“Palin is an ignorant stupid-head,” say the ignorant stupid-heads
I’m really getting sick of this stuff.
As I wrote in my post on O’Donnell approximately an hour ago:
I have noticed a trend in the MSM that goes like this: the press decides that certain candidates on the right are idiots (Palin and O’Connell come to mind, and Bush before them). There is then a sort of lying-in-wait for the absurd utterance to reveal the utterly moronic nature of that person. However, since the press and pundits are not necessarily brilliant critical thinkers themselves, the utterance they fasten in is often (not always, but often) actually more intelligent than they realize.
Fast forward just a little bit, and see this post by Ace, referencing a whole lotta chortling going on at Twitter, lead by Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos (who qualifies as both press and supposed pundit), concerning that idiot Palin and her idiotic call to refrain from the urge to “party like it’s 1773” while addressing a Tea Party rally, no doubt attended by like-minded idiots.
Palin really nailed them with her “stupid” observation about “death panels.”
For some reason the left assumes Republicans and conservatives are stupid. That was the rap on Eisenhower (WW II Supreme Allied Commander) Reagan (put the commies out of business and crushed inflation), Gerald Ford (Speaker of the House), and Bush 2 (won the Iraq war the Dems said was lost).
Our current president is supposed to be brilliant and he hasn’t figured out the effects of fiscal policy, taxation and government regulation on employment.
Liberals must derive great psychic income from their arrogance.
We all know the game of liberals who can’t argue ideas from reason and fact. Frame situations to portray a huge concensus overwhelming lone deniers. Strictly peer pressure ridicule tactics to produce adherents to PC and fashionable thought.
Aparrently Gwen Ifill is an idiot also.
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/10/19/the-significance-of-1773-moron-leftists-mock-palin-embarrass-themselves/
I agree with Michelle Malkin. Own UP GWEN !
It’s ok that you “thought” Sarah made a mistake when it was really you ! We all make mistakes.
You only look DISHONEST when you don’t own up.
It took only 3 years for escalation from Boston Tea Party to Revolutionary war. Is there any chance that mass protest movement of 2010 will escalate to something more dramatic in 2013?
The tempo of political polarization in USA is frightening and it already went far beyond traditional norms of civility. When entrenched political elites can not understand that they outlived their acceptance and legitimity, some nasty things may happen. Not a war, of course, but serious troubles, like emerging of a third party with more popular appeal that both traditional parties.
Sorry. I believe I’m being a hypocrate. I shouldn’t be calling these idiots idiots.
We can look to Gwen for understanding and put ourselves in her shoes for a moment…. maybe offer her compassion for being …. I mean making …. a non-mistake.
As Mr. Frank points out , adherents of the Donkey Party have been spouting the “dumb Republicans, dumb conservatives” line since the time of Eisenhower. Here is an example from that time, from Democratic Party presidential candidate Adali Stevenson
My question of the Democrats: “Are you that devoid of original ideas that you have to keep recycling a line that was old hat a half century [1960] ago?”
It’s not just the “consrvatives are stupid” meme that gets recycled over and over.
George Will wrote a column 2-3 weeks ago about how the “extremist” meme has been used against libertarian leaning conservatives since at least Goldwater. Of course, Goldwater was branded with that label so often during his presidential campaign that in his party nomination acceptance speech he talked about “the unthinking and stupid labels” leveled against him and it prompted his most famous quote, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virture.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9buEI8SgwU
Ronald Reagan was also labled both an idiot dolt and an extremist. According to Angelo Codevilla’s excellent article about the Ruling Class that appeared in American Spectator this summer, even Reagan’s own Vice President, George H.W. Bush, warned Gorbachev that Reagan was considered an “extremist”.
It’s such a strange world that when you want to maximize individual freedom and individual responsibility it is considered an extremist view.
We’ve probably all experienced the problem of judging someone by first impressions. Only to learn later we were very wrong. Liberals make this mistake daily, only it gets multiplied as it’s coming from a premptive impression level.
