June 30, 2009

"Palin and Cindy McCain, never soulmates."

Funny caption, for this picture:



Which is from this big (windy) Vanity Fair article about Sarah Palin.

246 comments:

1 – 200 of 246   Newer›   Newest»
traditionalguy said...

Sarah does things to win. Cindy is happy no matter how things turn out, since losing the Presidency is only a relief to Cindy.

nansealinks said...

sarah: clear vision uv protection built into eyeglasses.

cindy: shaded from the bright reality of life.

Sy said...

Thanks for telling us that Vanity Fair. We are brainless and can't figure that out ourselves.

Jason (the commenter) said...

I liked the article and I still adore her. Would she make a great President? Probably not; but she would make an awesome general. She should have joined the military instead of going into politics.

Jim said...

Talk about a thinly disguised hitjob. That article was pure venom from start to finish. It had no sources other than people who have an agenda to blame her for their own failures.

McCain was never the best candidate the Republican Party could put forth, and his advisers ran one of the most incompetent campaigns ever, in the history of ever. Schmidt and Wallace are the "anonymous sources" in the McCain campaign, and the author cites them as if they are separate people.

I could go on and on with the factual inaccuracies in the article, but what's the point? Vanity Fair is Obamaland, so there was never any possibility that they were going to publish an even-handed treatment of Palin.

Lem said...

Palin had the blow and Cindy had the dough.

Lem said...

That expression is priceless.

MadisonMan said...

The authors probably didn't mean to make me giggle when describing the Largest Pro-Life Banquet in the World serving thick slices of Roast Pork. I guess Vegetarian fare wouldn't cut it.

One problem with Sarah Palin for Republicans (IMO) is that the Party Leadership seems to resent her. At least, that's an impression I get. I'm sure they're happy for the funds she raises. Other than that, not so much love.

Rich B said...

A sure sign of how much the lefties hate and fear her. Once McCain lost, they lost interest, because he is no threat.

Another hit piece from Dee Dee's husband.

Darcy said...

LOL! They're still scared of Sarah!

Good, good, good. Made my day.

former law student said...

Palin's expression looks like Spitzer's at the press conference:

http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2008/03/23/amd_spitzer.jpg

Palin will nab the Christian conservative vote in 2012 -- poor Mike Huckabee. His only support will come from the women-should-be-silent crowd.

She should have joined the military instead of going into politics.

They don't let you start as General, or even leapfrog from Corporal to General. Palin's obvious attitude is "My way or the highway." "Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven."

rdkraus said...

The lady has remarkable charisma.

Too bad she's not a better candidate.

SteveR said...

MM: As a republican, I have a realistic view of Sarah Palin, I'm not convinced she's ready for the big time. But you are right, party leadership does not know what to do with her and that says a lot about what's wrong with them, not what's wrong with her, the slant of the media or the forces of the democrat party.

elHombre said...

"It Came from Wasilla"

It?

"Despite her disastrous performance in the 2008 election...."

Disastrous?

On goes the contest among the lefty mediaswine to see who can put the last nail in Palin's political coffin.

And now we have "John McCain’s top campaign officials talk[ing] more candidly than ever..." actually becoming the opener for a new hit piece.

McCain's top guys ran the worst presidential campaign in memory and continue the rich Republican tradition of stabbing other Republicans in the back. They mismanaged the campaign, they mishandled Palin and they are trying to salvage their justifiably shredded reputations by sniping.

Without Palin, they wouldn't have come within ten points of The One.

MadisonMan said...

SteveR, I think a more astute potential Candidate might find a way to work within the confines of the Party.

There seems to be a I'm going to do things this way and no other vibe to her, based on that article (Who knows if it's true). That mindset in Palin inspires people. But when Sotomayor displays the same mindset, not so much inspiration.

Jim said...

MadisonMan -

"One problem with Sarah Palin for Republicans (IMO) is that the Party Leadership seems to resent her. At least, that's an impression I get. I'm sure they're happy for the funds she raises. Other than that, not so much love."

The problem for the Republican leadership is that the base doesn't like them very much. As I keep having to explain to our Leftist friends, the reason for the low approval ratings for the Republican party are largely due to rank-and-file Republicans being tired of them running the party as "Democrat-Lite."

As to your comment as far as whether she is an "astute" candidate, I would argue that at this particular juncture she is far more astute than those within the party who complain about her behind the shield of being "an anonymous GOP source."

Sarah Palin scares the bejeezus out of them because she doesn't owe her success to them. Her appeal is to the grassroots of the party who are seriously opposed to the way business gets done in Washington.

Despite the protestations of Leftists, she has bucked the party establishment. She has shown a willingness to go over waste, fraud and corruption within her own party (very much unlike the Democrats who are currently shielding the likes of Dodd, Conrad, Conyers, Jackson, Rangell, Moran, Murtha, Visclosky, etc. from investigation). And I've no doubt that there are a fair number of Republicans with their hands in the pot as well who are scared to death that an electoral victory for Palin means that the gravy train for them is going to screech to a grinding halt.

I have more faith in the base than I ever have in the leadership. Reagan wasn't exactly the status quo's favorite candidate either - until the groundswell of support made it clear that they either got on board or got run over.

Republicans (and conservatives of all stripes) have been ill-served by the go-along, get-along quasi-Democrats currently leading the party. It's long past time to clean house and start over.

former law student said...

McCain's top guys ran the worst presidential campaign in memory

Worse than John "above the fray" Kerry? Only a wuss would have let himself be swiftboated like that. Worse than tank turret Dukakis? Worse than "read my lips -- oops" GHW Bush?

McCain's only moment that came close to that was the campaign suspension. He never looked lke a wuss or a clown; he kept his dignity. He never, that I recall, was caught in any hypocrisy.

Jim said...

MM -

"There seems to be a I'm going to do things this way and no other vibe to her, based on that article (Who knows if it's true). That mindset in Palin inspires people. But when Sotomayor displays the same mindset, not so much inspiration."

Sotomayor is being nominated to an office which requires a certain degree of collegiality, a willingness to listen to all sides of an argument and to be persuaded by the force of a legal argument over whatever personal prejudices she might have. The disturbing part about Sotomayor is that she appears to lack the ability to do so.

On the other hand, Palin is now, and may potentially be a candidate for, a singular leader. The qualities required of a chief executive are far different than those expected of a person who is 1 of 9 equals.

As far as the article, judging Palin on that would be no more fair than basing your opinion of Obama on a column written for NewsMax: it's partisan and written for effect, not accuracy.

BJK said...

Facinating article, because it weaves together so many of the things we know about Palin with undocumented badmouthing.

Not surprised that she banged heads with the McCain people...who themselves ran a horrible campaign. The only time that McCain ran equal to Obama in the polls came right after the Palin announcement. He got-outfunded, out-messaged, and out-campaigned, which is not surprising given his tepid acceptance from the Republican base he had made a career out of poking with a stick. McCain's campaign used Palin to spark the home fires of the party base...and it worked.

Then the economy happened, and he hesitated to call the Obamanomics socialism. She wasn't afraid to throw elbows. Considering I can now by my government motors vehicle, and finance it through one of our government-run banks....which one of them got it right?

At the same time, I'll be one of the first to admit that I see a bit too much vindictiveness in her spokesperson's comments, with the 'keep her daughter away from David Letterman' line coming to mind immediately.

I don't know if Palin will make a successful candidate running on her own name. I do know that I won't be one of the only people tuning in for the 2012 Republican debates if she does run. She has a very natural charisma, and draws the attention (and ire) of political followers as a result. If she can step out of that crafted image as an intellectual lightweight, or if she can't, it will prove fun to watch.

Hoosier Daddy said...

One problem with Sarah Palin for Republicans (IMO) is that the Party Leadership seems to resent her.

Reagan wasn't exactly adored by the GOP elite either.

Fritz said...

Did Cindy's depends leak?

Jim right on; total hit piece.

Chase said...

The fact that Sarah Palin scares the left so fucking shitless is a delight I enjoy every day! It's the gift that keeps on giving - because the left will try to keep her in the negative marketing campaigns of bigotry and bitterness that they are so good at. Double standards anyone? It's eadsy on the left, because the world view allows for dishonesty and hatred in the name of "winning". You may believe that you know an honest liberal - that's an oxymoron. Liberals nice people? Of course. Morally bankrupt? It's a requirement.

The left is so afraid of this woman who makes them look selfish in their life choices,retarded in their political values and weak in their moral judgments. But - as in everything political - the circle will come back to bite every hate-filled anti-Palin in the ass.

Or better yet, the pussy.

Delicious!

Beth said...

But, but, but....

Where are the funny captions, like the Michelle has a big ass and doesn't like that pretty French lady captions? Isn't that what this picture was about? Where did the wit go?

Hoosier Daddy said...

As I keep having to explain to our Leftist friends, the reason for the low approval ratings for the Republican party are largely due to rank-and-file Republicans being tired of them running the party as "Democrat-Lite."


Precisely. Somehow the usual suspects on the left seem to think that the GOPs low approval means all those former gun toting bible clutching rednecks have voluntarily disarmed themselves and denounced Jesus to become welfare adoring atheists.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I think the fact that the media is still focused on Palin says a lot more about them than it does her. I don't think there has ever been a more intenstive media attention focused on a vice presidential candidate than her.

What does that really say? If she was so little of a threat to the liberals she'd have fallen off the radar screen 6 months ago.

Chase said...

But when Sotomayor displays the same mindset, not so much inspiration.

Because:

1) everyone knows instinctively that Sotomayor will most likely take action against or or on behalf of someone because of their race. And
2) everyone instinctively knows Palin would not.

Chase said...

Where did the wit go?

The constant over the top hatred of the left killed it, Beth.

Your people killed it.

Beth, tell us if you believe that Palin has been treated fairly in the press.

Beth said...

Chase, grow up. No funny caption? What a shame.

Chase said...

But just for you Beth,

"I can definitely smell Rosie O'Donell's BO. She's here somewhere - there's no mistaking that odor."

Chase said...

Oh Beth - you won't answer, because, well . . .

you can't. Who's the grown-up?

L. E. Lee said...

I'm am becoming more convinced by the day that Sarah Palin is the BEST candidate for the Republicans in 2012.
But what can I say? I am a Democrat.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

There seems to be a I'm going to do things this way and no other vibe to her, based on that article (Who knows if it's true). That mindset in Palin inspires people.

