You said it yourself, Palin has put off a lot of traditional GOP supporters. On that basis alone, she is unsuitable. Intellect in and of itself is not mandatory for leadership, but it would help if Palin had a trace of one. It would seem that she has been adopted by the Religious Right as some sort of poster child, which, in my opinion, signals danger. I’m sure the rednecks will love her. However, most rational-thinking Americans will be justifiably worried about what Palin’s true agenda might be.
Are you supposedly an example of a “rational-thinking American”? Because one wouldn’t know it from this comment.
However, most rational-thinking Americans will be justifiably worried about what Palin’s true agenda might be.
If you know Palin’s ‘true agenda’, don’t be shy, please share it with the rest of the class.
I’m very interested to know who these “traditional GOP supporters” are that are supposedly “put off” by Sarah Palin.
The only “traditional GOP supporters” I’ve seen who speak ill of her are the brandy-snifter country-club set that haven’t been able to win a national election on their own strengths since 1956.
Didn’t you get the e-mail, George? The one sent out last Tuesday, outlining Sarah Palin’s secret agenda? The camps, the black helicopters, the special teams with sniperscopes?
That’s odd. Everyone not scheduled for liquidation next year was supposed to get it. Check your spam folder, maybe.
Yes, let’s hear about that “true agenda,” Geroge. I expect that we will be hearing more allusions to it if Palin actually tries to run for president. It seems for all my life, every time a conservative (as opposed to a RINO) runs for president, I hear about their “true agenda,” usually some kind of fascist takeover. (Ironically, the charge comes from people who want to increase the power of the state. See FASCISM, LIBERAL.) When Reagan got elected, a leftist I worked with predicetd that any day the stormtroopers would be crashing down our doors. I lost touch with the guy as he lost touch with reality, and I wonder if in the last dats of Reagan’s second term he was still mutterin, “Any day now, you’ll see . . .”
Anyone read the anti-Palin issue of NEWSWEEK? The one with the hot-babe cover photo? If you read the two attacks by Palin writtern by Evan Thomas and Christopher Hitchens (who appears to hate Palin for her religion, although he voted for Obama, whose religious and secular beliefs (Rev. Wright’s “black liberationism” and voodoo economics) are as nutty and detached from reason as any theology Palin subscribes too) , you get this impression of Palin as a kind of latter-day William Jennings Bryan leading a howling mob of shoeless inbred peasants. Yet Bryan was statist; Palin, so far, is not. Big difference. And the tea-partiers seem no howling mob of inbreds demanding greater Steate intervention but ordinary tax-payers protesting a State shafting and “Il Dufe’s” attempt to turn the US into Venezuela del Norte. Big difference.
I also read about Palin being “anti-intellectual.” Is she? Is she against all intellectuals, or just pointy-headed “liberal” intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals? Would she be against, say, a Thomas Sowell? I find that when “liberals” (after they’ve taken the State’s scrotum out of their mouths) say that someone is “anti-intellectual,” they mean, “He [or she] doesn’t buy the the sacred dogma handed down by our high priests.”
I’m a conservative more than I’m a Republican. I will not donate time or money to a party that turns around and supports back-stabbers like Olympia Snow. The egg head elites seen to believe that only the Ivy League is qualified to run the country. The rest of us – no matter how many degrees we have – are too “uneducated” here in flyover country for the modern Mandarins to view us with anything but distain.
Palin represents millions of people like me who came from modest backgrounds, worked hard to get ahead in life, and who won’t kowtow to the self-proclaimed “elites.” Last year, I voted for Palin. McCain was just the top of the ticket. Palin represents a warning shot to the political class establishment – their days of unearned privilege are coming to an end. Pray it happens peacefully.
I love this paragraph:
Indeed, some of us will always be sympathetic to Mrs. Palin if for nothing else than her enemies. The bile she extracts from her critics is almost like a dye marker, illuminating deep pockets of asininity that heretofore were either unnoticed or underappreciated.
Count me among them.
I really love it when a new Emanuel Goldstein shows up, because it reveals so much about those who engage in the Hates voluntarily. They can’t seem to help themselves, and meanwhile I am educated about a whole new category of human shortcomings I hadn’t been aware of before.
Not to mention, I find self-administered hypocrisy amusing.
Palin represents millions of people like me who came from modest backgrounds, worked hard to get ahead in life, and who won’t kowtow to the self-proclaimed “elites.”
This is why the Left hates her: she shares the values of regular Americans, the very thing they want pounded into sub-atomic particles and wiped from the memory of history. That is the thing which stands between them and totality.
I say that Sarah Palin’s initial impression on people was “Big Hair”, and “Big Hair” (mullets on men, any kind of “high-rise” or “hopped-up” way of a woman wearing her hair) makes the elites think of the men with the red scarves in the Oliver Cromwell party.
We in America are people with short time horizons, and we look askance at the Orthodox/Catholic/Muslim ethnic strife in the former Yugoslavia, or the Shi’a/Sunni split or other factional divides in the Middle East. Can’t those people “move on” from when Prince So-and-So was whupped by Sultan Blah-and-Blah?
Well no, and “we” don’t “move on” either. We kinda, sorta know about the American Civil War, but the English Civil War (you know, the Oliver Cromwell as Dictator of England and putting the King to death) is probably what has people so hopped up about Sarah Palin, only the sides in that war are probably repressed into some kind of Jungian memory.
So the next time someone gets in a lather about “NASCAR”, “rednecks”, “red states”, “bible clingers”, “gun nuts” or “Sarah Palin”, go to Wikipedia and read as much as you can about Oliver Cromwell
The only “traditional GOP supporters” I’ve seen who speak ill of her are the brandy-snifter country-club set that haven’t been able to win a national election on their own strengths since 1956.
No single flavor of Republican or Democrat can win a national election on its own strengths. The GOP won the presidency by uniting social conservatives, business interests, and libertarian types. Can Palin re-create that sort of coalition?
According to polling, Palin is the only vice-presidential candidate to hurt a national ticket in modern history. For the GOP faithful to continue to be so enamored of her seems utterly self-destructive.
Oliver Cromwell? That’s the most bizarre Palin comment ever.
According to polling, Palin is the only vice-presidential candidate to hurt a national ticket in modern history. For the GOP faithful to continue to be so enamored of her seems utterly self-destructive.
According to polling, concern trolling by Leftists is even worse!
Can Palin re-create that sort of coalition?
No, and neither could Reagan.
Right?
Riiiight…?
“Oliver Cromwell? That’s the most bizarre Palin comment ever.”
You think so? I don’t think of Ms. Palin as Lord Protector. The anti-populist elites do. They see her as the Pied Piper in Pantyhose (the Newsweek cover) out to rally the Protestant rabble against their Episcopal betters.
Perhaps the last ember of the English Civil War was what ever they had going on in Northern Ireland. The Irish Catholics are a faction I kinda understand; they are my co-religionists with the 26+6=1 bumper stickers and the fund raising for Noraid when the local Catholic bishop who promised to put an end to this kind of thing wasn’t looking.
Irish Protestants somehow didn’t “compute” with me. Until some politics-geek acquaintence explained to me that “Ian Paisley (the firebrand Ulster Unionist) would be at home talking to George Wallace voters.”
I am not saying that Sarah Palin is in any way anti-black, although when Colin Powell came out and endorsed Obama for president, he as much as hinted that the McCain ticket was tilted towards a nativist-white demographic (the bit about giving too much cred to “small-town America.”)
Furthermore, when the black/white racial divide come up, everyone thinks “American civil war: the ancestors of whites were plantation owners, the ancestors of blacks the forced labor.” The whites in our society who retain the most racial resentment are not of the plantation-owner class, the English aristocracy. One has to go beyond American Civil War and go back to the English Civil War to get inside their heads.
The question remains, why is Sarah Palin so hated? The English Civil War. The Red State/Blue State divide is a factional alignment from the English Civil War.
“According to polling, Palin is the only vice-presidential candidate to hurt a national ticket in modern history.”
Polling from whom? Media Matters?
Bill, polling from Jim’s butt. . . the polls I saw reported following the election showed Palin increased McCain’s support dramatically.
As an American, a veteran, and a decent man, McCain was a great choice. As a candidate or a politician, he’s a sackful of “meh.”
The “true agenda” remark amuses me. It is such a typical remark. The political elites are so steeped in duplicity they can’t believe everyone else isn’t. They particularly find it hard to believe that middle class evangelicals are sincere – probably because they’ve never met one. These folks need to get out more. George, if you’re ever in Houston I’d love to have a cup of coffee with you so we can get to know each other. No hidden agendas!
No, and neither could Reagan.
Reagan won with support from so-called “Reagan Democrats.” I don’t see any “Palin Democrats.”
“…Furthermore, when the black/white racial divide come up, everyone thinks “American civil war: the ancestors of whites were plantation owners, the ancestors of blacks the forced labor.”
