the dreaded “religious right”? Tell me, who are they? People who don´t want to pay for other people´s abortions? Now that´s shocking! People who complain about radical lefties running education? McCarthism! Who are they? I want examples but they better be scarier than Barney Frank doing to the economy what he did to Herb Moses. Yes, Frank is going to be in charge of your freaking money. How do you like them apples?
V.
Fact is, Bush has shown nothing but patience and goodwill with the people who smeared him. Obama is a thug by comparison. The Right has not shredded the constitution. The left has always been open about the need to do exactly that to get over the quaint notion of limited government. All of this is about limited government.
The question is not if they are unpatriotic - it is self-evident that someone who wants to upset the foundations of the country is unpatriotic - the question is why someone would feel the need to defend them. There is no good answer for the left, hence the manufactured rage about Palin.
pandaxon 01 Nov 2008 at 2:09 am 103wf
Bravo! It was about time someone put the brakes on the liberals who hijacked this thread. My biggest compliant about Bush is that he let people like this get away with mouthing off and not confronting them about it. Fact is Bush had to much respect for the Office of President to lower it to what he saw as nothing more then trading insults. That was his greatest mistake. Unlike what Avery and Rusty say Bush got the big stuff right. They are simply continuing the liberal meme that Bush was awful because they say he is. Just like
America hates Palin because they say so.
Mikeon 01 Nov 2008 at 6:57 am 104My Father was a member of the British parachute regiment for 30 years, and whether you like it or not Stephanie, he fought for you and me. Toughest man I’ve ever met. Very proud of him.
He was and is a Conservative supporter and voter. I have voted for Maragaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, and he’s okay with that.
Aren’t we all about having an opposition with differing views? Isn’t that what makes us free? Couldn’t we drastically disagree, but leave the hate out of the debate, because we recognize that we are America, or England, because we provide people with choices.
Then there’s the discussion about how we provide information to make those choices. A lot of bias and false information out there I agree.
Still, choice is good. I admire Sarah Palin. Obviously a talented, successful woman. I just said she scares me a little. But then us English Liberals are easily scared!
May the best Woman or Man win, because the population made a choice.
wfon 01 Nov 2008 at 8:08 am 105Good form, Mike. Blair was admirably solid on the war but I have often wondered if Labour didn´t do a lot of damage to British culture and identity. The nanny state, cameras on every corner, rampant policial correctness, forced proletarisation, rising crime and so on. Britons seem to leave the country at an unusual rate. That is the impression I get from the press. Is that alarmist or is there something to it? What do you think?
Mikeon 01 Nov 2008 at 8:49 am 106Not alarmist. Lots of good points. Certainly political correctness is infuriating many. Briton seems to have a multiple personalities at the moment. Independant Island nation, member of Europe, growing multi-cultural society but a population that longs for the empire days. Interesting to see what happens in the next election.
Kiton 01 Nov 2008 at 8:57 am 107Mike,
Are you voting Cameron or Brown come next British election?
And Stephanie,
When someone thanks your husband for his courageous service in the armed forces, the best response, I think, is “thank you.”
Churchill would probably agreee.
moviebobon 01 Nov 2008 at 10:57 am 108wf
” It also proves that secularists are even less rational than the religious.”i>
Given the choice between “irrational because my logic is fundamentally flawed” and “irrational because my reasons come from an ideological mysticism that defies and/or outright REJECTS logic;” you really sure that “less” is in the right place?
“While the secularists wet their pants because Sarah Palin doesn´t go to church just for political expediency, they are blinding themselves to the consequences of a Democrat supermajority.”
Indeed. And while “conservatives” do something similar yet fundamentally different to theirpants because Palin DOES go to (”the right kind of”) church and seems to agree with them about making sure said church and government one and the same on a policy level, THEY blind themselves to the consequences of placing Kirstie Alley’s character from “Drop Dead Gorgeous” one step from leadership of the free world. Or, perhaps worse, they AREN’T blind and that prospect actually appeals to them…
“Those who complain that the “religious right”has “dumbed down” the GOP also display their historical ignorance. The same charges were leveled against Reagan, as I remember well.”
It’s been a sliding scale. The “dumbing down” is what made Reagan, for all his positives and his two electoral opponents negatives, partially possible in the first place. Conservatives were a losing party before the creeping-takeover of the Religious Right because they were an overall intellectual party largely tipped toward the learned and the money’d… i.e. people with something AT STAKE in Capitalism. Problem was, there were a lot MORE less-intelligent, angry poor people who’d been won over largely by the “left” - giving Democrats a massive and reliable voter edge for some time. Pandering to the basest-of-bases - superstition - evened the field by giving Republicans an army of none-too-brights of it’s own. Trouble is, the Republicans did a BAD job maintaining the proper user/use-ee relationship, and now said army of none-too-brights wields too much power.
wfon 01 Nov 2008 at 1:52 pm 109MovieBob, the ape-like reaction to Sarah Palin by people who fancy themselves enlightened proves exactly my point. And condescension, however well written, does not make one “bright”. I deny myself the satisfaction as a matter of civic responsibility. (Besides, it’s like eating a spoonful of Drano, sure it’ll clean you out, but it’ll leave you hollow inside.)
I used to think like you but have moved on. If you do not understand and accept the historic and current role of christian values you cannot understand and protect the fundamentals of our civilization, the most central of these being the special value of the human being. This is exactly why civilization cannot be long entrusted to liberals, who like savages would take apart what they cannot put together again. I would hardly be a conservative if that did not concern me. Doesn´t mean I will ever go to church. It means I am perhaps more realistic than you are.
Ponder once more my favorite description of conservatism:
“At the heart of every conservative endeavor is the effort to conserve a historically given community. In any conflict the conservative is the one who sides with “us” against “them”–not knowing, but trusting. He is the one who looks for the good in the institutions, customs and habits that he has inherited. He is the one who seeks to defend and perpetuate an instinctive sense of loyalty, and who is therefore suspicious of experiments and innovations that put loyalty at risk.
So defined, conservatism is less a philosophy than a temperament; but it is, I believe, a temperament that emerges naturally from the experience of society, and which is indeed necessary if societies are to endure. The conservative strives to diminish social entropy. The second law of thermodynamics implies that, in the long run, all conservatism must fail. But the same is true of life itself, and conservatism might equally be defined as the social organism’s will to live.
Of course there are people without the conservative temperament. There are the radicals and innovators, who are impatient with the debris left by the dead; and their temperament too is a necessary ingredient in any healthy social mix. There are also the instinctive rebels of the Chomsky variety, who in every conflict side with “them” against “us,” who scoff at the ordinary loyalties of ordinary people, and who look primarily for what is bad in the institutions, customs and habits that define their historical community. Still, by and large, the future of any society depends upon the solid residue of conservative sentiment, which forms the ballast to every innovation, and the equilibriating process that makes innovation possible.”
[end of quote]
Now if you understand that, then you understand why expanding individual freedom is not the same as safeguarding our liberties. And you should be able to accept that there exists a respectable and humane case for social conservatism, and that it is tied to the cause of liberty. It doesn´t matter if those making the case can articulate it well. The secular “brights” are good on semantics but are notoriously bad at foreseeing the consequences of the societal change they are clamoring for, until it´s too late - and the history of the 20th century provides bloody proof of that.
Honestly now: Have you read all of my comment or just the first part?
MovieBobon 02 Nov 2008 at 12:29 am 110wf
“I used to think like you but have moved on.”
Funny… I used to be an Altar Boy. And a Boy Scout. Really.
wf
“If you do not understand and accept the historic and current role of christian values you cannot understand and protect the fundamentals of our civilization, the most central of these being the special value of the human being.”
I don’t require convincing in the basic, hardwired need of a civilization to have a system of spirituality or, if one prefers, “mythology” at it’s foundation - there’s at least two copies of “Hero With A Thousand Faces” in the house that I know of at this very moment (yes, I know, Campbell is something of a semi-vulgar reference point at this stage, but Jung isn’t as readable.)
“Still, by and large, the future of any society depends upon the solid residue of conservative sentiment, which forms the ballast to every innovation, and the equilibriating process that makes innovation possible.””
A nice sentiment, but one who’s pleasantries count for very little with me when we live in a world where - to use merely the most immediately-relevant example - the creation of potentially live-saving medicines is being held back by concerns over superstition. Legends and spiritualism have their place… but I’ll be damned if it’s to be found between a sick individual and a cure.
And, of course, you realize that by this definition our principal enemies in the world are the “conservatives” of THEIR culture - Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Islamist ‘thinkers’ in general all exist on the mission-statement of making sure that their respective societies don’t innovate and in fact return to the “better days” of the Caliphate past.
“Now if you understand that, then you understand why expanding individual freedom is not the same as safeguarding our liberties. And you should be able to accept that there exists a respectable and humane case for social conservatism, and that it is tied to the cause of liberty.”
Here’s the thing: I have little to no use for “society,” and even less so “community.” Society, community and all the other great collective ideals have beaten me, shunned me and openly assailed me since I was able to speak. This used to make me sad… now it merely makes me resolute.
wfon 02 Nov 2008 at 7:38 am 111MovieBob,
“the creation of potentially live-saving medicines is being held back by concerns over superstition”
What are you referring to, the stem cell thing? I have no dog in this fight. This was about the question of human (embryonic) life, which is a core philosophical issue, not a matter of superstition. If we discount the sanctity of life as the stuff of judeo-christian nutbags, then why have life saving medicines in the first place? There´s a reason why progressives were susceptible to the idea of eugenics and euthanasia. In any case, research was not forbidden, it just wasn´t funded out of federal taxes. The state of California alone made up more than the difference, if I remember correctly. This seems very democratic to me. Now there seem to be methods of harvesting pluripotent cells that do not rely on the destruction of embryos. Is this a great country or what?
The creation of life-saving medicines can also be held back by any other political intervention in the market economy (subsidizing one kind of research over another is always politically driven and happens all the time). Of course if we get a Canadian-style health care system, the days of the US as the world´s powerhouse of drug innovation will be over. I guarantee it.
you realize that by this definition our principal enemies in the world are the “conservatives” of THEIR culture
First, I do not make a defense of all conservatives, just American-style conservatives which are unique in combining a defense of traditonal values and liberty. (This excludes the authoritarian and statist Right here and in Europe, never mind the rest)
Second, it depends. The Iranian Khomeinist revolution was something unprecedented in that culture. When Al Qaeda or the Taliban take over by killing the tribal leaders, or when Wahabis infiltrate Indonesia or Nigeria, they are both revolutionary and alien. Sure, they claim to long for the return to a lost paradise, but the left does that all the time if you study their rhetoric. Obama sure did. Doesn´t make him a conservative.
Thirdly, defending living values and traditions, as American conservatives do, is the very opposite of violent revolution to go forward or back to some Utopia. “Standing athwart history yelling stop” means we are not the ones working to “fundamentally change” America. We like America.
Society, community and all the other great collective ideals have beaten me, shunned me and openly assailed me since I was able to speak.
Thank you for your honesty. You have your reasons. I respect that. So you just want to watch the world burn?
Guess there is not much point in talking about politics then. Naturally I will go on and just pretend someone cares.
I was NOT talking about collective ideals. I leave that to Barack Obama. I was talking about liberties. Even yours. Look, I know how social conservatives can overshoot and annoy. I was a Giuliani guy, remember. But I´m using my head here and btw, you can imagine that this leaves me in a lonely place most of the time. If you want a small, non-intrusive government, you need strong social institutions and traditions. It´s a trade off. That is why the social cons do not scare me, but the liberals who want to tear everything down in the course of one generation (theirs) are stupid and dangerous. There is a reason why fascism, communism and national socialism targeted the family, judeo-christian religion, traditional morality, capitalism, the petit bourgeois (aka middle class). They knew what they were doing. Who else wants to destroy these things? Not Bush. Not Palin.
To go on hatin Palin you have to ignore what she actually did as a politican in Alaska, which is impressive. You have to rely instead on a kind of cultural hatred.
On the other hand, to vote for Obama is an act of faith. You have to ignore both what we already know about him and the extent of what we don´t know. We know from his own unguarded moments that he has contempt for the country, the constitution, capitalism, the middle class, campaign finance laws. The last one alone should give anyone pause. The left has always been open about the need to destroy all these things to get over the quaint notion of limited government.
If that is what the secular rationalists buy into, then their secularism is fundamentally irrational and not worth a bucket of warm piss. They should grow up and get over themselves.
Here is what my favorite catholic nutbag David Warren wrote on October 24 and I couldn´t agree more:
(quote)
In my world, you don’t humour a politician who presents “Change,” “Unity,” and especially, “Hope,” as hypnotic mantras, with the power of enchantment over very large crowds. And you especially don’t humour such a politician at a time when both country and world are unstable, and hard decisions will have to be made.
Deeper than this: Obama has presented himself from the start as a messianic, “transformational” leader — and thus played deceitfully with ideas that belong to religion and not politics. That he has done this so successfully is a mark of the degree to which the U.S. itself, like the rest of the western world, has lost its purchase on the Christian religion. Powerful religious impulses have been spilt, secularized.
In this climate, people tend to be maniacally opposed to the sin to which they are not tempted: to giving Christ control over the things that are Caesar’s. But they are blind to the sin to which they are hugely tempted: giving Caesar control over the things that are Christ’s.
“Faith, hope, and charity” are Christ’s things. They apply, properly, outside time — to a “futurity” that is not of this world. They must not be applied to any earthly utopia. A Caesar who appropriates otherworldly virtues, is riding upon very dangerous illusions. Follow him into dreamland, and you’ll be lucky to wake up.
(end of quote)
wfon 02 Nov 2008 at 8:25 am 112Funny, Cal Thomas just made a similar argument, just better.
Obama thought the Warren Court should have “broken free” from the constraints placed on the Constitution and the courts by the Founding Fathers. This is remarkable hubris. Obama said the Constitution mostly “says what the states can’t do to you … what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” That’s because the Constitution is about liberty and protecting citizens from oppressive and invasive government.
This is scary stuff. That it is only now surfacing is another reminder of the poor job the mainstream media have done in vetting Obama.
Obama is complaining about the very thing that makes the constitution so great and unique.
But Thomas ties it to this argument which I have been making: that at the heart of the Declaration of Independence and the constitution is a view of people “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights”. The creator part is vital. Only a belief in natural rights (and it is a dogma that cannot be defended logically) can form a sustainable basis for any individual rights at all. Unless enough people buy into this view, every right can be given and taken away, for the greater good or on a whim. And so can any “right to a job” or “right to day care” or all the other nonsense Europeans like to write into their constitutions.
Read the whole thing:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas103008.php3