And about effing time too. The Republican party has become a pale shade of the Democrats. If they ever want to win anything again, they need to listen up to what the people want, talk plainly, forcefully and don't back down. Become the CONSERVATIVE voice. Low taxes, small government (God! Now even Obama wants to tell me what kind of light bulbs to use. Back the fuck off!!!!!).

How about reading the bills you are passing and actually evaluating the ramifications. Nah....that would require integrity.

The article was nauseating. Innuendo and lies all gussied up in, what my grandmother would call two dollar words.

Jim said...

fls -

McCain let Obama define him and get away with calling him "dishonorable" when he was no such thing. He also suffered with the conservative base by not taking a stronger stand against the slanders and slurs being directed at Palin. 7 million conservatives stayed home on Election Day due to his weakness in the campaign and his anti-conservative stands on many issues.

He mishandled the media because he thought that they would be more fair to him than they were. He had always been a media darling because of his reputation for attacking his fellow Republicans, and I think he was genuinely flumoxed when they turned against him so viciously in the general campaign.

He wasn't what the base wanted, and when you can't even convince your own party that you're the best man for the job there's very little chance you're going to be able to convince anyone else.

Chase said...

But L.E. Lee, that's because you are a hater of successful women and fearful of them being in charge.

So letting us know you were a Democrat was redundant.

But thanks for the effort.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Worse than John "above the fray" Kerry? Only a wuss would have let himself be swiftboated like that.

Or someone who was actually guilty of the accusations. :-D

Begin refuting.....don't waste your pixels. I personally know some of the swiftboat personnel and I would trust them with my life and know they speak the truth.

And yes. John McCain ran a pitiful campaign and had less than tepid support from the rank and file of the party base UNTIL he put Sarah on the ticket.

Synova said...

I think that the picture is funny. It's a *horrible* face. LOL. She should really try *very* hard not to do that.

But I'm weird that way... my favorite picture of Bush ever was the one the guy at the Blame Bush website had up... the one where the camera captured him with his eyebrows up and his mouth a little "o".

I'd try for a caption but I have no talent at them.

Chase said...

I also know someone who served with Kerry in Vietnam - His son works in one of companies. He'll stake his very life that the swiftboating charges are true. Kerry wouldn't because he can't.

Typical of the left.

David said...

What a surprise that Cindy and Sarah were not soul mates! Could they be any more different? Rich Girl vs. Self Made Woman. Blue Plate Special vs. Fashion Plate. Hunter vs. Huntress. Brunette vs. Blonde. Country Club vs. Country. Candidate vs. Candidate Spouse.

Don't get me wrong. I like both of them. Both have done some admirable things in their lives. But who would think they would be best pals?

Chase said...

The left hates successful women who choose outside the script. Hell, any lesbian with 15 children, 6 of them retarded, even Downs, could be a successful Democrat candidate.

You know that's reality. Why are Democrats afraid to say it?

former law student said...

The Republican party has become a pale shade of the Democrats.

Nah, the other way around. Obama's running up deficits as if he were Reagan or the Bushes. DADT and DOMA are securely in place. The bank bailouts follow the path Reagan blazed for the Continental Illinois National Bank (RIP), at the time the nation's seventh largest bank. The CINB bailout was perhaps the first time "too big to fail" was coined. (Oilpatch bank Penn Square failed first, taking CINB down with it.)

Chase said...

Obama's running up deficits as if he were Reagan or the Bushes

Obama has run up a historic deficit, multiples beyond all of the Bush and Reagan years. In one year.

That's the left for you.

L. E. Lee said...

Chase wrote
"But L.E. Lee, that's because you are a hater of successful women and fearful..."
Dear Chase, please go back and read what I wrote. I think Sarah Palin would be the perfect candidate to represent the current Republican Party. I wish her almost every success in the world in 2012!

former law student said...

Begin refuting.....don't waste your pixels.

True, false, whatever. You don't just stand there like a gump and let your enemies define you, to borrow Jim's phrase, if you want to be taken seriously as a candidate.

Chase said...

L.E. Lee

DO I understand you correctly?

Do you wish her to win the Presidency in 2012?

Jim said...

Chase -

"Liberals nice people? Of course. Morally bankrupt? It's a requirement."

I would add a caveat to that. When you're talking about the Leftist leadership of the Democratic Party and the various constituent special interest groups, you're absolutely dead on.

However, much like you can draw a distinction between Republican leadership and the conservative base, in many cases you can draw the same lines between the leadership (and the most vocal of those who support it) and the rank-and-file liberal supporters.

There are a great number of very well-intentioned people who seek to achieve liberal goals. Gay marriage is a prime example. I believe that the vast majority of those who support gay marriage do so because they genuinely believe that it's a civil rights issue and a matter of basic fairness. However, we've already discussed the cynicism with which the Democratic Party deals with the issue and gays have been betrayed by the leadership of organizations which purport to represent their interests.

There are a lot of misconceptions about the true impacts of many policies which are advanced in the name of these liberal causes: most of which are created in Democratic Party HQ and willingly disseminated by the MSM.

I have many discussions with such people, and I cannot say that they are anything less than earnest in their desires to be forces for positive change. They often don't understand the implications and consequences of the particular solutions their leadership is offering, and are often horrified when they find out. (For example, the permanent dependent class which welfare creates.)

Most people just never think that deeply about their politics. They think about what feels good to believe and vote for the person who tells them what they want to hear without giving it a second thought.

The Democratic Party has exploited these people for years, and in states across the country the chickens are coming home to roost. People are finding out how financially (and, in many cases, morally) bankrupt those policies are, and they're getting mad.

Just keep talking to people of good will with open minds. You'll never open the closed minds, so don't waste your time. But you'll find that there's a lot more common ground between Americans as to the goals we want to achieve: it's a matter of the rank-and-files on both sides of the aisle pushing aside the entrenched interests of the party and sitting down to find mutually acceptable solutions.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Palin's obvious attitude is "My way or the highway."

You mean like when Obama told John Kyl of AZ, "I won so I trump you.'

Is that kind of attitude you mean?

Cedarford said...

Rich B said...
A sure sign of how much the lefties hate and fear her. Once McCain lost, they lost interest, because he is no threat.
.



I'd say it is little fear and just a visceral dislike of Palin by the Left, regular Dems, and Independents - particularly women and minorities. Similar to the feeling the White Right had for the undeniably charismatic but detested, slogan-spewing, Jesse Jackson back in the 80s and 90s.

==============
Jim - As I keep having to explain to our Leftist friends, the reason for the low approval ratings for the Republican party are largely due to rank-and-file Republicans being tired of them running the party as "Democrat-Lite.".

Perhaps nothing would please Democrats and Obama more than Republicans continuing their self-suicide of calling anyone who believes in evolution and is to the Left of Barry Goldwater a "RHINO".

Goldwater carried AZ and 5 states of the then-primitive Deep South. A Palin strategy just substitutes Alaska for Arizona.

A Religious Right-led Rump Party of true believers viable in only a few States might condemn Republicans to a period as long as the Democrats suffered irrelevancy under the McGovernites. (22 years, 1972-1994)

It wasn't Reagan that rebuilt the Republicans, it was Nixon and a cast of very good, influential moderate Republicans mostly outside FundieLand (but offering them an outreached hand if they bolted from the Wallace Wing of the Dem Party) that saved the Party.
Had Wallace not run in 1968, Nixon would have had a landslide after the Goldwater debacle that rivalled the size of his greatest electoral victory ever in a Presidential election. (Carrying everything but Mass and DC).

Reagan came in as a personal conservative but a practicing pragmatist. Not only as Governor, but also as the guy who would show up for the fundraisers of Vermont Republicans of an almost liberal bent, running against a reactionary firebreather still sporting his Goldwater "Extremism" button who would be doomed in the general election.
Reagan was the guy who invented the "11th Commandment of Republicans". But who also ruthlessly purged racists and fargone deranged religious Fundies from power positions in the Party.

Beth said...

Chase, is the Rosie joke because I'm a lesbian? Wow, you're really a dimwit.

chickenlittle said...

Chi ha fatto la puzza?

Synova said...

"There seems to be a I'm going to do things this way and no other vibe to her, based on that article (Who knows if it's true). That mindset in Palin inspires people."

Mostly because it's an equal-opportunity mindset, I think. She ran against a corrupt Republican Party in Alaska, how else could she look at things other than we're going to do this my way?

And yet... at the same time she demonstrates a very strong willingness to make decisions other than what her own preferences are in response to political realities.

Defying the status-quo and attempting changes in "business as usual" takes an enormous amount of energy and she had people who were supposed to be *her* people who were making budget promises on the side... and her corrective measures that didn't even involve outright *firing* the guy get portrayed as controlling and vindictive?

*Yes* the 'my way and no other' inspires people to think she isn't going to let herself be managed by others and pushed into their agenda, that *she* will handle the handlers.

And incidentally... isn't it curious that the *handlers* disliked her so much?

elHombre said...

[McCain's campaign] Worse than John "above the fray" Kerry? ... Worse than tank turret Dukakis? Worse than ... GHW Bush?

Worse. Kerry and Dukakis were losers from the start. Bush 41 was cooked the minute Perot got into it.

While Jim's assessment is correct, McCain actually had chances and blew them, partially to preserve an overweening self image, partially because his handlers were incompetent.

Jim said...

chase -

"Kerry wouldn't because he can't."

Kerry's basic problem was that he was caught in multiple deceptions:

a) His claims to have spent Christmas in Cambodia.
b) That it was revealed that he threw somebody else's medals over the wall not his own.
c) Swore up and down that he would sign the form to release his military records, yet - to this day - has pointedly never done so.

etc.

He could never really gain traction against the Swift Boat Vets because even his allies who tried to defend him always ran up against certain obvious lies that he had told in his post-war self-aggrandizement.

It offends the Left to mention it, and they constantly refer to "Swiftboating" as telling lies in order to besmirch someone's reputation. To this day however, I am not aware of any accusation they made which was proven false. There has also never been any admission by Leftists that Kerry was caught lying, provably so, in several instances.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

You don't just stand there like a gump and let your enemies define you, to borrow Jim's phrase

FLS. That we do agree on.

AJ Lynch said...

FLS:

As DBQ stated, Kerry did not refute the Swiftboat charges because the charges were accurate.

Synova said...

"I also know someone who served with Kerry in Vietnam - His son works in one of companies. He'll stake his very life that the swiftboating charges are true. Kerry wouldn't because he can't."

Kerry's problem is that too many people remembered his anti-war activities, Winter Soldier and Ghengis Khan... just like it was yesterday.

Bad campaign decision to present him as a war hero and answer to the concerns of the pro-victory pro-military right. BAD judgment. And in that respect, yes, his campaign directors LET him be swiftboated.

It showed incredible disdain for people with military service... just give them a veteran and the dummies will fall in line... and we can get the anti-war crowd too... win-win!!

Idiotic campaign decisions which, I suppose, does put him in the running with McCain for worst run campaign in recent history.

former law student said...

You mean like when Obama told John Kyl of AZ, "I won so I trump you.'

Now that you mention it, John Kyl is very much a "my way or the highway" type of guy:

Foreign Policy 6/19/09


All State Department nominees are on hold, some Hill and other sources tell The Cable.

A congressional source says that Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) put a hold on all State Department nominees earlier this week because he is not satisifed with the information he has been receiving from the administration on the progress of arms control negotiations with Russia.

But Kyl invited a slapdown back in November, when he "issued a warning to Obama" November 7, 2008:
Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, warned president-elect Barack Obama that he would filibuster U.S. Supreme Court appointments if those nominees were too liberal.

rocketeer67 said...

There seems to be a I'm going to do things this way and no other vibe to her, based on that article (Who knows if it's true). That mindset in Palin inspires people. But when Sotomayor displays the same mindset, not so much inspiration.

It shouldn't be hard at all to understand why that mindset would be admirable, even advantageous, in an executive, and a disqualifying charateristic for a judge.

kynefski said...

I probably won't read the article, but I note that it starts with, "..Sarah Palin is still the sexiest brand in Republican politics."

Then the first sidebar refers to a poll on "Who is the most powerful woman in the G.O.P.?" It shows a photo of Saint Ann, and the link leads, appropriately, to a Content Not Found page.

You know what? If I were Professor Rice, I would be really, really pissed.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Well then it looks like Obama has a lot in common with Kyl and Palin don't he?

Jim said...

Synova -

"...and her corrective measures that didn't even involve outright *firing* the guy get portrayed as controlling and vindictive?"

It was part and parcel of the multiple sexist attacks on Palin. "Controlling" and "vindictive" are usually adjectives saved for women while men are usually "strong" and "punshing disloyalty."

As the father of a little girl and husband of a very strong-willed woman, the attacks on Palin were disturbing. Those who claimed to be the strongest advocates for the rights of women were the first to attack her in the worst possible sexist and demeaning manner.

They would never have gone after a man's family the way they have gone after Palin's family. Never in our political history has an entire political movement spent so much time and venom going after a candidate's family. It's now been 9 months, and still we are dealing with attacks on her family: a losing vice-presidential candidate's family. And still they can't let up, because the way to most effectively wound a woman is by going after her family.

It's mean. It's nasty. It's sexist, and it's ugly. And it says much more about the true feelings of supposed supporters of equality than it does about Palin.

Synova said...

"But Kyl invited a slapdown back in November, when he "issued a warning to Obama" November 7, 2008:
Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, warned president-elect Barack Obama that he would filibuster U.S. Supreme Court appointments if those nominees were too liberal.
"

To be fair...

Wasn't this Senator Obama's opinion thrown back at him?

Obama, as president, might say "I won" as if it was important, but did he express that because Bush had "won" that the Senate was supposed to go along with his Supreme Court nominations?

Or did he say the opposite, and pretty much express the same opinion as Kyl?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

And incidentally... isn't it curious that the *handlers* disliked her so much?


OT: I find the term 'handlers' in conjunction with people offensive. Is as if they think that the person being handled is on the level of a 4-H animal being shown for grading and prizes. It is a complete lack of respect for the candidate and reveals who they truly believe to be 'in charge' of the process. The handlers are more important and the candidate must be packaged, groomed and treated like a trained seal.

This process is why we have such shitty candidates and such abysmal (so called) representatives in government. Vote for a trained seal and look what it gets us.

Jeremy said...

This portion of the article pretty much sums up what you get with Princess Sarah:

More than once in my travels in Alaska, people brought up, without prompting, the question of Palin’s extravagant self-regard.

Several told me, independently of one another, that they had consulted the definition of “narcissistic personality disorder” in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—“a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy”—and thought it fit her perfectly.

When Trig was born, Palin wrote an e-mail letter to friends and relatives, describing the belated news of her pregnancy and detailing Trig’s condition; she wrote the e-mail not in her own name but in God’s, and signed it “Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father.”

former law student said...

Wasn't this Senator Obama's opinion thrown back at him?

Obama had not expressed any opinion, having just been elected. Kyl made the pre-emptive strike.

Obama reminded Kyl of who had won after Kyl threatened him with a filibuster to his face, in the Roosevelt room. It was an appropriate occasion to remind Kyl of his place in the scheme of things.

Never in our political history has an entire political movement spent so much time and venom going after a candidate's family


I can't remember any candidate's family ever offering so many targets of opportunity. The Palins seemed more like part of All My Children.

Invisible Man said...

As the father of a little girl and husband of a very strong-willed woman, the attacks on Palin were disturbing.

It's always funny to me how many Republicans have become born-again feminists. Republicans dIidn't care when it was jokes about Janet Reno, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Chelsea. Hell, even Sarah Palin is quoted about not caring about sexism until she decided to deride her critics as sexist. But now they are shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU!

Synova said...

"Obama had not expressed any opinion, having just been elected. Kyl made the pre-emptive strike."

Oh, come on now! Obama had no opinions before he was elected President? Really?

While he was a Senator (which is why I very carefully said Senator Obama) did he not expressly and explicitly voice the opinion that he would not and had no obligation to view the then-President's Supreme Court nominations as favorably as possible? Did he not, actually, vote against every single one of them?

Synova said...

"It's always funny to me how many Republicans have become born-again feminists."

It's even funnier how the Democrats prove they never were.

I'm laughing.

Are you?

Jeremy said...

Dust Bunny Queen said..."I find the term 'handlers' in conjunction with people offensive."

What would you suggest?

Let the Princess handle everything with Todd?

Naive to say the least.

Jeremy said...

Jason (the commenter) said..."I liked the article and I still adore her."

"...adore her..."

Good lord...

Jeremy said...

Synova says: "It's even funnier how the Democrats prove they never were."

So now the Democrats no longer represent the "feminist" movement...it's really the Republicans who do?

You get crazier every day.

Jeremy said...

Hoosier Daddy said..."Reagan wasn't exactly adored by the GOP elite either."

And exactly who is this "GOP elite" you're referring to?

Bullshit...as usual.

AJ Lynch said...

Jeremy said"

"Several told me, independently of one another, that they had consulted the definition of “narcissistic personality disorder” in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—“a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy”—and thought it fit her perfectly. "

Sure Gene, that sounds like a spontaneous comment that you could hear from anyone anytime.

chickenlittle said...

I for one love being able to read that VF article for free without feeling the compunction to support the author. I mean, who actually buys this stuff?

knox said...

Vanity Fair: Us Weekly for New York liberals. Guilt-free gossip!

I'd love to know exactly what went on in the McCain campaign. If his people were displeased with her, she must have been doing something right.

My theory has always been that she came in ready to rumble, and found that her running mate had already given up. Really, once Obama became his opponent, McCain lost his taste for fighting, and seemed primarily interested in preserving his moderate, media-darling image. This, understandably, pissed off Palin, and trouble ensued. Just a theory.

Palin initiated some ginormous energy plan in Alaska recently that has me questioning her conservative bonafides. If a republican calls for massive government action for the sake of the "environment," I am pretty disappointed.

Jeremy said...

The Princess - "At a time when declining oil prices have thrown the state budget into the red, that she did not want to accept about a third of the $930 million in federal stimulus money available to Alaska, because it would come with too many big-government strings attached.

The move seemed calculated to burnish her national conservative credentials. In the face of bipartisan outcry, Palin’s aides insisted she had never meant to say she wouldn’t take the money, only that she wanted to review the matter carefully. That was news to former aide Larry Persily.

After the first meeting on the stimulus money, Persily told me, “Everyone in the room left thinking she’d said no. Then her staff said, ‘She didn’t say no. She just didn’t say yes.”’

Palin wound up taking all but about 3 percent of the $900 million available to Alaska."

The woman will say literally anything to ingratiate herself with conservatives...even if it is a blatant lie.

Synova said...

"I can't remember any candidate's family ever offering so many targets of opportunity."

I can think of quite a few "targets" off-hand but they never got the same attention. Are you so certain that you can't remember only because there were none? The "rule" was to leave politicians children alone. At what point did the rule become "leave politicians children alone unless they do something that looks bad and will get you air time, and while you're at it pursue the boyfriend and his family"?

Just curious.

former law student said...

did he not expressly and explicitly voice the opinion that he would not and had no obligation to view the then-President's Supreme Court nominations as favorably as possible? Did he not, actually, vote against every single one of them?

Oh, gotcha.

The difference: Kyl did not merely announce he would vote against the President's nominees. By threatening filibuster, Kyl warned that he would not let the President's nominees even come up for a vote.

Jeremy said...

knox said..."I'd love to know exactly what went on in the McCain campaign. If his people were displeased with her, she must have been doing something right."

Right.

Whenever you choose someone to be your running mate, you always hope he or she does whatever he or she can do to displease you.

That makes for a winning...oh, sorry...losing team.

Chase said...

Jeremy's fear of real women is palpable. It stems from his breastfeeding until 22 years old.

But then again, most liberals would breastfeed into adulthood if they could. And on someone else's wife or daughter. And then make it a legal mandate.

Beth said...

Surely the Carter relatives offered up some fun targets, didn't they? And who's relative was filmed peeing on a runway? All those messy Reagan kids were fun, too - blended family issues, political tantrums, probably some drug issues, if I recall correctly. And there's that dog, Chelsea Clinton. Attacks on politicians' kids are always ugly - the reflect on the attacker, not the kid. But political families do get pulled into the fray, it's a fact.

Chase said...

Get ready Democrats and liberals - every single reputable poll shows support for Obama's policies on the way down and his negatives slowly but surely rising. It's at the tipping point and that's WITH the Sanford incident. His Supreme Court nominee just got bitch slapped by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and all of the other 8 Justices! And when the White House starts leaking trial balloons to test a middle class tax hike - which EVERY SINGLE economist of every political stripe said had to happen, which of course makes Obama a liar, well it doesn;t get more delicious than this.


