archive

Monday, September 8, 2008

Republican Feminism

No, it's not a new thing. It's very old. Been around forever, in fact. So has the Dem feminism that's been straddling the barstool for the past four decades. You know, that shrill hostility to and replacement of masculinity. Deminism ... Femocrats ... yes, the Femocrats always play a zero sum game: someone wins, someone loses. Either men are in charge, or women. Same with taxes. They don't get that wealth should be created. They think it should be taken, and redistributed. A golden goose thing, both short-sighted and envious. Rather contemptible, actually. Isn't it odd, that the Right, that is so into winning and losing, understands so much better about balance? Games are for winning. Elections are for winning. Wars are for winning. Relationships are for sharing, not owning. Government is for opening doors, not dominating. How strange, that they don't see this.

So with Sarah. She's what Republican feminism is all about. Y'see, she's feminine. Not a castrated male. She understands her own biology, and its role. She sees that there is a responsibility higher than to her community, or to the planet, or to any other abstraction. She understands that her highest human responsibility, as with a man, is to her family.

And the attacks keep coming. Some of them are just insane. Bill Mahr, a uniquely dislikable character (I always expect to see drool sliding down his chin), is apparently saying Sarah's baby is not her own. What exclamation of disgust best applies here? And I heard on the radio that maybe Sarah isn't the governor we thought she was. She's borrowed a lot of money for Alaska, reportedly. Seems unlikely, given the oil revenues. If it's true, could it be borrowed money that is actually going to increase revenues later? Like for a pipeline or somesuch? I don't know. I do doubt that it would be for wasteful social programs. In any case it seems unlikely, given that she's refunded to each tax payer something over a thousand dollars of extra revenue. Pay bill first, before you give money away. I think she knows that.

But so it goes. I really don't think I've ever seen so much mud slung, so fast. It's the speed of the thing. Like one of those harbor fireboats, just spraying out huge jets of water. Only it's mud, aimed at Sarah. Well, we'll call it mud. The Left is having explosive diarrhoea, and hasn't the sense of decency to have it privately. Like that horrifying creature on the MTV awards last night, "Russel Brand," who launched into an attack on Bush. I coincidentally happened to see it, flipping channels. Turned it off after about thirty seconds -- I warn you, what's offensive isn't the vulgarity, but the rank unfunniness, the amateurishness of it. Yes, he actually does know something about himself. Unqualified. Point is, the Left.

As I've said, we can't put our faith in people. I'm sure Sarah's not the white female version of Obama -- a political messiah, regardless of the evidence. The Prince to Come. I suppose that some real problems about her may come to light. Will she cease to be the same person she is now? Or are our perceptions actually illusions, and our hopes just fantasies? I see it as a matter of practicality. We compromised on McCain. We'll compromise with Sarah. Because we find fault even with our wives or husbands, whom we have chosen into our family. It should surprise us that a stranger has flaws?

We like her not because she's perfect. She's not. She seems to have many admirable qualities, and she says the things we like to hear, and seems to believe them and live them. But because her beliefs are strong, she can be attacked. Obama seems, or seemed, to be many things too. But he seems not to have any powerful beliefs. That makes it hard to attack him. He can just start saying slightly different things, you see. Bobbing and weaving. Pivoting. Any sports analogy you want.

One last thing. They're attacking her because of her religion. Assemblies of God -- a charismatic, Pentecostal sect. I suppose I am religiously sort of charismatic. It does creep me out a bit when I hear people speaking in "tongues". It's just that thing about in good order, in closed assembly, with interpretation. You know, biblical. And it would help if what was interpreted was meaningful in some way -- you know, like actual prophecy or something. My point is that she has a right to her faith.

No, that wasn't my point. My point was that not one single reporter or commentator who is blasting Sarah for her church blasted Obama, for his racist church, or its bizarre "Black Liberation Theology." Assemblies of God has the benefit of having a basis in the Bible. BLT is based in racism. But we should have seen it by now. The Left is an expression of racism and bigotry. Indeed, it's the only widespread expression of public bigotry left, in the Western world.


J

8 comments:

bob k. mando said...

[i]BLT is based in racism.[/i]

racist Marxism. i like to refer to it as Liberation Theology with Hitler's racialist aspirations.



[i]We compromised on McCain.[/i]

we have?

this is the Keating Five, McCain-Finegold, pro-abortion, loves Ted Kennedy, we don't need no steenking conservatives, i will appoint Democrats to my cabinet, anti-drilling, pro-spending, anti-Bush tax cuts ( i don't see any point in paying attention to election season flip-flopping and campaign lies ) McCain we're talking about, correct?

i think it's actually Bill Whittle who has explained this in terms i can grasp:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzM3ZWNhZmVhMDY2MDcxOGYzMWFmNWFkNGE2YTI4MGI=

Bill has described the tactical aspects of McCain's campaign perfectly.

but he, as well as you and many others, have made a gross error in who McCain is assessing as his target/enemy. in fighter pilot terms, he has spoofed your IFF signal.

the media loves to say that the primaries pander to the extremes and that the candidate must then moderate in the general election. McCain knows this is a lie. he knows that without the conservative base he has no chance in this election.

and so, he gives us Sarah.

is she everything she appears to be? can she back up these fantastic speeches? maybe she can. maybe she is.

but she will only be the VP. and the only official duty of the VP is to break tie votes in the Senate. what do you think will happen if she crosses McCain on a Senate vote?

the fact is, that McCain's choice of running mate is a great deal of heat and light ... signifying nothing.

do not be distracted by the venomous reaction of the leftists. they are, and always will be, children.

think instead on these points:
1 - in mid-term elections, does the presidents party normally gain or lose seats in Congress?
2 - when the left's policies go wrong, as they always do, do you want a Republican president being blamed for it?
3 - there is a great tendency to underestimate what Congress can accomplish. Tip O'Neil gave Reagan higher peace time deficits than had ever been seen previously, Newt gave Clinton a balanced budget and stonewalled almost all of his truly stupid ideas.

Jack H said...

We must be using different definitions of "compromise." I see it as choosing the lesser of evils. I don't require lock-step agreement. I can accommodate many egregious flaws, when the alternative is orders of magnitude worse.

Compromise? Yes, we have. Most of us. Almost all. Maybe not you. You'll be voting for... Obama? Some protest candidate? If for McCain, than you to will be compromising. If not, you'll be voting for purely personal and symbolic reasons.

The Dems have unwittingly blundered upon a truth, this cycle. For once, the VP really does matter. It's a changing of the guard. Sarah can use the VP as the platform for a presidential run, if she is doesn't in fact inherit the office from McCain, due to unfortunate factors. If she wants it, and if she's anything like what she seems to be, she will certainly be the next presidential candidate. Reason enough for a present compromise, no?

And given that the conservatives and the Republicans are not yet quite in harmonious union, a few more years on the farm team may not be a bad thing. The fatcat Reps deserved to lose power. Do they deserve to win it back? No. Not yet. We don't like it, but consider it a salubrious discipline. A woodshed thing. The Stupid Party learns slowly.

If she crosses McCain on a Senate vote, nothing will happen. Nothing much. Such disagreements are worked out ahead of time. It's called competence.

You're just wrong. You probably meant "sound and fury." It is heat for the Dems, and light for us. So far. We shall see.

1. Midterms usually go to the other party. This time it will come to us, either way. The Dems will get maintain a majority this cycle. Next time their incompetence will finally tell.

2. Blame is a function of communication. Bush wasn't much at that. McCain is marginally better. Sarah seems pretty good. She's got a talk radio host's style. This is a good thing. The tide is changing.

3. Agreed. Presidents enforce law, they don't make them. They apply spending, they don't determine it. But Reid is not O'Neil. Pelosi has never had an equal. If the Reps can't surpass this incompetence, elections just don't matter.

J

bob k. mando said...

I see it as choosing the lesser of evils.

*shrugs*
McCain has told conservatives through his actions and votes ( yea, even unto his very words ), over and over again, that he hates us, that he despises our positions and that he would wipe his butt with the Constitution.

i see it as placing him a position to do the worst harm to us that he can.



You'll be voting for... Obama?

nice one, if a bit obvious.

most likely the Republican running as a Libertarian or the Libertarian running as a Republican. i couldn't abide Paul's stance on the war but that position will be of no effect in Nov.


For once, the VP really does matter.

only because both of the lead candidates are so disturbingly flawed.

but this is a symptom of a deep sickness of both parties and the Republic. it is a salient that exists only because we have tolerated gross corruption and incompetence for so long.

given that most of the corruption is originating in the college's ( Bill Ayers, Ward Churchill, etc, ad nauseam ), i don't know whether we can recover.



If she wants it, and if she's anything like what she seems to be, she will certainly be the next presidential candidate.