I respectfully disagree with Sarah — I say it is time to party like 1773, but instead of tea, what I propose we throw overboard this time is:
(1) Selected politicians (Coons, Hinchey, Rangel),
(2) the MSM,
(3) the “intellectual” “elite”.
Tea represented what was taxed at the time.
Tea represents Taxed enough already now.
It’s an acronym that stands for the elite, the msm, the politicians needing to learn economics 101.
The 1773 reference seems like a possible set-up by the Palin people. If so, this estranged Palin supporter concedes that it was well played.
If Sarah Palin wins the Republican nomination in 2012, I will vote for her. I just hope she’s electable. She IS making progress along those lines.
I respect her intelligence, common sense, and judgment.
Any kind of “gotcha question” she can’t answer (like the “Bush Preemptive Doctrine one” can be explained to her complete understanding by career technocrats in about 10 minutes.
Common sense and good judgment beat “book larnin'” anytime.
gs: yes, they might have laid a trap for unexpecting, “gotcha,” liberals.
Sarah Palin is learning how to play the game. But remember, her character and strength from faith preceeded her new adroitness.
What was the single most defining event in her training: It was resigning the governorship of Alaska, the same strategy Washington used in refusing to engage the British unless on his terms. Clad with an octopus, she merely stepped away.
Sarah understands that we are at war. Just as the Quran commands taqiyyah, so do the statists use deceit until they perceive the time is ripe. Sarah understands because of her religious beliefs. Those beliefs are a threat to the deceit, the taqiyyah of the progressives. One having such beliefs need not wait for the tree to bear the poisonous fruit.
The progressives, on the other hand, are informed only by their eponyms and their progeny. That’s it. Their foundation is their claimed intellect and brilliance. By definition, an opposite or even oblique view is “dumb.” Since it’s brilliance which self-defines them, it is stupidity which defines their opponents. They don’t recognize their definition of themselves is a tautology.
Munch’s scream well defines the state of a progressive when he is alone, when he does not have the howl of the crowd around him. Deep inside they sense the substance of Sarah Palin and their own derivativeness. It must be an awful pain to keep running from.
I told someone yesterday that anyone who is repulsed by Palin and O’Donnell is an evil and corrupted soul (in the proper sense of the term evil as privation of good).
Republican or Dem, that’s the plain fact of the matter.
Disagreeing on policy is a whole separate matter.
Not liking them as person shows a fundamental error in the soul, since there is not only nothing objectionable anbout them, but rather laudatory about them.
The normal and decent soul is called normal and decent because they love the good and hate evil. The corrupted Palin hater loves evil and is repelled by the good.
For Obama, it’s the opposite. he should be hated and reviled since he is a hateful person. he does evil; his actions end in evil, because he lacks the proper good inside to be good. He lacks, as such. He is missing things. He is strictly speaking deprived.
He is, for that reason, probably the most dangerous President we’ve ever had. If the R’s don’t win Congress and put the brakes on him, America is over.
texexec,
You’re right about the Bush pre-emptive doctrine. Not only could a hired wonk explain it, she’d be able to understand the concept and context and ramifications.
Problem with your reference is that in the interview with Charlie Gibson, where she seemed to bumble it, it was a con job. No Bush admin person had ever used the term. It was, according to Krauthammer, he who first coined it. And there are probably four, or as many more as there are people thinking about it, versions of the Bush Doctrine.
Which is to say, whatever her answer was, she could have been disdainfully “corrected.”
Scott,
I have in my files a quiz titled ‘Reagan or W?’ from (IIRC) NRO just for your enjoyment. Here’s some of the quotes…answers and citations later today (PDT).
1)“European discomfort with the President, however, goes beyond the political differences that preceded and will outlast his presidency. It has, as well, a personal basis. He appears to Europeans to be ill equipped for the responsibility that he bears, a kind of cowboy figure, bellicose, ignorant, with a simplistic view of the world…”
6) “Europe Sees U.S. Foreign Policy As Out Of Control”
7) “Speaking to members of the American Stock Exchange, [Senator Edward] Kennedy said, ‘Our present course is taking the United States toward unilateral intervention … toward a war, whether we want it or not, whether we like it or not, (that) will inevitably involve American forces in combat. But surely, an American invasion… would plunge us into the most unwanted, unnecessary and unjustified war in our history,’ Kennedy said…. Kennedy said Congress must propose ‘an alternative policy with a real prospect of success.’ ‘So, as a first step, we must call off the dogs of war,’ he said.”
8)“[W]e have a President who is obsessed by the subject. [It] is his Moby Dick. Like a political Ahab, he pursues it beyond reason, beyond humanity, beyond safety. In his frustration, he spews out rage and hate, fear and falsehood.”
12) “Unilateral intervention by a truculent and trigger-happy Uncle Sam might delight some U.S. citizens — frustrated by events, eager for easy answers — but elsewhere… it would only serve to reaffirm the worst fears…”
19) “‘[The President] has been a divider, not a uniter… The American people will reject four more years of danger, four more years of pain,’ [a leading congressional Democrat] said.”
SoW:
I’d guess they were all said about Reagan.
I just had to repost this: it’s from a comment (#44) in the Belmont Club’s latest thread.
You know how we’ve spent gallons of “ink” analyzing Obummer’s intentions and the intentions of the Dims? Check this out:
“After Obama’s first 100 days in office, political sage Michael Barone told the story of an influential national Democrat who confided to him that Washington, D.C., Democrats had expected Obama to be either a corrupt Chicago Machine politico who would build a nation-wide Chicago-style Democratic machine to dominate America indefinitely (the way the Machine dominates Chicago), or a hard-Left ideologue.
“Barone said that his highly-placed Democrat mole related that he and the D.C. Democrats were amazed to find that Obama was both!”
They knew, dammit. They KNEW he was poison. Supported a guy they expected to turn our great country into a Chicago-style cesspool or a Leftist hellhole. Only surprised that he was both.
Bastards. Utter bastards.
Beverly,
ALL Dems, even the so=called friends you have, are “utter bastards”.
Obama is their prince and king.
Horrible fact. It’s the most true thing though.
Richard Aubrey:
You’re right about the Bush Preemptive Doctrine question being a set up job as was that entire interview with “look down his nose over glasses” Charlie.
I often wonder why being an intellectual is so damned important to Northeastern liberals. I have a theory about that.
Here in Texas, there is a STRONG network of people who work in the petroleum industry. Houston is without a doubt the oil industry’s world headquarters. There is STRONG cooperation between chemical engineering departments at Rice, University of Texas, and Texas A&M and the chemical industry. They feed on each other and this network is VERY important in the oil industry. Professors consult for the oil and chemical companies and there is a flow of economic benefits to the universities in the form of grants and scholarships. Chemical engineering graduates contribute heavily to the university departments.
In the Northeast, a huge industry revolves around government and legal activities. The headquarters for the federal government is the Northeast (Boston to DC corridor). There, universities feed government and the large law firms some of which are active in the financial industry. There is a network of graduates from Harvard, Yale, Princeton and other universities who rotate in and out of government and if you aren’t in that network, you are considered (by those in it) to be intellectually unqualified to serve in the government (you didn’t attend one of the higher rated universities).
I’m betting that the Ivy League universities are overrated. I’ve worked closely with graduates from them on Wall Street and as a consultant to a large oil company research lab and I wasn’t impressed.
Neo has pointed out that the 2000 presidential election was essentially a tie and that Bush’s lawyers beat Gore’s lawyers. Bush’s legal team was led by Jim Baker, who did get his undergraduate degree from an Ivy League university but his law degree came from the University of Texas. His team ate Gore’s team’s lunch. (Didn’t hurt that he had the Constitution on his side.)
Neo,
The lefties are like petulant children that should have been taken to the woodshed a long time ago.
The November woodshed now looms and I keep a good thought and a prayer. I can only hope that Otto von Bismarck (?) was correct when he said that God watches over fools, drunkards and the United States of America.
“Is there any chance that mass protest movement of 2010 will escalate to something more dramatic in 2013?”