C'mon 2010!

chefmojo said...

What I don't get, Jeremy, is this: If committed liberals such as yourself think this way about Palin, wouldn't you want her to be at the top of the GOP ticket in '12? If Palin is the shallow, lying, vacant bundle of incompetence you make her out to be, doesn't this set you up ideally in the next election? I mean, talk about a gimme! Really, Jeremy. Please explain to me why liberals go out of their way to say the things you do, and put so much effort into destroying Palin and her family if Palin represents the future destruction of the Republican Party, an entity you despise above all others.

Work with me here, boy. The disconnect is troubling and bordering on pathological.

Chase said...

But political families do get pulled into the fray, it's a fact.

So Beth - what do you think about that beyond "It's a fact"? Your liberal mindset won't allow you to call something wrong when it's wrong?


I'm disappointed in you Beth. I thought you could stand up and answer rather than throw stuff like a monkey and then run away.

But that's to be expected from someone with a victim/liberal worldview.

Jim said...

Synova -

"At what point did the rule become "leave politicians children alone unless they do something that looks bad and will get you air time, and while you're at it pursue the boyfriend and his family"?"

- Right around September 2009. As soon as the Obama campaign decided that the only way to thwart her momentum was through thuggish intimdation. Axelrod unleashed the Leftist zombie hordes hiding behind their Internet anonymity to do what they themselves were too cowardly to say to her face.

John said...

"One problem with Sarah Palin for Republicans (IMO) is that the Party Leadership seems to resent her. At least, that's an impression I get. I'm sure they're happy for the funds she raises. Other than that, not so much love."

That is very true Madison Man. You have to remember that the Republican Party Leadership is part of the same club as the Democratic Leadership. The establishment cannot and will not tolerate some nobody from Alaska crashing the party.

IN the end I think the resentment of her by the Republican Leadership may work in her favor. The way things are going, people are very tired of the beltway establishment in both parties. The resentment expressed in things like the tea parties is not "OMG we must put the good old Republicans back in.". It is "OMG our entire politcal class is looting the country."

Hoosier Daddy said...

Bullshit...as usual.

Hi Michael. How are you this fine Tuesday? I'm great thanks for asking. Speaking of bullshit and lies, what do you think of your messiah now open to the suggestion of taxing health benefits when he pilloried McCain for the same idea? Gotta pay for that additional welfare state somehow I guess.

Got any substantive reply to that or are you just going to ask me for oral sex?

Chase said...

Jeremy, who lies like breathing, accuses Palin of lying without any examples or evidence.

But being a congenital liar, of course he would say it, even when it doesn't apply.

Which is evidence of a liar.

Jeremy, you crack us all up.

Jim said...

fls -

"Kyl warned that he would not let the President's nominees even come up for a vote."

Kind of like Obama filibustering because he opposed the nominee's ideology.

Thanks for clarifying who started this whole thing.

Chase said...

Hoosier,

Got any substantive reply to that or are you just going to ask me for oral sex?

You asking Jeremy that?

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.


Thank you.

C'mon 2010!

Jim said...

Chase -

"Get ready Democrats and liberals - every single reputable poll shows support for Obama's policies on the way down and his negatives slowly but surely rising."

The problem for Obama is that personal approval is a lagging indicator. What always comes first is disapproval for policies, and the polling on his policies either already is or is on the verge of being net negative. That means that his personal approval rating is a "bubble." How much of a bubble? Just look at the gap between his policy approval numbers and his personal approval numbers: that number is widening as the public mood continues to sour on the economy. The wider the gap, the faster the bubble will pop and the farther it will fall.

Democrats are whistling past the graveyard by taking solace in his current personal approval ratings much the same way that many "economists" are claiming that because the rate of decline is decreasing that somehow it means the economy has reached a bottom.

former law student said...

Kind of like Obama filibustering because he opposed the nominee's ideology.

Thanks for clarifying who started this whole thing.


You know, Jim, maybe you don't realize this: making stuff up hurts your credibility.

As a Senator, Obama opposed filibustering Bush's nominees:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/102745/165

http://wjz.com/national/Barack.Obama.Illinois.2.262974.html

Dust Bunny Queen said...

To get somewhat back on track...

Does anyone know where that photo was taken and what was the occasion? Palin has a very sad disgusted face and even Cindy has a somewhat (as best you can with botox) sad expression too.

JAL said...

OK. So I didn't even read the whole thing. I did note this in my brief foray:

Palins extended family makes her unfit.

And how exactly does Barack Obama's family background not read (what one could find out about it, given that that is enhanced) like a made for TV movie? His mom was getting knocked up as a teenager (Letterman -- is that a joke?) by an older Kenyan international student in Hawaii? His grandfather took him to a porno bar regularly? His boyhood mentor was a Communist?

Palin did star in a week-long seriocomic feud with David Letterman over some of his borderline jokes.

Got it? "borderline jokes." Oh. Forget the note above about Obama's mother.

We got it. The left are hypocritical jerks.

Note the elitist mocking of the unwashed masses?

And this:

What does her prominence say about the importance of having (or lacking) a record of achievement in public life?

Did anyone ask about Barack Obama's record of achievement the previous couple years when he was campaigning?

Why did so many skilled veterans of the Republican Party—long regarded as the more adroit [adroit?] team in presidential politics—keep loyally working for her election even after they privately realized she was casual about the truth and totally unfit for the vice-presidency?

"...casual with the truth..." "totally unfit for the vice presidency"? Can anyone out there on the left say J-o-e B-i-d-e-n? Mmmm?

And this:

Her singular refusal to have in-depth conversations with the national media—even Richard Nixon and Dick Cheney, among the most saturnine political figures in modern American history, each submitted to countless detailed interviews over the years —

Over the years. Get that? She gets the nod in September 2008, the election is in November 2008 and she is compared to Nixon and Cheney over years. This was written in -- ummm -- May or June 2009?

Those are just a few of the things which made the article not worth reading.

Palin "fires" people and it raises eyebrows. Obama FIRES CEOS of private companies and the MSM studiously observe its hang nails. Obama FIRES independent Inspector Generals and the MSM repeats the meme that they were surely demented or inept, by virtue of the fact that Barack Obama does absolutely no wrong.

I don't know if Sarah Palin would get elected. But I actually do think she might be doing a better job at finding good solutions to the crises we are facing these days.

For one I think she could have figured out that the Honduran president was screwing with their constitution.

When the POTUS's driving goal is to redistribute everyone (else's) wealth in this vile nation of the United States she could not make it worse.

Jim said...

Hoosier -

"Speaking of bullshit and lies, what do you think of your messiah now open to the suggestion of taxing health benefits when he pilloried McCain for the same idea?"

Even the White House press corps was laughing out loud at Obama's mouthpiece yesterday when he tried to dance out of a question about Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on people making less than $250K.

Taxing medical benefits is the least of our concerns about the lies Obama told on the campaign trail: he's got his eyes set on much bigger prizes, and even Gibbs wasn't able to deny it.

JAL said...

Oh yeah. One more thing.

Given the ugly job the media was doing on Cindy McCain during the campaign, why should Purdum note disparagingly "never soulmates."

Would that not be a plus?

kynefski said...

His Supreme Court nominee just got bitch slapped by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and all of the other 8 Justices!

I'd been under the mistaken impression that Ginsburg wrote the dissent.

But then, what do I know? I'm just a minimally informed American.

Chase said...

Think for a minute who writes and edits Vanity Fair.

Just think about it.

Contributions to humanity and progress of society = ZERO.

Worthless, valueless human beings.

Sad.

Jim said...

fls -

FAIL

Obama votes to filibuster Alito.

Your apology will be accepted any time you're man enough to offer one.

bagoh20 said...

Pre-lugie and post-lugie

MadisonMan said...

Since no one else is putting up a caption:

Oh My God. Here comes her husband.

Jim said...

kynefski -

"I'd been under the mistaken impression that Ginsburg wrote the dissent."

She did. And in her dissent she said that Sotomayor decided the case wrongly because she should have remanded the case back to District Court rather than dismissing it as she did.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

But then, what do I know? I'm just a minimally informed American

Obviously.

While Ginsberg dissented she also chastised Sotomayor for the lower court's cavalier actions as did EVERY OTHER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, whether they agreed or disagreed. They all agreed that the lower courts did not properly handle the case. Very troubling for a nominee to the Supreme Court to have everyone bitch slap you around a bit.

You might try to read a little deeper than just skimming MSNBC's headlines.

AJ Lynch said...

Todd Purdum is the same guy who wrote a hit piece on Bill Clinton last December.

Bill Clinton went a bit ballistic.

MadisonMan said...

I'd been under the mistaken impression that Ginsburg wrote the dissent.

But then, what do I know? I'm just a minimally informed American.

The meme is that every single of the USSC justices disagreed with the lower court, but they just couldn't agree on the part of the law that was wrong. I think that's where the 9-0 comes from.

IANAL. I suspect it is stretching reality.

John said...

"I'd been under the mistaken impression that Ginsburg wrote the dissent.

But then, what do I know? I'm just a minimally informed American."


Actually yes you would be a typical misinformed liberal. All nine Justices agreed that Sotomayer appied the wrong standard. They just disagreed about what the proper standard should be. Sotomayor found the liberal result, but for a reason that even the liberals on the court could not agree with. That in fact does make her out of the mainstream. Law is not football where you tally the score. Why you make a dicision means as much as what that decision is.

Chase said...

I'd been under the mistaken impression that Ginsburg wrote the dissent.

No mistake, kynefski.
But Ginsburg also wrote in footnote 10 that, though she didn't want to overturn the decision of the Second Circuit (which included Sonia Sotomayor), she thought it was poorly decided and should have been looked at much better.

So, Sonia and co got reprimanded by her own idelogical allies. That's how poor a choice for Supreme Court Justice she is.


But then, what do I know? I'm just a minimally informed American.

No comment.

AlphaLiberal said...

Excellent picture. Yup. She's a nutjob.

Palin 2012!

John said...

"IANAL. I suspect it is stretching reality"

How so other than you like Sotomayor and won't tolerate criticism of her?

JAL said...

As for the Republicans -- I saw someplace recently the new moniker -- Rhinoscrewus.

Many people who identitfy themselves as Republicans did NOT wnat McCain.

We do not want Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

We want the Feds not only out of our bedrooms (sound familiar?), we want them out off our light fixtures, our basements, our attics, our insulation. We want them out of our private property sales. We want them out of our gas and propane tanks. We want them out of our health care.

We want smaller Federal government. We want self rule, not Washington rule.

Go away.

Jeremy said...

Chase said..."Jeremy's fear of real women is palpable."

What in the world does my opinion of Princess Sarah have to do with that insane comment?

What are you, twelve years old?

Beth said...

Chase, again, you're a nitwit. Read the sentence in my comment right before the one you pulled and quoted. You idiot.

Chase said...

Madison Man said:

I suspect it is stretching reality.

Of course you do.

But read the comment I gave citing Ginsburg's decision above.

Another liberal served.

John said...

"Excellent picture. Yup. She's a nutjob.

Palin 2012!"


No more nutty than a President who has yet to meet an American enemy he doesn't like or an American ally he doesn't scold. What was Obama's first act of foreign policy? To piss all over the British in hopes of pleasing the memory of his deadbeat communist daddy. Eventually the full extent of Obama's neurosis will be revealed and no one will ever admit having voted for him.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Obama reminded Kyl of who had won after Kyl threatened him with a filibuster to his face, in the Roosevelt room. It was an appropriate occasion to remind Kyl of his place in the scheme of things.

You know FLS, it doesn't help your credibility when you make stuff up.

Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.”

The statement was prompted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona , who challenged the president and the Democratic leaders over the balance between the package’s spending and tax cuts, bringing up the traditional Republican notion that a tax credit for people who do not earn enough to pay income taxes is not a tax cut but a government check.

Jim said...

MadisonMan -

"IANAL. I suspect it is stretching reality."

Actually it's not.

Ginsburg was, in essence, criticizing Sotomayor for being sloppy and lazy.

In Sotomayor's single paragraph, she said that the facts were not in dispute. That tied Ginsburg's hands when trying to find a place to "hang her hat" in justifying her decision. Ginsburg had to really tie herself into knots to justify a dissent, and it's quite evident that she was extremely unhappy at Sotomayor for making her do so.

The majority opinion obviously found that her judgment in this case found lacking; but the minority found that she was sloppy. It's like being slapped twice on the face: once with the left hand, and once with the right.

Chase said...

Beth,

You have me. I thought you were being sarcastic in the comment previous to the one I quoted.

But obviously you were not.

And therefore I am wrong and owe you an apology.

I apologize.

kynefski said...

Y'all did indeed catch me not thinking.

My embarrassment and my apology.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Even the White House press corps was laughing out loud at Obama's mouthpiece yesterday when he tried to dance out of a question about Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on people making less than $250K.

Actually I hope they do it. I hope cap and trade gets passed, health care reform gets passed so I can watch guys like Alpha and Jeremy squirm when Obama's poll numbers sink to 10%.

All that stuff sounds groovy until the bill comes.

Methadras said...

Cindy made a stinky.

Beth said...

Thanks, Chase.

Beth said...

Methedras - that's it! That's a "who dealt it?" face! At last, a caption. Thanks.

Chase said...

Eventually the full extent of Obama's neurosis will be revealed and no one will ever admit having voted for him.

As much as I wish that were true, it will never quite be that way.

Even the most hated President in modern history - George W Bush - has favorable ratings slowly moving up.

Obama, despite his multiple faults and lack of maturity and experience, IS the President of the United States. As such, he will never be tossed aside completetly.

Plus, he has the advantage of having opposition that is just not into hatred like the people on his side are.

John said...

"What would possibly make you believe they would? You actually think the Republican voters have the power to shove her down their throats...after decades as the party leaders?"

The same way the new left shoved BO down the throats of the Clintonites with votes. By 2010 and 2012, no leader of either party will be able to show their face in the country. The barbarians really will be at the gates. I don't know that they will have Palin at their head. But whoever is at the lead, it won't be anyone currently associated with Washington.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Hoosier. You can undo cap and trade without too much difficulty. But to completely destroy the health system of the country through Obama's insane plan will be very difficult if impossible to roll back. Once you have killed an industry or the companies that are important to that industry (think GM) it is hard to revive the corpse.

peter hoh said...

She's got Eliot Spitzer face.

I wonder if Kim Carnes could turn that into a pop hit.

Chase said...

Anybody who follows national politics knows Newt, Pawlenty, Ridge and others will not relinquish control of who gets nominate

Newt and Ridge have NO pull in the national party - neither of them could get elected to anything ever again. Pawlenty doesn't even like Ridge.

But if that's what you think - and it represents other liberals - then YES JEREMY YOU ARE RIGHT.

John said...

Chase,

At some point it will become apparent that BO is not going to be re-elected. When that happens, probably in about October of 2012, the press will unload on him in a desparate bid to regain credibility. The media will rewrite history and pretend that they were always at odds with Obama and never happy with his Presidency. Mark my words, Obama will leave the Presidency a broken man without anyone claiming to be his friend. Unlike the two Bush's who had a life outside power and adoration, Obama will not take well to exile. He has been incredibly lucky in his life so far. Fate has a way of evening the score in the end.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier. You can undo cap and trade without too much difficulty. But to completely destroy the health system of the country through Obama's insane plan will be very difficult if impossible to roll back.

Well perhaps but honestly DBQ I am at the point where I think the liberals need to have their day in the sun and just go crazy. Lets have it all so everyone can see once and for all what these insane policies will do. Its kind of like letting the 18 year old out of the house because he/she is so much smarter than the two 50 year olds who raised them.

Yep its going to be painful and probably cause a lot of problems but I think its high time the liberals put our money where their mouth is. That way we can all let them know what we think of them in 2010 and 2012.

knox said...

Methedras - that's it! That's a "who dealt it?" face! At last, a caption. Thanks.

LOL. Fart jokes always win the thread.

peter hoh said...

Hillary Care met a quick end in 1993. You might think that at some point in the 16 years that followed, Republicans might have offered an alternative, free-market approach to health care reform.

bagoh20 said...

Why do they hate Palin? I know people who do, but their reasons are not solid. They say they hate her type or what she stands for or she's stupid and then start rattling off the crazy misinformation stuff.

But, what is it about her that get's them?

She seems to have done the right things:
Came from low station, self-created, fought corruption, created real change, shows how a woman can be powerful against men,
proves that a woman really can have it all, honorable personal life, charismatic, smart and tough.

I can't imagine that liberals would not love her if she was a Dem and pro-choice.

I think the only problem for Conservatives is whether or not she is ready to handle the strange requirements of national politics.

I was impressed with her against Biden after only 5 weeks in national politics against a man who spent his whole life there. It should have been no contest, but I felt she did well and forced him to make many factual errors and stupid assertions. Not that she didn't make mistakes, but it should have been a blow out.

Only 5 weeks! She was thrown into the ring with pros and did admirably considering her lack of experience in the world of bullshit.

AJ Lynch said...

I think Hooiser makes a good point. If all the Dem plans go thru, what career or industry will be left intact and still standing?

Kids who have half a brain will wonder when ambition and competition became so evil. Those kids may be the ones who have to change it back to a capitalist system.

And John is right too. The winning candiate in 2012 will not be from the DC party power structure. The economy may be so bad that Congress critters will hesitate to go out in public.

AJ Lynch said...

Peter:

McCain did in 2008 campaign. He proposed taxing fringe benefits and giving vouchers to every American.

But I think LaRaza wanted the vouchers to go to illegals as well. That killed the plan for voters.

Alex said...

As usual Jeremy proves his ignorance. The fact that he doesn't know Reagan was despised by the Rockefeller Republicans in the late 70s to 1980 period is more proof of that. Jeremy - read up on history dood.

Hoosier Daddy said...

And God knows we wouldn't want to disturb the spectacular system we have right now. Ridiculous policy rates, 47 million with no insurance, escalating costs year after year...

And God knows that it will be fixed by the Federal government who is running Medicare into insolvency by 2018 and has done a bang up job with other public welfare programs like public housing.

Man I can't wait for Obama care! I mean I have to wait 3 months now for an appointment with my PCP and I have insurance. It'll be tons of fun to have to schedule those annual physicals six-seven months out. But I bet Ted Kennedy won't have to wait in line for his first class treatment though.

We're all Mary Jo Kopechnes now.

Alex said...

The whole deal with single-payer is one of a Communist outlook. Basically bring down the rest of us to the level of health care that the 47 million uninsured get. Tear us down, rather then build them up is the mantra. But that's a Commie for ya.

Bart DePalma said...

Sarah Palin represents everything the urban left hates and/or is scared about fly over America - faith, family, military, firearms, patriotism and a complete disinterest in what the urban left intelligentsia thinks.

On the other hand, Vanity Fair is the perfect representative of the urban left - vacuous, self absorbed and snitty.

Who is more real - the red neck woman governor or a magazine that has the under age Hannah Montana show a little skin on the cover to prop up flagging sales?

Alex said...

BTW, any Palin thread is guaranteed to be 200-300 comments easy. I think Althouse should simply have an "Sarah Palin Open Thread" every day.

nansealinks said...

"I think the only problem for Conservatives is whether or not she is ready to handle the strange requirements of national politics."


look at the picture. her eyes matches her pout. And that is beautiful!!!!!!!! a face that tells a story. An entire face that told the story like when mccain conceded the election and her eyes glossed over when he mentioned how hard an election was on her.

The woman has emotions that go to her core. national politics doesn't really want a person with true emotions. that would be too real of how science or nature created us with hormones and electro-conductivity and all that stuff. That woman is not on emotional botox, not at all. Show me any other national figure who has facial expressions like her.

Sarah if you want to be president they will kill that in you, which in my opinion would be sad. she has a calling and it may be behind the scenes kicking ass in both parties. But up on a pedestal she will just be another statue of salt melting in the rain instead of squeezing juice out of meat to preserve it.

bagoh20 said...

Sorry Jeremy, I should have said "dispise", unless you are using "Princess Sarah" as a term of "endearment".

And why do you always pick some inane objection to a post like the word "hate". What's next, will you attack my over-use of "quotes"?

Pogo said...

Wow!
Vanity Fair is still being published?

Do they still have paid subscribers?
Freaky!

AJ Lynch said...