Reagan wasn't elected in 76, and yet the presidency was still his for the taking in 1980.

Al Gore and Dan Quayle both got the VP, where are they?

failure to attain the VP is no hindrance, especially if to do so would tie you to a lead weight like Jorge Bush. i expect McCain to be much worse than Bush.

and do you so quickly forget Bobby Jindal? wouldn't that be a ticket though? Jindal / Palin? you think the Dhimmicrats are losing their minds now.......



If she crosses McCain on a Senate vote, nothing will happen. Nothing much. Such disagreements are worked out ahead of time. It's called competence.

let us say that the House passes to the Senate a bill which would legalize experimentation on tissue obtained from congenitally defective fetal abortions.

that the sitting Senators are split 50/50 is a given, otherwise Palin's opinion would make no difference.

McCain instructs Palin that he wishes to see this pass.

Palin, taking her religion seriously, votes "No".

it matters little what is worked out ahead of time. it's called principle. and it would result in a demand for her immediate resignation.

but tie-breakers cast by the VP are almost non-existent. almost as rare as abortions to protect the life of the mother. considering the philosophical aspects may amuse but they serve little use to set general policy.

so i guess i shouldn't have brought it up?


You're just wrong.

so i was. you got me there. if i could have edited it, i would have.



Next time their incompetence will finally tell.

not all of us can be cranky old bastards. somebody has to be positive Polly. it's a dirty job, i guess it fell to you.


2. Blame is a function of communication

which is, for the most part, controlled and dictated by the MSM. look, Obama is still browbeating Bush about Iraq.

rhetorical question: how much better will the Surge have to do before Iraq becomes a reason to vote "For" Republicans instead of "Against"?

rhetorical answer:
how 'well' we are doing in Iraq is of no relevance. the only thing that will satisfy the MSM ( and by extension, the general mood of the unthinking public ) is complete withdrawal.

Sarah's verbal ability, like Reagan's, may well draw some of the poison from the wounds the MSM will inflict. but make no mistake, those wounds will still come.


If the Reps can't surpass this incompetence,

then why did we nominate McCain? he has ALL of Bush's policy and propaganda "weaknesses" ( illegal amnesty, maintain the war, spending, disregard for the Constitution ) and he adds large portions of the DNC platform and promises to put Democrats in his cabinet.

Thompson would be better than this. Paul would be better than this. but it is painful to say that Thompson and Paul were our two best choices this year.

OT: which Democrats would you project McCain to place in his cabinet?



Joe Lieberman is a given.
Hillary is the only other Democrat I can think of who has been forcefully for the Iraq war.
McCain supposedly likes Kennedy, but health concerns may interfere with that.

any others you'd like ( heh ) to see?

Jack H said...

"wipe his butt with the Constitution"
That might be a tad emotional.

"if a bit obvious."
I just didn't think I knew anyone who'd waste a vote.

"only because"
Um, yes? And also cuz she's like really neat and gonna be the next prez maybe or at least revitalize the right.

"McCain instructs Palin that he wishes to see this pass."
Oh, is that how it works. I hadn't realized the VP was just a tool. It didn't start out that way. Must be one of those living, breathing modifications to the Constitution.

"i guess it fell to you."
I'm Gumby, damit!

You're still harping on about Iraq? Dude, get with the program. The issue now is oil.

Does it matter if Dems are in the Cabinet? Isn't it about the best man for the job? I'm sure it must be.

I'm sure some of those "conservative" Dems who got elected in 06 would fit the bill. Minutiae is not my thing though, political minutiae.

bob k. mando said...

I just didn't think I knew anyone who'd waste a vote.

have no fear, you don't "know" me in any meaningful sense of the term.

for all you know, i'm a Dembot running deep cover psy-ops.


Um, yes? And also cuz she's like really neat and gonna be the next prez maybe or at least revitalize the right.

and here i thought it was only Obama who had the messiah complex going for him. oh well, wrong again.


I hadn't realized the VP was just a tool. It didn't start out that way.

when the VP was the second highest vote getter for Presidency, you would have expected a vote contrary to the sitting president's position.

now that P and VP run on the same ticket, the VP is expected to be nothing more than a placeholder for the P's positions if something goes wrong.

tell me, when is the last time a VP publicly took a position in direct opposition to his president? i can think of none.


Does it matter if Dems are in the Cabinet?

so why vote Republican, then?

something to think about, the RNC is not very congruent with "the Right". it may be time to excise the old dead weight and start anew.

like the Republican party did in the 1840's, taking over from the Whigs.