I think so – I’ve always felt this is going to end with at least some bloodshed. I hope we can do it electorally and we are moving towards that, but I do not think it is going to happen.
I was talking with some more classical liberals a short while back (they do not like Obama either, but they tend to “circle the wagons” against conservatives and jump back and forth between blasting him and defending him – quite amusing to watch). They were talking about the tea party and what they thought the beliefes were was … not really sure what to say: hilarious, sad, and really a mix of both.
Things like “Don’t these people realise that we live in the 21’st century? If we go back in time politically why not follow that to its logical conclusion and go back to the stone age – that is just stupid, no one would like that, not even them”. Well, uh yea – true. Good thing the Tea Party crowds aren’t talking about that. I couldn’t find a single complaint they had that *remotely* reflected anything the protesters were saying or thinking – most were like the “going back in time” and I haven’t a clue as to where they even came up with that idea (well, they got it from one of the major news channels, I haven’t a clue where the reporter got it).
They know I’m a conservative and are careful to not talk bad about them in my hearing (just as I leave off talking bad about liberals in their presence), they figured this is safe because they figure I’m intelligent enough to think the idea is stupid too – which is true in a sense (that idea *was* stupid), but I’m sure they were puzzled by my look of confusion through most of it.
I tried to talk about what the Tea Party people tend to want (they also talked endlessly about how as a political party they aren’t organized – maybe because they *aren’t* a political party?) but for the most part they were so stuck on their idea that they had formed based on many hours of watching news and reading reports that they couldn’t get what I was saying and were confused because I was supporting the Tea Party movement.
Sadly I know of more than a few Republicans (which are only Conservative By Chance as that is what it mostly takes to elected as one) that get thier news from the same or similar sources. They may get elected by the Tea Party turnout, but they are going to get rapped by them when they do not perform and figure it can all be Status Quo from here on out.
I think we are nearing the end of a large segment of our populations threshold to go through “proper” channels. The next is a real third party (which I do not think will work) and after that I expect revolution. I think we *do* have a chance over the next couple of elections to avoid it, I’ll even give it a good chance (after all, as long as the Democrats fight an opponent that doesn’t exist and we fight the one that does we *will* win), however I’m not going to be shocked if the system is so corrupt it can’t be fixed but instead needs to be redone.
Beverly, my friend who is running congress told me Obama & Co. will try and run the US the way they ran Chicago, but that it would not work.
But yes they do put party above principles. I think Jefferson had the right idea, a bloody revolution every now and then to secure American liberties. The firing squads can start with the Democratic Iowa Caucus that jump started Obama.
that should be “my friend who is running for Congress”
Bob From Virginia:
Beverly, my friend who is running congress …that should be “my friend who is running for Congress”
That’s OK i:n future years your typo may become truth,
rickl,
Yup. I thought 1 and 19 at least might fool somebody. It’s the same old song, isn’t it.
Citations:
1) Michael Mandelbaum, Foreign Affairs, ”America and the World 1985”
6)Los Angeles Times headline, December 4, 1986
7) United Press International, June 11, 1985
8) Anthony Lewis, New York Times, March 24, 1986
12) Editorial, Los Angeles Times, August 7, 1985
19) The Associated Press, January 30, 1984
strcpy:
It is indeed frustrating and dismaying that the MSM still holds so much sway over large segments of the population, particularly as they no longer bear any semblance to “news” organizations and are 24/7 propaganda organs for the left.
I don’t think this will end peacefully. And I don’t think we have multiple election cycles to work it out. I think we have at most a couple of years before the economy collapses utterly (and it could happen at any moment). Then things will get very ugly indeed.
In other news, Iowahawk’s now on Twitter, apparently, and he has a history quiz.
“The firing squads can start with the Democratic Iowa Caucus that jump started Obama.”
And follow with the Democrat caucus that gave their delegates to Obama, even though Hillary won the TX primary!
Now this is quite interesting, by Zombie:
The Electric Tea Party Acid Test
In which Zombie explores the parallels and similarities between the sixties hippies and the Tea Party. Really, well worth a read.
