Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Notes on Gov. Sarah Palin

I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve only recently heard of her.  Considering she’s governor of our 56th state (just ask that Magellan guy running for prez on the Dem side), Barry O’s probably not that familiar with her, either.  Anywho, I listened on the radio to her bio, as well as to her speech in Ohio.  Quick notes from around the blogosphere:

  • Ed Morrissey has an excellent must-read post about the differences in experience between Obama and Palin.  Read it, but here’s a great excerpt:  “However, the nature of the experience couldn’t be more different.  Palin spent her entire political career crusading against the political machine that rules Alaska — which exists in her own Republican party.  She blew the whistle on the state GOP chair, who had abused his power on the same commission to conduct party business.  Obama, in contrast, talked a great deal about reform in Chicago but never challenged the party machine, preferring to take an easy ride as a protegé of Richard Daley instead.”
  • You knew this was coming, didn’t you?  The One is criticizing Palin for…I really couldn’t make this up if I tried…having too little experience!  Especially foreign policy experience.  Because as you know, taking a rock star tour of Europe, having a brother he never visits or talks to living in squalor in Kenya, going to elementary school in Indonesia for a little while, and visiting Pakistan once while in college are all awesome nuggets of foreign policy experience!  For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.
  • McCain’s camp retorts: “Governor Palin has spent her time in office shaking up government in Alaska and actually achieving results — whether it’s taking on corruption, passing ethics reform or stopping wasteful spending and the ‘bridge to nowhere.’ Senator Obama has spent his time in office running for President.”
  • Palin credits Geraldine Ferraro and the Hildebeast for “cracking the glass ceiling” for her. Heh.  Well played!  Even Ferraro’s giving McCain mad props for the pick.
  • Big O’s speech from the Acropolis-thingy yesterday just had some of its media thunder stolen.  Double “heh”!
  • Hillary’s campaign head Howard Wolfson thinks that O picking Greasy Joe will, in light of McCain’s pick of Palin, make women supporters of Hillary even madder than they already are.  If Her Former Highness were so supportive of Obama-Biden, then why is she allowing (instructing?) her staff to go out there and foment dissention like this?  Answer: because she’s not supportive, but she has to pretend like she is!  Hill needs Obama to lose in November, so she can try again in 2012.  Whether she can make that happen remains to be seen.
  • O’s team belittles her experience in a “town of 9,000”, which pretty much keeps pace with their previously stated view of “bitter, clingy” small town America.  Ace observes thusly:

    Just curious: Before Obama was a junior senator for sixteen months before he decided he knew enough to be President, he was a state legislator.

    How many people did he represent? What was the size of his district?

    And note, once again, that Palin’s experience was as the executive of that small town, the leader, the top dog, the decider, the chief law enforcement officer, whereas Obama was… a backbenching nobody in a body of hundreds, none of whom had ultimate responsibility for anything they did.

    She governed that town; Obama merely represented his district in committee.

    Oh, and he was corrupt. She wasn’t.

    I do admit he has more experience dealing with terrorists first hand… but we don’t need to talk about William Ayers and his Manson-enthusiast wife Bernadette Dohrn right now.

    Ouch!

August 29, 2008 - Posted by | Hillary, hypocrisy, McCain, Obama, Palin

12 Comments »

  1. Everybody up here is extremely excited about her being picked! Our whole office sat by the tv watching her announcement. A great day for us and our country!

    Go Sarah Go!

    Comment by frznagn | August 29, 2008

  2. um, jon, she is currently under investigation. oh, and mccain only met her once, way back in february and then talked via phone before making the pick – that really instills a lot of confidence, huh?

    once people find out more, and she is intriguing and has a great personal story and beautiful family with hardships and things to be admired like taking care of a downs syndrome child and her son enlisting and going to iraq, they will find not much there (at least not much for independents or democrats to move over).

    she has openly said she doesn’t know what is going on in iraq (and made statements about wanting a timeline or plan to get out), couldn’t endorse mccain only 7 months ago, wants creationism taught in public schools, can’t say what VP does, called hillary a whiner (way to go about getting hill’s voters), was a buchanan supporter, staunchly pro-life and anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-climate change, pro-ANWR drilling, etc.

    might fire up the dobson crowd but not going to do much else.

    Comment by jen | August 30, 2008

  3. um, jon, she is currently under investigation.

    Oh, you mean for this?

    Supposedly Palin fired the commissioner of public safety because he wouldn’t fire her brother-in-law, a state trooper who had becomed estranged from Palin’s sister. Mike Wooten only got a suspension, and last month, she allegedly dismissed Walt Monegan over his handling of the case. Palin says that wasn’t the reason, the legislature noted that Monegan’s was a political appointment and he served at the pleasure of the governor, and they have also stated on the record that Palin has been so cooperative that they will not need to issue subpoenas — which hardly sounds like a cover-up.

    So what did Wooten do, anyway?

    Troopers eventually investigated 13 issues and found four in which Wooten violated policy or broke the law or both:

    • Wooten used a Taser on his stepson.
    • He illegally shot a moose.
    • He drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion.
    • He told others his father-in-law would “eat a f’ing lead bullet” if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.