There are more Palins out there. Most of them probably don't think it is worth it to get savaged on a regular basis by the MSM pussies like this Purdum.

Jim said...

Alex -

"the 47 million uninsured"

That number is a lie. A Big Fat Lie. It's a lie created to convince people that the problem is far bigger than it is.

Let's break down that number (for the hundred millionth time):

- 12-15 illegal aliens

Do we even have to discuss how fundamentally dishonest including them in the number of "uninsured Americans" is? So now we're down to 32-35 million.

- 17 million aged 20-35 who are voluntarily uninsured because they choose not to be. Lots of healthy single people would rather have the money in the paycheck or pocket than fork over premiums for insurance that they don't think they need. Approximately 8-9 million of them live in households making over $50K, so counting them as "uninsured" rather than "rather take my chances and save monthly premiums" is completely dishonest. So now we're down 15-17 million.

- 12 million who would be covered by currently existing state and federal health care benefits if they actually filed for them. The reasons for not filing are varied, but not one of them is justification for claiming that they are "uninsured." So now we're down to 3-5 million people.

3-5 million people who are truly uninsured. That's 1-1.5% of the population. Not a single one of those people is denied emergency care as public hospitals are required to treat them anyway, and the federal government already pays subsidies to those hospitals for doing so.

So there is no "crisis." There are some unfortunate circumstances, and if we were talking about a proposal to deal with that small percentage then - depending on the proposal - there might be merit to discussing "doing something."

But "doing something" based on a lie is worse than doing nothing.

Shanna said...

That's a funny picture, but Cindy looks kind of bald. I can't imagine she's happy with that.

I can't remember any candidate's family ever offering so many targets of opportunity. The Palins seemed more like part of All My Children.
Only because the media spent so much time digging into their background. I guarantee you can make anyone’s family look

dramatic, if you bother digging.
"It's always funny to me how many Republicans have become born-again feminists."

It's even funnier how the Democrats prove they never were.


Word, Synova. It was all for show, although I will say that I think a lot of Republicans were getting concerned about the Hillary sexism well before Palin entered the race.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I've traveled and worked throughout the world, have had lengthy discussions about the care provided in many of these countries and have NEVER heard a discouraging word.

Jeremy, playing Dora the Explorer on your PC doesn't count as travelling around the world.

Just more of your usual bullshit as usual. Whine whine whine.

chefmojo said...

We're the ONLY industrialized nation in the world (and the wealthiest) that doesn't provide national health care, and damn near all of them are "single payer" systems.

And perhaps we're the ones who got it right. We have the best health care in the world. Best delivery of health care. Just ask that Canadian couple who couldn't find an open NICU bed in Canada and had to go to Buffalo to have their preemie taken care of. Or all the Canadians crowding hospitals in Seattle & Spokane? Never a discouraging word? I don't thing you're talking to the right people. The people I talk to overseas say we're fools if we follow in their footsteps. They can't understand why so many in this country seem so willing to destroy the finest care delivery system in the world on the spurious premise that it's the government's job to provide healthcare.

You say 47 million don't have healthcare. I call bullshit. Prove it. Back up those numbers. Illegals don't count. Regardless, that means that 250 million do have healthcare and are quite happy with it.

bagoh20 said...

The problem with politics in our country is that it's become like a frat hazing. You are asked to do incredibly degrading things to get in. The best people do not join such organizations, but it is just too damn important to leave to the fools. I would recommend to Palin to stay out it, but for the country's sake I hope she fights. She will be the most maligned figure in political history. She is the only one being attacked while not running or in a scandal. She is special.

Jim said...

Shanna -

"It was all for show, although I will say that I think a lot of Republicans were getting concerned about the Hillary sexism well before Palin entered the race."

The charges that conservatives weren't concerned about sexism are completely bogus Leftist talking points. I've never been in favor of speaking ill of a woman simply because she's a waman, and I don't know any conservative who ever has. It's one of the more ridiculous "defenses" of the blatantly sexist attacks they've been levelling against opponents (whether Hillary or Palin) since Day One.

This is not to say that women should be immune from criticism, or that they shouldn't face any ridicule at all. It's akin to the Letterman situation: there's a big difference between something that's funny and hitting below the belt. (Here's a hint: if you don't understand that or can't tell the difference, then you have no difference even attempting it.]

Making fun of "y'betcha" as a mannerism? Potentiall funny.

Making fun of her family? Not funny.

On the flip side, it's one thing to make fun of Obama's protruding ears. It's another to make fun of him being half-black.

See? There's a line. And it doesn't mean there's no humor allowed. But to many on the Left (including several of our more trollish denizens), they're too busy giggling at their own perceived cleverness at ANY slam that they fail to understand the difference.

It's the difference between being an adult and a child. Your words and actions will show which you define yourself as.

Synova said...

"Oh My God. Here comes her husband."

Hehe... I like that one.

former law student said...

FAIL

Obama votes to filibuster Alito.

Your apology will be accepted any time you're man enough to offer one.

Despite the gratuitous insult, I will apologize. Obama's saying one thing while voting a different way in a losing cause was something I didn't expect. But unlike Kyl, Obama didn't threaten a filibuster, and, as a rookie Senator, couldn't make good on such a threat even if he wanted to.

Hoosier Daddy said...

You connote sarcastically referring to Palin as a "Princess" as a form of "hatred?"

Not at all. So in the spirit of designating our elected officials with cutesy names like you did, lets all refer to Bwana Obama. You know, in homage to his Kensyian roots.

Invisible Man said...

But you are also a liar, which is despicable and shows your base and evil character.

That's a beautiful chuch lady imitation there Chase. I hope you enjoy next weekend standing on a New York corner yelling at passer-bys to REPENT THEIR SINS!

Hoosier Daddy said...

Despite the gratuitous insult, I will apologize.

You should also admit Obama's I won was not in response to Kyl's threatening a filibuster either but over handing out tax refunds to people who didn't pay taxes.

former law student said...

You know FLS, it doesn't help your credibility when you make stuff up.

Sorry, I got distracted. I mixed up Kyl's filibuster threat from November with Kyl's objection to Obama's stimulus plan, face to face, in the Roosevelt room.

nansealinks said...

and about those glossy eyes.

for lots of woman and some males who try entering politics in this country, beware of the difference in glossy and glassy. glassy is sometimes what happens on date rape drugs, or if you've ever seen cheap porn some of the girls have that look in their eyes.

glassy eyes are what the voters get in this country most of the time too from either of the two big parties.

Jeremy said...

chefmojo said this as to being the ONLY industrialized nation in the world (and the wealthiest) that doesn't provide national health care:

"And perhaps we're the ones who got it right."

Yeah, that must be it.

We pay more for health care than any other country in the world, yet rank 15th in life expectancy, 77th in quality of care, and as for "quality" of medical care, the World Health Organization ranks the United States a dismal 37th.

Duh.

Invisible Man said...

So in the spirit of designating our elected officials with cutesy names like you did, lets all refer to Bwana Obama.

Hoosier Daddy,

The count for the number of times that Barak has been called the "Messiah" by your ilk runs in the hundreds on this blog alone. As I alluded to about the Right's nuevo-feminism, it's funny how much congnitive dissonance a movement can have.

Synova said...

"Obama didn't threaten a filibuster, and, as a rookie Senator, couldn't make good on such a threat even if he wanted to."

I accept that Obama didn't threaten a filibuster, even if he did pretty clearly express that he felt no duty at all to at least try to go with the President's choice on account that the president "won"... that's not why I quoted that bit.

I was just enjoying (in a 'pain is good' sort of way) the casual statement that the person considered to have had adequate and appropriate experience and preparation to be President of the United States could not even have done so much as convincingly threatened a filibuster in his previous job.

Heh.

Maybe *that's* why Kyl made him so cranky... he was rubbing it in. ;-)

TitusHelloAgainMyFriends said...

Sarah doesn't scare me. I like her. She is fresh and exotic and hot and she makes me horny.

The republicans can't win with her though. She only excites the base. Speifically, the social conservative base. There is not enough of them in this country to put her over the top. Also, all the minorities and younger voters will never vote for her. And forget the cities.

I think she can definitely win the republican nomination but she won't win in the general.

Ralph L said...

an alternative, free-market approach to health care reform.
- Medical savings accounts, which the Dems have tried to curtail/prevent.
- Tort reform, which the national Dems will prevent with their last breath.
- Restricting gold-plated union plans, ditto.

elHombre said...

Speaking of liberal lies:

FLASH!

Fledgling tin pot Obama joins tin pots Castro and Chavez in "Honduras military coup" tin hattery to promote leftist would-be tin pot Zelaya's unconstitutional power play.

Democracy-loving Hondurans respond. (Scroll down)

Get used to the term: "Perception management."

Hoosier Daddy said...

The count for the number of times that Barak has been called the "Messiah" by your ilk runs in the hundreds on this blog alone.

Well when you protray yourself like God on the campaign I suppose the halo fits. So to speak.

As I alluded to about the Right's nuevo-feminism, it's funny how much congnitive dissonance a movement can have.

The Right's nuevo-feminism? What exactly does that mean? Do you know of any conservatives who hearken back to the barefoot and preggers days? I don't. Then again, folks like yourself villified a Palin who pretty much typified everything the woman's right crowd fought for only because she held some heretical beliefs like being pro-life.

Take a look in the mirror pal. Congnitive dissonance indeed.

knox said...

You might think that at some point in the 16 years that followed, Republicans might have offered an alternative, free-market approach to health care reform.

LOL. "Why don't those politicians -- the most venal, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving people in the world--solve this problem???"

In my opinion, our "free market" is already coming up with solutions to our problem, albeit slowly. Affordable clinics manned by nurse practitioners, cheap generics, and the increasing popularity of Health Savings Accounts are big indicators of this. They all give the consumer more choices, more affordable care, and more control over their own health.

Big problems still remain, but I don't trust Rs to solve the problem any better than Ds.

Chase said...

Sorry, I meant we rank 77Th in "life expectancy."

Really, Liar Jeremy?

What about these figures?

No biggie, Liar Jeremy.

mccullough said...

This article just doesn't work without an interview of Palin.

I understand she declined the request, but the article just doesn't gel.

I like the part of how Obama said he took him four months to learn how to be a national candidate so Palin wouldn't have enough time. She did seem to improve the last three weeks of the campaign.

Obama was a good candidate. But neither Palin nor Obama are presidential material. (Neither were W. or Carter). Obama's domestic policy is as bad as W.'s, except 4 times more expensive.