@ Sergey Oct. 19th 4:26 pm. It took only 3 years for escalation from Boston Tea Party to Revolutionary war. Is there any chance that mass protest movement of 2010 will escalate to something more dramatic in 2013? Actually, it’s not quite that simple. First, violence had accompanied the imposition of the Stamp Act in 1765; second, the Battle of Lexington-Concord, generally considered the beginning of open warfare between Great Britain and the colonies, was in April 1775; also, the (Second) Continental Congress established the Continental Army in June 1775.
But your question raises a host of other issues in my mind. What the states and the people endure every day now is nothing — just about absolutely nothing — compared to what the United Colonies revolted against – taxation without representation.
They didn’t, for instance, have an imperial government telling them how to make their candles (you must use this kind of tallow, and the wicks must be this thick) or how to make their carriages (the wheels must be made of this, the seats of that, and they must be able to go so many miles before repairs), or what they could or could not do with the flora and fauna on their own property.
Here is a must read–Der Spiegel’s analysis of Obama’s failure, complete with all the usual condescension, followed by lots of responses from sensible Americans. At the end of the article, click on the Forum, discuss this article link. It’s my soulfood for the day.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,723814,00.html
Also, the left sidebar links to an interview with Karl Rove, in which he points out that the European system is not exactly peaches and cream. (How long has Belgium been without a government?)
I agree with your point. The critics are so “smart” they’re stupid, sometimes.
In that vein, can I beseech you to correct two grammatical errors in the post. (I hope I don’t make my own while typing this.)
the utterance they fasten in is often
should be
the utterance they fasten on is often
And secondly, and more importantly, please correct what is currently my super pet-peeve – the spreading misuse of the word lead for the word led.
referencing a whole lotta chortling going on at Twitter, lead by Markos Moulitsas
it should be
referencing a whole lotta chortling going on at Twitter, led by Markos Moulitsas
If you fix these mistakes I’ll have a big, heaping bowl of Jell-O waiting for you. I know how you like Jell-O…. “:)
This morning on the talk shows they were harping on the latest “gotcha” to come out of the most recent O’Donnell Coons debate.
Coons was hammering her about the “separation between church and state” and she questioned where that was in the Constitution. So immediately the finger-pointing started. Ha ha ha…O’Donnell doesn’t know anything about the Constitution, etc.
Thing is, apparently the Constitution DOESN’T say anything specifically about a separation between church and state (although liberals like to claim that it’s in there, because that serves their goal of pressuring other Americans to keep religious viewpoints out of the public square).
The so-called Establishment Clause in the Constitution simply says that the government will not establish a state religion. It’s a legal distinction but one that’s rather important in the overall scheme of things.
So who’s the dummy again?
Oops neo, I missed your very comprehensive post on the subject just before this one!
Soviet of Washington – I would love to see the entire quiz!
Lucky me…
I just discovered ANOTHER great woman that the feminists and others ignore because only marxists are real…
Margaret Dayhoff…
if anything would show that this movement is about a dictatorship of the proletariat FIRST and women only as a means, is the way that they represent their constituency…
over time, now that we are not ignoring things so much, the quotes will make more sense believed than refuted out of hand because one doesn’t like the conclusion that they bring to ignoring their stated aims
“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” – Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10
Obama was clear.. fundamental change
Hitler was clear – Mein Kampf
Gramsci was clear – 9 Volumes
the SDS was clear
the CPUSA was clear
the NEA after Dodd was clear
China was clear as to our relationship
you can go down a even longer list and at some point your going to have to ask the question:
why don’t we believe people we put in for when they say they are going to do something way out that they are serious about?
if you took Hitler and his book seriously, he wouldn’t have been in a position to be voted into a position where he could launch himself (same with Obama, Clinton (fulbright scholar to soviet union), et al)
its not like its hidden at all..
its out in the open like the purloined letter
and only hidden from view because we are too wishy washy to believe such, and so then be required to accept it, or oppose it.