    ANY of these four should have been a firing offense, let alone having done ALL four. He Tased his stepson? He threatened to shoot Palin’s father? No wonder the Palins hired their own investigator and pressed the issue so hard! You’re more desperate than I thought you were, jen. And unfortunately, more despicable, too.

    that really instills a lot of confidence, huh?

    She’s not meant to instill confidence for you leftists, jen.

    once people find out more, and she is intriguing and has a great personal story and beautiful family with hardships and things to be admired like taking care of a downs syndrome child and her son enlisting and going to iraq, they will find not much there (at least not much for independents or democrats to move over).

    Yeah, because “a great personal story and beautiful family with hardships and things to be admired like taking care of a downs syndrome child and her son enlisting and going to iraq” are all things that are “not much there”, right? No wonder you like the Obabykiller…you’re an elitist like him. In light of the contempt you hold for normal American women from rural America like her, and in light of the lack of regard you have for the Obabykiller’s infanticide record (and susequent cover-up of it), you are hereby cordially invited to self-fornicate.

    Comment by crushliberalism | August 30, 2008

  4. “mccain only met her once, way back in february and then talked via phone before making the pick – that really instills a lot of confidence, huh?”

    Are you implying that people cannot get to know each other over the telephone? Where is the breakdown in confidence? I sell $20 to $25 million worth of used technology every year – all over the phone. My customers have plenty of confidence in me. What’s the problem?

    “once people find out more … they will find not much there”

    Yet, you support a man who has less than “not much there”. Accomplishments for Obama? Well, he’s won a couple of elections…

    “wants creationism taught in public schools”

    Not true. If you read all of her interview:

    “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

    She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.

    Nice try – learn to read.

    “staunchly pro-life”

    Interesting how being for life is a bad thing to some… However, it does draw a clear distinction between her and The Chosen One who is staunchly anti-life.

    “anti-woman”

    She’s against herself? What a revelation!!!

    “anti-climate change”

    Huh?

    “pro-ANWR drilling”

    Clue in – this is a plus for a whole bunch of folks. Not to mention that ANWR was set aside specifically for this purpose.

    But, by all means join the Kos minions and bash this woman. I’m sure Joe “Barack is a clean negro” “Indian-accents-only in 7-11 stores” Biden is much better. Apparently, his list of “anti-“ and “pro-“ are all in the correct column eh? Spin away.

    Comment by TheBad | August 30, 2008

  5. Don’t waste your time, Bad. She’s impervious to facts and decency. She voted for a kiddie p0rn author, she supports a man who has accomplished little except for the desire to kill babies who survive abortions, and a man who is petrified of Fox News but wants to talk to terrorist states. She’s swilled the Kool-Aid and has shown that my driver’s license has more value than her Penn State degree. Let it go, my friend.

    Comment by crushliberalism | August 30, 2008

  6. Thanks Jon. Just the same, I find it amusing. Those who read my site might be familiar with a liberal friend of mine: Hugo. As with Jen, he is fully and completely dedicated to the party line – regardless of facts, regardless of reason. Casey (my much better half) has pretty much made it illegal for Hugo and me to discuss politics in her presence because it becomes so bloody ridiculous. It was Hugo who inspired Casey to coin the phrase, “Back to your spaceship!”

    So, I don’t expect the facts to sway the likes of Jen. She chooses to come here and regurgitate the party line like a good little Brownshirt and thus is subject to ridicule, scorn and other refinements.

    Comment by TheBad | August 30, 2008

  7. wow, are you guys on your period? touchy much? take a motrin and a deep breath. palin is a gutsy choice – mccain is on fox news sunday trying to say that because she was in the PTA, she is a good VP choice? what a joke! what i was saying above is that i doubt any hillary voters are going to move to vote mccain simply because he put a woman on the ticket because of her very right-wing views that basically reinforce that mccain is super conservative and NOT a moderate, a misconception some of the so-called PUMAs and other women they find for ads or interviews think.

    what i don’t understand is how people would feel ok with her taking the reigns should something happen to mccain when she recently said she knows nothing about iraq and doesn’t seem to know much else about world affairs. some republican said she would be good with foreign policy because Alaska is close to Russa – ha!

    so say what you will about me, but i feel confident in the ticket i am voting for. good luck with your 72 year old man and 44 year old hockey mom.

    Comment by jen | August 31, 2008

  8. You still avoid addressing your man’s infanicide record like Ted Kennedrunk avoids an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. So if you “feel confident” in voting for such a cretin, than you are seriously more depraved, sick, and vile than I expected. I’m quite disappointed in you, I don’t mind telling you.

    For people like you, political points are far more important than not only national interests, but also more important than humanity. I mean, to support an on-the-record infanticide enabler just so you can say “Tee-hee, we won an election, you lost, scoreboard, har-dee-har-har” is lower than the lowest forms of pond scum.

    But hey, take that up with God when you see Him, m’kay? And in case you’re confused, when I say “God”, I’m not talking about Obama. My apologies for the ambiguity.