Obama's foreign policy is useless. Europe treats Obama the same way as W. We will either be at war with North Korea and Iran within 3 years or they will have nukes.

Please let's focus on the candidate's records next time and not their star appeal. Both Obama and Palin are charismatic. But we need proven competence, not charisma.

former law student said...

Do we even have to discuss how fundamentally dishonest including them in the number of "uninsured Americans" is?

As long as they're here and they use medical care, we cannot ignore the illegals. Do they not use medical care? Are they insured? Do they pay cash for their care? Do they not go to emergency rooms?

- 17 million aged 20-35 who are voluntarily uninsured because they choose not to be.

What happens to the 24 year old diagnosed with ALL? The 28 year old with testicular cancer? Who pays for their chemo, when they have no insurance?

Who takes care of the 32 year old cyclist hit by an uninsured motorist?

- 12 million who would be covered by currently existing state and federal health care benefits if they actually filed for them.

I have read this but I do not understand where this comes from.

3-5 million people who are truly uninsured. That's 1-1.5% of the population. Not a single one of those people is denied emergency care as public hospitals are required to treat them anyway, and the federal government already pays subsidies to those hospitals for doing so.

Are you talking mandatory Hill-Burton care? The feds quit putting money into that in 1997. Right now, across the country, only 200 hospitals are still obligated to provide free or reduced cost health care.

Moreover, how does access to emergency rooms help the chronically ill? the Type 1 diabetic? The Hodgkins' disease survivor suffering a relapse?

And does that number even include all the people with preexisting conditions? Does that include all the people dropped by their health care insurers for being unprofitable? Does that include all the people who have used up their lifetime benefit?

Jim said...

fls -

I accept. And I will give you the credit you are due: you were man enough to admit your error.

chefmojo said...

We pay more for health care than any other country in the world, yet rank 15th in life expectancy, 77th in quality of care, and as for "quality" of medical care, the World Health Organization ranks the United States a dismal 37th.

I'm sure someone here with more time will tear down that "evidence" as well, Jeremy, just like the number of "uninsured" you tossed out as one of your typical lies.

It's funny though. When all the overseas elites need to have their and their families health attended to post haste, they always seem to end up here in the US.

Invisible Man said...

Well when you protray yourself like God on the campaign I suppose the halo fits. So to speak.

Oh, that's so much failure right there. I'm going to guess that the best you could come up with to even kind of support that delusional statement is Obama's "seas reced" quote. Unfortunately, he's simply just talking about America's committment to stopping climate change that would hopefully reverse the effects of said climate change. I hate to break it to you but God doesn't receive his power through the Democratic and legislative process. Obama thinks he's God about as much as Norm Coleman think he's going to remain Senator. But keep pushing that thread, your hate gives us liberals sustenance.

Invisible Man said...

Chase pwned!

John Stodder said...

We're the ONLY industrialized nation in the world (and the wealthiest) that doesn't provide national health care, and damn near all of them are "single payer" systems.

I always wonder why health-care reform advocates think this is an argument for the US. Most of these systems were put in place so many years ago, there is no way back for them, and in many countries, no memory of any different system to which the current one can be compared. So, while it might be a factual statement, it is an argument devoid of content or meaning.

Sometimes, the reformers' rhetoric reminds me of what was said about Bush and Iraq: Every week, a new "cause of war." The polls say Americans think health care costs too much. So, yeah, that's the ticket, we're going to...cut costs! Some are concerned about the uninsured. Aha! We'll address that too.

You guys don't seem to get it: life is always a trade-off. Always. Things are not perfect here, but there are also big problems countries with socialized medicine that single-payer advocates try to pretend don't exist. If we move toward single-payer (via the interim step of a subsidized government option that can compete unfairly with the private sector until the private sector is eliminated), what will we get, and what will we give up? Don't sell this thing as Big Rock Candy Mountain, because if you're intellectually honest, you know single-payer will cause many people to have access to less care.

Invisible Man said...

Jus' statin' the obvious. brother.

Now I'm BROTHER! I hope that's like that black BROTHA and not the skinhead from prison BROTHER.

Jim said...

knox -

"Affordable clinics manned by nurse practitioners, cheap generics, and the increasing popularity of Health Savings Accounts are big indicators of this. "

Excellent point. Let's not forget that it was Wal-Mart (that favorite bogeyman of the Left) that brought the "$4 generic drugs" to the market. That plan is now widely imitated and available at the pharmacies at other chains because of Wal-Mart's initiative.

[I don't know how widespread it is, but I know that a regional chain here was offering free antibiotics under the slogan "You didn't pay to get sick, you shouldn't have to pay to get better" over the winter as well.]

The market has always been, and always will be, the greatest innovator in healthcare. Sen. DeMint and Rep. Shaddegg have a competing healthcare plan which is focused on market-based solutions. I haven't read all the details (I'm not sure the exact language is available), but the principles behind it and the broad brushstrokes which are available sound like a much more "American" solution to some of the issues in the healthcare market today.

As others have noted, the Europeans and Canadians are sounding the alarm bells trying to warn Americans away from adopting a system like their own. Maybe adopting solutions like DeMint's is a better way to go.

John Stodder said...

The harpy attack that is VF's Palin story seems to avoid the most important question: "Compared to whom?" If a journo with the Weekly Standard was given a platform in Vanity Fair, a piece like this could easily have been written about Obama. He has enemies, detractors and "people in Illinois" who think he's a fraud and/or has psychological problems. He has had some extremely strange friendships and alliances. Toute le monde de Vanity Fair would have been scandalized, just as they're supposed to be today reading about Palin. But such a piece wouldn't have stopped his rise, and this piece won't stop hers. The bias is so blatant, it is just useless from the standpoint of her foes.

elHombre said...

Abajo Obama y Jeremy!

Abajo las ollas de hojalata!

Viva Honduras!

Synova said...

"As I alluded to about the Right's nuevo-feminism,..."

"Feminism" is so wedded to particular political beliefs that it's pretty safe to say that conservatives simply can't be feminist by definition. We're not allowed. We're not invited.

Sure, there are some pretty standard elements of feminism that are self-contradictory, such as the "feminist" take on the military which is simultaneously that women make great soldiers and that feminism is fundamentally anti-war, since war is what men do.

But other than that there doesn't seem to be very many issues on which feminists are allowed to have contrary view-points.

What the right has *always* had, however, is a strong ethos of individual equality and respect for the overwhelming influence of the strong women in our families and in our lives. It's true enough that many of us simply could never relate to feminism being born during a conversation punctuated by the sounds of the maid doing laundry in the back-ground. But we do relate to the grand-mothers and great-grandmothers and lady adventurers in our family histories who were no fainting violets and who persevered, often in the face of true chauvinism and adversity.

What does modern "feminism" give us? What improvement is there in saying we don't want to be taken care of by men, we want to be taken care of by government instead? Perhaps we'd like to take care of ourselves? Perhaps we actually think we can.

Jeremy said...

John Stodder - You're right that anybody can write a piece about anybody, good or bad, but what are you disputing in the Vanity Fair article?

Are you saying that they're lying about something? That the people they interviewed are lying?

Princess Sarah certainly has her rabid supporters, but anybody who disputes the fact that she was a horrible choice and is still whining about how it really wasn't, and that she's going to lead the GOP to the promised land is politically naive.

The old white guys who have led the party for decades on end, and who are still in charge, are not going to step aside and let a novice Alaskan Governor run the show in any way, shape or form.

Good lord, the Republicans just assigned the "leader" of the party designation to a radio talk show "entertainer" and you think they're going to suddenly jump on the Princess Sarah bandwagon?

Delusion run wild...

Jim said...

chefmojo -

Don't even pay any attention to the "statistics" being thrown at you.

Those statistics fail to account for things like:

1) live births in this country that would have been stillborn in another: babies that live for only 2 weeks tends to bring down averages in a hurry, while a stillborn has no effect on "statistics" at all.

2) America is a vastly broader country, so we have more driving deaths per capita than more densely urbanized and smaller countries.

3) Gang, drug and other crime related violence skew US statistics. It takes more than a few people living past 100 years to account for hundreds of young men being cut down as teenagers because they wore the wrong color to school that day.

And so on...the life expectancy "statistics" have nothing to do with the quality of our healthcare, and any claim that it does is pretty much just begging you to tell them what an idiot they are.

As for the "quality of care" rankings, those are completely subjective rankings. There's no objective measure by which you can pit one country against another in such an amorphous category as "quality of care." Rankings like this tend to give the heaviest weighting in their "magic mojo formula" to government-run health care because the people who produce the rankings just happen to be people who are promoting government-run healthcare. (Shocker, I know.)

The anecdotal evidence that multiple people have provided regarding people with nationalized health care coming to this country to obtain treatment available here that isn't available at home is all the proof required to show that these "statistics" aren't worth the pixels it takes to display them.

Ted Kennedy's illness is proof of his own lack of belief in the system. He's eligible for Medicare. Did he use it to get the best treatment in the country? Would Medicare have covered it? No and no. He used his family wealth to opt out of a system that wasn't good enough for him. Even Obama in the course of his infomercial admitted that it wasn't good enough for him or his family either.

If you think that your family isn't worth the same level of care that Kennedy and Obama get, then ObamaCare is for you. On the other hand, if you don't think they're better than you and that their family is no better than yours, then you need to let your congressperson know that there will be a price for voting for ObamaCare.

Jeremy said...

elHombre - You can say "down" with whoever, but we both know who's wearing the tinfoil.

By the way: ¿Es usted perros de mierda del palillo?

Jeremy said...

Jim - Don't pay any attention to your next health care insurance bill.

It really doesn't mean anything.

Jeremy said...

More good news for the wingnut crowd:

ST. PAUL, Minn. - The Minnesota Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered that Democrat Al Franken be certified as the winner of the state's long-running Senate race, paving the way for a resolution in the seven-month fight over the seat.

The high court rejected a legal challenge from Republican Norm Coleman, whose options for regaining the Senate seat are dwindling.

Justices said Franken is entitled to the election certificate he needs to assume office. With Franken and the usual backing of two independents, Democrats will have a big enough majority to overcome Republican filibusters.

Chase said...

Liar Jeremy asked:

NOTE: Notice the way Liar Jeremy tires to change the direction of the conversation by asking a question irrelevant to the point Liar Jeremy already agrees with. That is called "indirection" - deceitful action that is not straightforward.