Will C. said...

"when the VP was the second highest vote getter for Presidency, you would have expected a vote contrary to the sitting president's position."

And I would counter that if McCain wins then it is because of Palin and what she brings to the table...so he owes her more than she owes him. Of course she will be able to vote the way she feels compelled to.

And I personally think that McCain learned a valuable lesson on the "McShamnesty" bill's failure. And that was don't cross conservatives. His selection of Palin vs. Lieberman reenforces that as well. I also think that he is basking in this new-found love and won't soon try and wizz it away.

Hey, I voted for FRED! in the primary and was no big fan of McCain. I will say that after hearing his life story in such detail as during the convention, that my respect-o-meter jumped considerably.

But alas, you sir are like our local radio host Russ Castle to whom immigration is end all be all issue...so go ahead and go down with your principles. Just don't sink our ship in the process.

Jack H said...

"you don't "know" me"
Neener neener. I knew I should have put 'knew' in sarcasm quotes.

"messiah complex going for him"
Look at what she's done. You did read this right? Your not a Dembot? "As I've said, we can't put our faith in people. I'm sure Sarah's not the white female version of Obama -- a political messiah, regardless of the evidence."

"the VP is expected to be nothing more than"
Oh. OK. I thought it was something different.

Aaron Burr.

"so why vote Republican, then?"
We don't vote for parties. We vote for policies, and their competent application.

bob k. mando said...

And I would counter that if McCain wins then it is because of Palin and what she brings to the table...so he owes her more than she owes him.

and after the election, what will she be able to do for him? have you ever heard the expression, "what have you done for me lately"? i also find it interesting that you acknowledge, sotte voce, that McCain will have to be coerced into 'proper' policy.


Of course she will be able to vote the way she feels compelled to.

where have i said that she "could not"? but there would be consequences for such a chimerical vote. they hardly ever happen anyways, which means that there is no practical reason to vote 'for Palin'.

also, try not to use "she feels". that's endemic to the lib-left. i much prefer a representative who thinks and reasons their way to a position.



And I personally think that McCain learned a valuable lesson on the "McShamnesty" bill's failure. And that was don't cross conservatives.

IIRC, wasn't that one of the instances where he referred to conservatives as racist and reactionary loons ( or something to that effect )?

this is the man who once told MSM reporters that they were his natural constituency. i doubt very much that he was wrong in his estimation.


I will say that after hearing his life story in such detail as during the convention, that my respect-o-meter jumped considerably.

really? you were unaware of his torture and mental breaking? here's a clue, given time and competent torturers everyone breaks. it's not a question of "if", it's merely a question of "how long" can you go. you can get that from any recounting of Nam POW stories or any story about US military training for captivity.

but the point isn't what his father or grandfather did. and it wasn't how many planes he crashed in Viet Nam.

it's what he's done with that military notoriety since he's gotten back. in many ways, he's used it as dishonorably as John Kerry.



you sir are like our local radio host Russ Castle to whom immigration is end all be all issue.

actually, sir, i didn't even bring up illegals in my original post. amnesty is simply one in a broad panoply of issues in which McCain has proven over the decades that he opposes us.

as far as i can tell, there is only one "issue" on which McCain has actually been with us and that is the war in Iraq. he hasn't even been for us on waterboarding.

the only other reason to vote for him is the warm fuzzy feeling you'll have inside when the occupant of the White House has an (R) behind his name. but that isn't really a 'reason', it's just identity politics.


Aaron Burr.

Aaron Burr??! Aaron Burr. *shakes head sorrowfully*

i expect better of you than this Jack. i specifically made reference to the 12th Amendment and how VP's elected prior to it's enactment would be expected to oppose their President. you rebut me with the very VP who caused the 12th to be passed? and think that you have proven anything at all?

i thought we knew each other better than this. that you would think i would let such a thing pass ... tut, tut.

if you can do no better than this, and you are a man of integrity, you will soon be joining me in denying McCain.

keep up the good work on the MSM and Palin though. i am not made of stern enough stuff to be able to endure sitting through a Stephanopolus or Gibson interview. i'd spend too much money replacing tv's.


We vote for policies, and their competent application.

preach it brother.

the competent application of consitutionalist principles, that's what we want.

will the author of McCain-Finegold respect the Freedom of Speech?

you can feel the power, come to the Dark Side.