    Sorry, but I’m done with you. To paraphrase your boy Obimbo, you’re just not the type of person I thought you were. I knew you were a partisan liberal Democrat, and that fact in and of itself has never bothered me. But your latest voyages into detachment from decency have really illustrated the kind of person you are. I’ve been wrong on way too many occasions to count, and by thinking that you would find something like The Chosen One’s infanticide record to be an unspeakable and indefensible act of depravity, it’s clear that I am wrong once again.

    So, in closing: Feel free to leave comments all you like. To anyone here who feels like wasting time rebutting such a mindless, morally bankrupt vacuum of oxygen, I say that you folks are more than welcome to do so. But I no longer wish to indulge someone who thinks that the practice of killing babies already born is nowhere nearly as important as being able to experience the psychotropic high of saying “Neener-neener, my guy won, your’s didn’t” in November. I, for one, happen to think that life is more important than that. I’m funny that way.

    Comment by crushliberalism | August 31, 2008

  9. jon, sorry to have disappointed you so greatly for not basing my political choice on this issue alone partly because i find it ridiculous when people frame the argument as wanting to kill babies vs. not killing babies when it is so much more than that. no one WANTS to kill babies, pro-choice is not as much pro-abortion as pro-privacy, pro-family planning. it is private – abortion is such a personal decision, i don’t think anyone has any business butting into a woman’s personal choice she makes with her family and her doctor. and while i don’t think abortion itself is right, i believe in birth control, family planning, adoption and foster care by EVERYONE (gays/lesbians, too) – all things republicans don’t support or promote. sorry, but abstinence only with no teaching of birth control to teenagers makes more babies and unfortunate situations.

    so insult me all you want on an issue not really relevant to the state of what is going on in the world right now – i don’t believe obama wants to kill babies, i believe he wants to do things to help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and keep a woman’s right to privacy and birth control on the table. but right now, i am focusing on my job, my home, my surrounding environment, my family and who i think will better serve the country.

    peace out. was fun while it lasted.

    Comment by jen | September 1, 2008

  10. I can’t believe I’m wasting my time this one last time, but what the hell…

    Jen, you dolt, this is NOT an issue of abortion! This is about a bill that Obama voted against in IL that said that doctors would be allowed to give medical assistance to babies who were aborted that survived the abortion! Details are here, and if you have a shred of logical presence, you will read the story.

    The Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002 passed the Senate unanimously. Babs Boxer voted for the Act, and she still maintains a 100% lifetime rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. In other words, even NARAL and PP didn’t oppose the Act, because it in no way threatened Roe v. Wade, since it ONLY applied to babies who were aborted who were still fully alive. Your boy Obama couldn’t bring himself to vote for the IL version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, fearing it would damage his street cred with the pro-abortion lobby. In other words, he chose infanticide because he thought it would help him politically.

    So when I talk about infanticide, I’m NOT talking about abortion. I’m talking about your Grim Reaper’s opposition to a bill that had only 15 depraved souls in the House oppose it, and had NOBODY in the Senate oppose it. When called on his psychotic vote, lied about it.

    Now that you know he opposes giving medical treatment to premature babies who survived abortion attempts in the third trimester, what say you? Your continued support would show everyone here what a vile cretin you really are. I did consider you a friend, albeit a politically misguided one. But since you would rather get high off of an electoral win, even if said win is for a disgusting creature like the Obabykiller, I consider you a shallow pathetic, amoral vermin. Good luck to you in the rest of your life, and may God have mercy on you.

    Comment by crushliberalism | September 1, 2008

  11. ha, ok, read an article written by a guy who wrote an anti-obama book as a legitimate argument that obama WANTS to kill babies? sorry jon, but i don’t buy it. if you want to think badly of me and call me names, there is nothing i can do about that, but i don’t believe that obama maliciously wants to do anything like what you are accusing him of.

    anti-abortion activists try and put all kinds of restricting legislation on ballots and a lot of the time they succeed (one example, trying to get doctors to have to say specific things to pregnant women to discourage them from abortion, another is this born-alive act) – when they get on ballots, then they succeed by either limiting the availability or the accessibilty of abortions, or even better, getting a challenge to push the law or case further down the path towards the supreme court and overtuning roe v. wade, or using the vote against a politician in the future like this one.

    obama was in the state legislature, not federal gov. and he explained why he voted the way he did, which was present, not even voting against the bill. yes, he spoke out against it but like i said, a lot of these laws are pushed through very rapidly with the goal to eventually outlaw abortions, and there were a few other versions out there, so it was confusing. i don’t think he is out there trying to tell doctors not to try and save the baby or is going to pass any laws when he becomes president asking for more abortions of later and later stage babies. the people who support roe v. wade and a woman’s right to privacy don’t have to goal of killing as many babies as they can, they want to limit the number of abortions but at least want that option open to women. maybe teaching birth control instead of abstinence would help.

    so you can fume and hate all you want, but i just don’t read this the same as you. that doesn’t make me a bad person no matter how many times you type it.

    Comment by jen | September 2, 2008

  12. that doesn’t make me a bad person no matter how many times you type it.

    I’m not the one you’re going to have to explain that to, vermin. Good luck with that.

    Comment by crushliberalism | September 2, 2008


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: