Skip to comments.Sarah Palin's Charisma
Posted on 12/03/2010 1:38:02 AM PST by Scanian
Why does the left hate Sarah Palin with such screaming rage? Why do they lose their cookies at the very idea of our Sally?
Think about that for a second.
Here's a beautiful, strong, intelligent, articulate, healthy-looking, truth-telling political winner in the State of Alaska -- a gun-totin', sports-lovin', all-American woman, elected on her own merits against a corrupt establishment in Anchorage, AK.
All the feminists should be dancing and cheering, right?
On top of all that, she married a native Alaskan who actually loves his country. And she had kids. With him.
Weird, I know.
Plus, she is not embittered, alienated, or divorced.
And her children smile a lot.
Best of all, Palin does not seem to think that free abortion is the answer to the population bomb.
Puhhh-leeeze! I can hear all the metrosexuals sigh.
Oh, Gawwwdd! Is this "Father Knows Best" or what?
Watch those eyes rolling up to heaven.
Watch those hands flopping like dead fish.
Today, the New York Times is a lot more scared of Sarah Palin than it ever was after three thousand New Yorkers were burned to death on 9/11/2001.
After all, Sarah Palin could do some real damage.
Have you ever seen a more out-of-its-mind mob than the liberal media yowling at the moon over Governor Palin? I can't remember any. Well, maybe the Danish cartoon riots in Peshawar, Pakistan. Or the old Kluxers in Mississippi before the real Civil Rights movement.
The left has all the subtlety of a high-tech lynch mob, as Clarence Thomas said in 1991, when they went all-out to destroy his good name before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Clarence Thomas knows about lynch mobs from the old South, and nobody has labeled the media better. Mad-dog, foaming-at-the-mouth, baying mediot mob.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The important thing, though, is that we end up with democrat spoken only in Hell.
I find it quite interesting that many of the same people around here who object to protective tariffs for the America of the 1850s think similar measures would be just wonderful today.
My question was not whether protective tariffs existed but rather the claim that southerners paid 80% of all tariffs, which could only be the case if they purchased 80% of the products on which tariffs were paid. This seems unlikely, to put it mildly.
BTW, protective tariffs became a political issue after the War of 1812, when the military and political drawbacks of near-total dependence on imports vulnerable to British blockades became obvious. The most powerful proponent of protective tariffs for most of the period in question was Henry Clay, a Kentucky slaveowner.
What generally gets missed in most of these discussions about northern “oppression” of the South is that for the entire first half of the 19th century there WAS no North, as a self-concious political block.
There was a (north)East and a (north)West. The West, being almost entirely agricultural, was generally allied with the South, between them controlling the government as against the still mostly agricultural but increasingly urban and industrial East.
The South created the North by aggressively pushing expansion of slavery and driving the West into the arms of the East. The Republican Party was formed in protest against the unwillingness of the existing parties to resist this expansion.
The southern strategy of trying to force expansion of slavery down the throat of the northern people turned out to be a very bad idea.
In some of the comments on that article, people were campaign her to Goldwater with the idea that the same thing that happened to Goldwater would happen to Palin. The big difference between then and now in the nature of the media available to people. Back in Goldwater’s day, the MSM was the ONLY game in town. The left controlled the message! Not so these days. Sarah has the ability and the technical capability to by-pass the media and go VFR direct to We the People! The left knows this and that’s why they and the RINO GOP establishment have all the knives out! But it won’t work - We the People are onto their game!
Every time a conservative with potential gains prominence, the country club crowd will try to slap him/her down.
True, the media game has changed but the viciousness of the Ruling Class continues. They still think they can find a way to control: view their reactions to the tea parties and Christine O’Donnell.
I am not sure he was the first. But damn him.
Some mistakes cannot be made up for by writing a Gospel hymn.
Her courage is what they fear most
"Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees all others." Winston Churchill
Great information for shutting up liberals. I copied and pasted it. You should write an op-ed in the WSJ or another notable publication.
I'd like to see some documentation on this one. My understanding is that most of the eugenics laws were bipartisan, promoted by "progressives" of both parties, before "progressivism" became entirely or even mostly associated with the Democratic Party.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Feel free to read the entire document. When you find the sentence that mentions taxes, let me know.