Are you saying that they're lying about something? That the people they interviewed are lying?

Whether the people interviewed are lying OR telling the truth has no bearing either way on the statement that Jeremy acknowledges:

You're right that anybody can write a piece about anybody, good or bad, but what are you disputing in the Vanity Fair article

Irrelevance and misdirection.

And of course, Liar Jeremy now paints a matter of leftist/liberal opinion as though it is fact:

Good lord, the Republicans just assigned the "leader" of the party designation to a radio talk show "entertainer"

As Liar Jeremy cannot find Republican leaders to quote to support his liberal opinion statement Liar Jeremy must be:

1) Stupid and unaware of the difference between facts and opinion, or

2) Dishonest and willing to deceive. Which is definable as "low character".

Either way, those are the facts about Liar Jeremy.

Invisible Man said...

No, more like a Rotary Brother. I don't care about your prison days.

And please, spare us the faux outrage. Your kind - liberals - LOVE to shit and then ask "What's that smell?"


What are you on? Your posts are getting nuttier and nuttier. First, your calling people evil. Then you say that you don't judge. Then you call them Satan. And now you think you can smell me through the computer. You sound like you need a nice nap.

Jim said...

Chase -

Just give him a cookie, and send him on his way. Children must learn to mind their mothers, and his is getting cranky because she's out of smokes again.

Jeremy said...

Chase - Obsessed are we?

Jim - Don't forget to ignore than health insurance bill.

Jeremy said...

Jim - Soooooo, you're the idiot who was posting as Jeremy's Mother, huh?

Screwed that one up good.

The dumb just keep getting dumber.

hdhouse said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeremy said...

Invisible Man - "What are you on? Your posts are getting nuttier and nuttier.'

Unless you're brand spanking new here...get used to it.

Once you get under any of these people's skins they begin to literally disintegrate before your very eyes.

I have absolutely no doubt many are also on meds and as the day goes on...the meds begin to wear off.

*Count how many times this Chase character has used the terms "hate.," "hater" and "liar" in his last number of comments...he's running out of vocabulary.

Invisible Man said...

What the right has *always* had, however, is a strong ethos of individual equality and respect for the overwhelming influence of the strong women in our families and in our lives. It's true enough that many of us simply could never relate to feminism being born during a conversation punctuated by the sounds of the maid doing laundry in the back-ground. But we do relate to the grand-mothers and great-grandmothers and lady adventurers in our family histories who were no fainting violets and who persevered, often in the face of true chauvinism and adversity.

I think that where we differ is your comment about "strong women in families and live". That's great and I applaud women who dedicate themselves to that more "traditional" role of women. But I think that sentence, whether or not you meant to, describes the limits that many on the Right are comfortable with.

Why can't women pursue a lifestyle without family at the core? Why can't woman be the bread winner?

I don't know enough about your personal stances, but I do know that many on the Right still hold, I believe unnecessarily at times, to this roles. We saw this with the problems people had with Hillary as the ambitious, hard-driving spouse who wasn't willing to just "sit and bake cookies". We also see this now with Michelle Obama who has played down her role as a savvy and extremely accomplished advisor to Barack, so that people won't be threatened about the non-traditional aspects of her life.

Sarah Palin does in many ways fit these dilemnas with her very "man-like" ambition wrapped in a somewhat traditional "woman's" role in her raising of her children. The second part may make her palatable for the Right, but I think that the hypocrisy that some of us see is in the Rights virulent defense of the first.

Shanna said...

In my opinion, our "free market" is already coming up with solutions to our problem, albeit slowly. Affordable clinics manned by nurse practitioners, cheap generics, and the increasing popularity of Health Savings Accounts are big indicators of this.

Amen, knox. There are a number of things on the horizon that help with health care. I am tired of the talk about health insurance obscuring the level of health care available. Insurance is not the only important thing, and the obsession with it ignores lots of important data. I know a people who make decisions to do without insurance, either because they don’t feel like paying while they are young and unlikely to need it (I did so myself for 6 months at one point in my 20’s) or who decide to do without because there is a federal or state program available.

Alex said...

It doesn't matter really. You can point out a million anecdotes about how the free market is solving the problems but Jeremy will insist on single payer for ALL. Commie-attitude, it's all about imposing his will on us. He doesn't believe in "live and let live", no no. He wants to FORCE us to live by his ways.

Jim said...

Jeremy -

I wasn't the one who was posting as your mother. I just assumed it was her typing on the upstairs computer while you sat in the basement. If that's not the case, then evidently somebody's been looking over your shoulder.

Either way, don't blame me for your family problems.

Shanna said...

I think that where we differ is your comment about "strong women in families and live". That's great and I applaud women who dedicate themselves to that more "traditional" role of women. But I think that sentence, whether or not you meant to, describes the limits that many on the Right are comfortable with. Why can't women pursue a lifestyle without family at the core? Why can't woman be the bread winner?

I think you’ve misunderstood Synova’s point. She said nothing about whether these women filled a “traditional” role, she said that conservatives have respect for the individual over the collective. Which is at the heart of conservatism, in many respects, but not at the heart of Feminism as it is came to be understood.

Chase said...

The second part may make her palatable for the Right, but I think that the hypocrisy that some of us see is in the Rights virulent defense of the first.

What a load of crap.
I am a conservative. I don't sit down or stand for your strawman shit. This is why liberals are so wrong - you just made statements characterizing what you "think" conservatives might have a problem with. Well let me "learn you a few things, IBM: Only in the mind of the liberals you read.

Start observing and thinking for yourself.

My mother was a career woman she had a law degree and was an administrator in a school district in Texas. My wife is a career woman - she has a Masters in Education Administration AND a credential in Special Education. My 2 daughters are wives with 1 and 2 children respectively - one is a stay at home Mom taking a break from teaching and the other is a teacher working only the traditional school year.

We all love Sarah Palin. She is intelligent (something Liar Jeremy can't seem to "get" - DUH!), politically saavy yet a family person who hasn't sacrificed her family through abortion or day care to her ambition. Women having careers with or with out families is okay by me - Now listen up here IBM: It ALWAYS has been and that includes for Every conservative - including churchgoers - I have known.

Lesson over. Got to go spend time in the garden with the wife.

garage mahal said...

Franken won yet again. Yay.

Synova said...

I think that it's interesting that you change this... "the overwhelming influence of the strong women in our families and in our lives." to suggest that women can only be strong in families. Certainly that's no more true than to suggest that men are strongest in families... no more false, either, of course, but I had thought I was pretty clearly talking about those women we best KNOW because they are the ones closest to us.

"Why can't women pursue a lifestyle without family at the core?"

Because it's lonely?

The answer is, of course they can. One very excellent example is Condi Rice. I don't think it's possible to show, in any way at all, that not having a husband and children worked against her with conservatives.

She does, of course, have a family and the example of strong women in her family on which to draw. It's sort of hard to get here without having had a mother and grand-mother and great-grandmother, etc. Eve did it, but she was the last.

"Why can't woman be the bread winner?"

Many of them are. Also, please, you'll notice that Mr. Todd Palin lost not one iota of his manly-man creds with conservatives over the expectation that he'd take on a primarily supportive family-centered role.

"We saw this with the problems people had with Hillary as the ambitious, hard-driving spouse who wasn't willing to just "sit and bake cookies"."

And yet, she did. Maybe only metaphorical cookies, but she didn't really have her own career... she had Bill's. She may have told us how she wasn't sitting at home baking cookies and didn't do the country western song 'stand by your man' thing... but she *did*.

Now maybe that was partly due to the misfortune of having the same education, same law degrees, same political ambitions as Bill, but it's a bit difficult to say that she had her OWN career in politics until after his Presidency was over.

"We also see this now with Michelle Obama who has played down her role as a savvy and extremely accomplished advisor to Barack, so that people won't be threatened about the non-traditional aspects of her life."

People don't want a Co-President. We learned that with Hillary and Bill. The answer is as simple as that. If Michelle Obama had a brilliant career as a surgeon or Physics professor no one would be threatened by the "non-traditional" aspects of her life.

former law student said...

"Feminism" is so wedded to particular political beliefs that it's pretty safe to say that conservatives simply can't be feminist by definition. We're not allowed. We're not invited.

Sad but true. You do have to buy into an entire package of beliefs to be accepted. An organization called "Feminists for Life" would never be accepted no matter what the members did for a living; it is an article of faith that any restriction of access to abortion is unfeminist, because women should have the same ability as men to have sex without pregnancy.

Synova said...

"But they *do*," she says, helplessly.

*sigh*

Gully said...

I think Ann posts about Palin because she knows it will cause a jeremygasm.

Jim said...

chase -

"This is why liberals are so wrong - you just made statements characterizing what you "think" conservatives might have a problem with."

This is a fundamental failing of the Left. It's why all the attacks on Palin and her family are so fundamentally misplaced. They think that if they keep hammering the same points about Bristol's pregnancy that somehow conservatives will finally see what we've too blind to see all along.

It's akin to being in a foreign country and trying to speak English to a native speaker. When they fail to understand, the natural (but wrongheaded) response is to speak more slowly and/or loudly as if that would somehow get that person to understand English.

It is much the same with the Left. Conservatives speak a different language full of value for individual rights over government control, the oppression of big government and the virtue of small government, and personal responsibility being preferable to collective guilt.

To a Leftist those are all foreign concepts. They simply can't accept that simply don't speak the language. But they keep trying to speak louder thinking that if only they could shout themselves hoarse then they could "win."

Like an American abroad throwing around words like "baguette" and "croissant" and thinking that is somehow speaking French, Leftists keep trying to tell conservatives how they're supposed to react because they use words like "family values" and quote Scripture out of context.

People understand a smear job when they seen one. They understand the base fear that keeps Leftists tracking Palin's every move. They get all of the above and more. And much to the Left's chagrin, Palin's polling has moved from a net negative to net positive in 6 short months.

You want to know what really scares them the most. Look at the internals of the poll: Palin actually dropped a few points with Republicans, but she made up for it and more with +6 and +7 with Democrats and Independents. In six months while the Leftists have done everything in their power to slander her and smear her family. And she's still making inroads with their base.

The Leftists here can claim that they're not afraid of Palin. But the poll numbers don't lie. They just prove that the Leftists do.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 246   Newer› Newest»