Falling is wonderful
and we have been falling for nearly to over 100 years
guess what?
the predictions of those who were run out for their answers of us hitting bottom are now within view.
we now see the ground rushing towards us, and we vaguely remember how we thought it would be great to jump…
after all, falling doesn’t hurt…
hitting the bottom does…
and if its a long ride to the bottom
not only might you forget your falling
but you will also forget that your going to hit it harder from falling so high
Making Ignorance Chic
by Dowdy Dowd
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/opinion/20dowd.html?_r=1
At least, unlike Paris Hilton and her ilk, the Dumb Blonde of ’50s cinema had a firm grasp on one thing: It was cool to be smart. She aspired to read good books and be friends with intellectuals, even going so far as to marry one.
But now another famous beauty with glowing skin and a powerful current, Sarah Palin, has made ignorance fashionable.
oh oh…meow!!! scritch scritch…
It’s news to Christine O’Donnell that the Constitution guarantees separation of church and state.
It’s news to Joe Miller, whose guards handcuffed a journalist, and to Carl Paladino, who threatened The New York Post’s Fred Dicker, that the First Amendment exists, even in Tea Party Land. Michele Bachmann calls Smoot-Hawley Hoot-Smalley.
it may be news to dowd that it does not, it only says that the congress cant pick one and support it…
it also does not define what church is, and so socialism may be forbidden under state religion…
the founders did not intend the removal of religion a la soviets. the library of congress has a great website area up (maybe still), on this issue and has new forensic analysis of the letters of jefferson as well.
In Marilyn’s America, there were aspirations. The studios tackled literary novels rather than one-liners like “He’s Just Not That Into You” and navel-gazing drivel like “Eat Pray Love.” Walt Disney’s “Fantasia” paired cartoon characters with famous composers. Even Bugs Bunny did Wagner.
But in Sarah’s America, we’ve refudiated all that.
actually…
you can watch the change from what she claims was better, to now, with the ascenscion of feminism…
a sex goddess who never actually had sex or dressed anywhere near as trashy today, could only exist pre feminsm.
the studios that tackled literary novels were run by men and they wanted entertainment for men and women, and evne the family.
they had not yet been forced by feminists, and Frankfurt school graduates, to bury the dead white guys that wrote those oppressive novels, and had the nerve to call history HIStory…
BOTH movies she shows dispise for are women movies, geared to women… Slapstic cartoons are generally mens entertainment… and wagner, bugs, and all that are part of that oppressive sexist culture that you, Dowd, helped create and still work towards.
all the while lamenting that your alone and no man wants you… ever thing he doesn’t want you because you will give him the same shoe shine Naomi goldstein inventor of the happy gulag gave her husband? (has she ever thought of trolling the herpetology department?)
its a brave new womens world with 7 inch heels the norm, thigh high stockings and boots, ATM that doesnt mean money machine, sexualization of children, abortion on demand (for the sexualized children), and more!
no… the liberation didn’t give you what you wanted (a man). it didn’t free up women to write like women in more oppressive eras did, it kind of just freed them to whine about oppression, or write about how we can make ourselves our own project (no man to make i guess), and self help your way to each new iconic fad from disco to pilattes, all the while smearing any chemical that claims youthfulness AND has some extract of a fruit.
face it, what gets dowds gall is that these other women that they deny exist, who have ignored their orders of how to live (and become a taxable “means of production” for the state, not your family), and dared home school, marry, have kids, adopt, worship, and yes sometimes hunt, bake, sew, skin or gut a fish, fix a flat, and basically live the way women have lived for age…. are kind of now not to keen on being quiet and shamed into silence while some group pretending to represent them gets to wield their power by default and absent them.
… and Sonny Bono before Bush… and Reagan before Bono… and Ford before Reagan…
Yelling “stupidhead” seems to be a distinctly progressive proclivity.
Unless you are Howard Dean, who merely yelled HEEEEEYAAAAAAARRRRGH
thanks for your time for providing valuable info regarding the topic. I am a fan from your website. Keep up acknowledge that there are job.