Funny; coming from the Northern states originally (and now living in a formerly Southern one), I always equated the ancestors of white citizens today with the free men under Grant and especially Sherman, who laid down a path of destruction against their “fellow” – but slaveholding – whites (and liberated every black they could find on the way), and did it so effectively that the South would never be capable of rising again. And in the doing, paid a price in blood such as the US military has never paid, before or since.
You said it yourself, Palin has put off a lot of traditional GOP supporters. On that basis alone, she is unsuitable. Intellect in and of itself is not mandatory for leadership, but it would help if Palin had a trace of one. It would seem that she has been adopted by the Religious Right as some sort of poster child, which, in my opinion, signals danger. I’m sure the rednecks will love her. However, most rational-thinking Americans will be justifiably worried about what Palin’s true agenda might be.
Are you supposedly an example of a “rational-thinking American”? Because one wouldn’t know it from this comment.
If you know Palin’s ‘true agenda’, don’t be shy, please share it with the rest of the class.
I’m very interested to know who these “traditional GOP supporters” are that are supposedly “put off” by Sarah Palin.
The only “traditional GOP supporters” I’ve seen who speak ill of her are the brandy-snifter country-club set that haven’t been able to win a national election on their own strengths since 1956.
Didn’t you get the e-mail, George? The one sent out last Tuesday, outlining Sarah Palin’s secret agenda? The camps, the black helicopters, the special teams with sniperscopes?
That’s odd. Everyone not scheduled for liquidation next year was supposed to get it. Check your spam folder, maybe.
Yes, let’s hear about that “true agenda,” Geroge. I expect that we will be hearing more allusions to it if Palin actually tries to run for president. It seems for all my life, every time a conservative (as opposed to a RINO) runs for president, I hear about their “true agenda,” usually some kind of fascist takeover. (Ironically, the charge comes from people who want to increase the power of the state. See FASCISM, LIBERAL.) When Reagan got elected, a leftist I worked with predicetd that any day the stormtroopers would be crashing down our doors. I lost touch with the guy as he lost touch with reality, and I wonder if in the last dats of Reagan’s second term he was still mutterin, “Any day now, you’ll see . . .”
Anyone read the anti-Palin issue of NEWSWEEK? The one with the hot-babe cover photo? If you read the two attacks by Palin writtern by Evan Thomas and Christopher Hitchens (who appears to hate Palin for her religion, although he voted for Obama, whose religious and secular beliefs (Rev. Wright’s “black liberationism” and voodoo economics) are as nutty and detached from reason as any theology Palin subscribes too) , you get this impression of Palin as a kind of latter-day William Jennings Bryan leading a howling mob of shoeless inbred peasants. Yet Bryan was statist; Palin, so far, is not. Big difference. And the tea-partiers seem no howling mob of inbreds demanding greater Steate intervention but ordinary tax-payers protesting a State shafting and “Il Dufe’s” attempt to turn the US into Venezuela del Norte. Big difference.
I also read about Palin being “anti-intellectual.” Is she? Is she against all intellectuals, or just pointy-headed “liberal” intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals? Would she be against, say, a Thomas Sowell? I find that when “liberals” (after they’ve taken the State’s scrotum out of their mouths) say that someone is “anti-intellectual,” they mean, “He [or she] doesn’t buy the the sacred dogma handed down by our high priests.”
I’m a conservative more than I’m a Republican. I will not donate time or money to a party that turns around and supports back-stabbers like Olympia Snow. The egg head elites seen to believe that only the Ivy League is qualified to run the country. The rest of us – no matter how many degrees we have – are too “uneducated” here in flyover country for the modern Mandarins to view us with anything but distain.
Palin represents millions of people like me who came from modest backgrounds, worked hard to get ahead in life, and who won’t kowtow to the self-proclaimed “elites.” Last year, I voted for Palin. McCain was just the top of the ticket. Palin represents a warning shot to the political class establishment – their days of unearned privilege are coming to an end. Pray it happens peacefully.
I love this paragraph:
Count me among them.
I really love it when a new Emanuel Goldstein shows up, because it reveals so much about those who engage in the Hates voluntarily. They can’t seem to help themselves, and meanwhile I am educated about a whole new category of human shortcomings I hadn’t been aware of before.
Not to mention, I find self-administered hypocrisy amusing.
This is why the Left hates her: she shares the values of regular Americans, the very thing they want pounded into sub-atomic particles and wiped from the memory of history. That is the thing which stands between them and totality.
I say that Sarah Palin’s initial impression on people was “Big Hair”, and “Big Hair” (mullets on men, any kind of “high-rise” or “hopped-up” way of a woman wearing her hair) makes the elites think of the men with the red scarves in the Oliver Cromwell party.
We in America are people with short time horizons, and we look askance at the Orthodox/Catholic/Muslim ethnic strife in the former Yugoslavia, or the Shi’a/Sunni split or other factional divides in the Middle East. Can’t those people “move on” from when Prince So-and-So was whupped by Sultan Blah-and-Blah?
Well no, and “we” don’t “move on” either. We kinda, sorta know about the American Civil War, but the English Civil War (you know, the Oliver Cromwell as Dictator of England and putting the King to death) is probably what has people so hopped up about Sarah Palin, only the sides in that war are probably repressed into some kind of Jungian memory.
So the next time someone gets in a lather about “NASCAR”, “rednecks”, “red states”, “bible clingers”, “gun nuts” or “Sarah Palin”, go to Wikipedia and read as much as you can about Oliver Cromwell
The only “traditional GOP supporters” I’ve seen who speak ill of her are the brandy-snifter country-club set that haven’t been able to win a national election on their own strengths since 1956.
No single flavor of Republican or Democrat can win a national election on its own strengths. The GOP won the presidency by uniting social conservatives, business interests, and libertarian types. Can Palin re-create that sort of coalition?
According to polling, Palin is the only vice-presidential candidate to hurt a national ticket in modern history. For the GOP faithful to continue to be so enamored of her seems utterly self-destructive.
Oliver Cromwell? That’s the most bizarre Palin comment ever.
According to polling, concern trolling by Leftists is even worse!
No, and neither could Reagan.
Right?
Riiiight…?
“Oliver Cromwell? That’s the most bizarre Palin comment ever.”
You think so? I don’t think of Ms. Palin as Lord Protector. The anti-populist elites do. They see her as the Pied Piper in Pantyhose (the Newsweek cover) out to rally the Protestant rabble against their Episcopal betters.
Perhaps the last ember of the English Civil War was what ever they had going on in Northern Ireland. The Irish Catholics are a faction I kinda understand; they are my co-religionists with the 26+6=1 bumper stickers and the fund raising for Noraid when the local Catholic bishop who promised to put an end to this kind of thing wasn’t looking.
Irish Protestants somehow didn’t “compute” with me. Until some politics-geek acquaintence explained to me that “Ian Paisley (the firebrand Ulster Unionist) would be at home talking to George Wallace voters.”
I am not saying that Sarah Palin is in any way anti-black, although when Colin Powell came out and endorsed Obama for president, he as much as hinted that the McCain ticket was tilted towards a nativist-white demographic (the bit about giving too much cred to “small-town America.”)
Furthermore, when the black/white racial divide come up, everyone thinks “American civil war: the ancestors of whites were plantation owners, the ancestors of blacks the forced labor.” The whites in our society who retain the most racial resentment are not of the plantation-owner class, the English aristocracy. One has to go beyond American Civil War and go back to the English Civil War to get inside their heads.
The question remains, why is Sarah Palin so hated? The English Civil War. The Red State/Blue State divide is a factional alignment from the English Civil War.
“According to polling, Palin is the only vice-presidential candidate to hurt a national ticket in modern history.”
Polling from whom? Media Matters?
Bill, polling from Jim’s butt. . . the polls I saw reported following the election showed Palin increased McCain’s support dramatically.
As an American, a veteran, and a decent man, McCain was a great choice. As a candidate or a politician, he’s a sackful of “meh.”
The “true agenda” remark amuses me. It is such a typical remark. The political elites are so steeped in duplicity they can’t believe everyone else isn’t. They particularly find it hard to believe that middle class evangelicals are sincere – probably because they’ve never met one. These folks need to get out more. George, if you’re ever in Houston I’d love to have a cup of coffee with you so we can get to know each other. No hidden agendas!
No, and neither could Reagan.
Reagan won with support from so-called “Reagan Democrats.” I don’t see any “Palin Democrats.”
I don’t see any “Palin Democrats.”
You haven’t been looking very hard.
“…Furthermore, when the black/white racial divide come up, everyone thinks “American civil war: the ancestors of whites were plantation owners, the ancestors of blacks the forced labor.”
Funny; coming from the Northern states originally (and now living in a formerly Southern one), I always equated the ancestors of white citizens today with the free men under Grant and especially Sherman, who laid down a path of destruction against their “fellow” – but slaveholding – whites (and liberated every black they could find on the way), and did it so effectively that the South would never be capable of rising again. And in the doing, paid a price in blood such as the US military has never paid, before or since.