Even by his Wife.
Posted on 09/11/2008 5:26:10 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
Related to ‘per the rules’. Did any of you see Greta’s interview with Todd’s racing partner, Scott Davis, last night?
yes-s-s-s-! indeed.
So now Obama is running against Todd Palin, Joe? What a bunch of idiots.
Oh, I missed that. Hubby was watching “Midway.”
no, i didn’t, but sounds like i need to be sad i missed it~!! LOL!
I work with a guy here who looks exactly like Mr Palin.
(sorry, ladies. He’s married, too.)
Joe Klein is a wasted carbon footprint. What a dope!
*applauds*
Obama is the quintessential city-boy prig.
From the Klein piece:
“He lives within the hilarious conundrum of being both too “cosmopolitan” and intellectual for Republican tastes — at least as Rudy Giuliani described it — while also being the sort of fellow suspected of getting ahead by affirmative action.”
This is so typical of leftists. They immediately assume that being an intellectual implies intelligence. Sorry, I’ve worked in academia long enough to be sure that this isn’t even vaguely true.
Intellectual merely describes an area of focus. I know some brilliant people who don’t do intellectual pursuits. They don’t read a whole lot of books, nor do they banter about on philosophy or history. However they are some of the smartest people I’ve known. Just because they focus on being experts in, say, sports doesn’t have any bearing on their brain power.
Obama is a great example of this. He’s an intellectual. He bandies about his Ivy league credentials, and says the right references from the literature, but he doesn’t understand jack didly squat. His grasp of economics, history, or even the constitution are all laughable. This is from an alleged constitutional lawyer. He understands far less, even, of everyday life.
It’s pretty apparent to me he got by on Affirmative Action because his ability to comprehend complicated issues is next to nil.
The Democrat party began as a coalition of anti-federalists who had been opposed to the new Constitution because it gave the federal government too much power, and therefore they favored the next best thing: a strict construction of its text. Its original exemplar was, as noted, the Jeffersonian "yeoman farmer," who was succeeded in turn by the Jacksonian backwoodsman. These were the original Democrats, and they lived in, and sired the people who still live in, "fly-over country."
By contrast Alexander Hamilton, the great-grandfather of the Republican party, was an urban cosmopolitan. A rootless bastard born in the West Indies, his home was the big city which to him was not a symbol of decadence but of vitality. With accountant's ink for blood, he created Pat Buchanan's ultimate nightmare--the National Bank!!! (Ironic when one considers how Hamiltonian Buchanan is in his other views.)
Hamilton, and the Federalists, Whigs, and Original Republicans who succeeded him, believed in federal supremacy and loose construction of the Constitution (contrary to contemporary mythology, laissez faire was never the doctrine of American business, which has always been interventionist, but of Jeffersonian agrarianism). The "heartland" of Republicanism and its antecedents was the coasts--New England, California, and the Pacific Northwest. In the Election of 1896 it was the Coasts that voted for the conservative McKinley while the Bible-Belt Heartland was frothing at the mouth for the radical William Jennings Bryan.
The closest I can come to pinpointing the point at which all this changed was the New Deal, when Jefferson's Democrat party adopted Hamilton's interpretation of the Constitution (though one could say that the Bryanites had already done this) and Ivy League grads, formerly staunch Hamiltonians and McKinleyites, began to spy for the Soviet Union. And even here, the New Deal was king in the traditional Jacksonian areas. In fact, in the FDR landslide of 1936 the only states to go Republican were Maine and Vermont!
Nevertheless, the New Deal seems to have been the beginning of the reversal of ideologies and attitudes among the two parties. And as an unabashed and unashamed Hamiltonian, this fact gives me no joy whatsoever.
If I were Braaaaack (ptui) I'd be careful around Sarah.
She's mighty pretty even with her jaw set, and I'd bet she has a mighty roundhouse right!
Video at link, scroll down and on the left there are photo/buttons - the one that starts out First Dude ... should be the Scott Davis interview.
http://www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/index.html
This guy pretty much calls Obama a pussy. And this is what zerObama’s SUPPORTERs are saying?
I should use better language:
This guy pretty much calls Obama a wuss. And this is what zerObama’s SUPPORTERs are saying?
The book Blacklisted By History also spells this out. However, the book I am reading now - Liberal Facism - really lays it out. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were both Progressives.
I am coming to the conclusion where I think that today's modern Republican Party - the policies and beliefs - actually originated in the 50's with William Buckley and his gang. It took a step forward with Barry Goldwater and then the next step was Ronald Reagan.
I think the next step may be Sarah Palin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.