Guess I'm just a soft headed liberal in that respect....
The same way various things are today labeled, "bipartisan" when three RINOs in the House vote with the democrat majority? States with eugenics laws all had state legislatures with large democrat majorities. If you want to say that there were "progressive Republicans" who went along you're probably right but that doesn't make it a true "bipartisan" effort by any means.
There were, indeed, some prominent Republicans who supported such initiatives, some even wanting them enacted on a national level. Most of those advocating such laws were very wealthy and very much opposed to allowing continued immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe in spite of the fact that they preferred to employ them rather than non-immgrants in their mines and factories. That some the same wealthy individuals supported a good many things the Republican party would never adopt as a part of their platform pretty well shows what sort of "Republicans" those folks were just like you now find nominal Republicans who are, in fact, nothing of the sort.
Sorry, that's a statement, not evidence.
30 states passed laws requiring compulsory sterilization of "unfit" people, which seems a reasonable surrogate for "eugenics."
I looked up several states. SC, obviously controlled by Democrats, had no such law.
1/3 of all the sterilization were performed in CA, which passed its law in 1909. I've been unable to come up with information on which party controlled the legislature that year.
It ain't a big deal, but I don't believe your "eugenics is evil and only Democrats wanted it" meme is accurate.
Eugenics was not a highly controversial idea in the early years of last century. It was more kind of a generalized ideal that most took for granted.
Eugenics did not become particularly controversial till the Nazis took it to its logical extreme.
Much of the theory behind eugenics is actually difficult to refute. If there is any genetic component to intelligence, which the scientific evidence indicates there is, at somewhere between 50% and 75%, then if lower-intelligence people reproduce at a higher rate, the average intelligence of the group will decline over time. And in our society lower intelligence individuals reproduce at a MUCH higher rate than the more intelligent.
And the establishment as well.
Apparently the Governor of SC, myself, and you, all use differing sources.
"Well perhaps there is a finger of fate pointing, or if you prefer God representing. To have a person on the political stage at this moment in the history of the USA who just happens to be named Palin. An accidental choice but there she is. And thanks to D's knowledge an eerie coincidence. But not to dismiss D's call for independent action to look it up, I can't resist. This from the Concise English Dictionary: a new birth; reincarnation, a second creation, regeneration, unmodified inheritance of ancestral character, the new formation of a rock by re-fusion. McCain wrought more than he realised. Now clarion call to entrenched self serving "Republicans" to top that word and the clear implications."
Spread this one around folks. I have thought for some time that she is God-ordained because of the way she continues to pull off the impossible.
You appear to be right.
BTW, the article you link to says the science behind eugenics “has been disproven.”
The basic contention of eugenics is that if less-intelligent people have more children than more intelligent people the average intelligence of the group will go down.
Not only has this hypothesis not been “disproven,” it has never been effectively challenged. Eugenics over-reached itself in many ways and trampled individual rights, but it became a pariah cause for political not scientific reasons.
Western society is presently involved in a society-wide experiment to determine the validity of eugenics. We massively subsidize births to low-intelligence people and discourage them among high intelligence potential parents. Eventually we may get some idea whether the eugenicists were right as to where this leads.
The sources on “eugenics” are extremely muddled at this point, the muddling having started during the seventies and gotten worse since. The best thing to do is pick out a couple of individuals who were advocates for it, get biographies and autobiographies of them and follow the notes and references therein. I’ve found some states where there were eugenics laws but they were neatly tucked away in things like regulations for rehabilitation or asylums, and a number of other things not nearly so obvious.
I would have to get down to some older notes to be much help finding sources myself since it’s been several years since I was reading a lot on the subject. Suffice to say, you can find an awful lot of what I call “apologist” materials on the web most of it apparently trying to put a better face on ideas of the past in hopes of reviving some or all of the same practices. Since there are, in fact, some things that are passed on genetically many people think it’s a reasonable approach to have such programs in some cases. The real problem is that I don’t recall finding a single program that limited itself to applying drastic measures for only medical purposes. Just look at the way dyslexia was handled by the Kennedy family, people with plenty of means to pay for care, and you see where the “elite” might apply extreme measures for anything from multi-generation auto mechanic inclinations to ADD.