Breeders are bad people

Eye for eye, we all go blind.

What happened? It appears that, as promised during her bid for governor in 2006, Palin did try to sell the plane on eBay but that doing so was not as easy as it might have sounded. After putting it up to auction, there was one serious bid, in December 2006, and it fell through. Still, the Westwind II was sold about eight months later, achieving Palin's goal of ridding the state of a luxury item.

But that hasn't stopped Palin, or John McCain, from implying -- and, on Friday, claiming outright -- that Palin did sell the jet on the Internet.

"You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on eBay -- and made a profit!" McCain declared in Wisconsin at a campaign stop on Friday. It could not be immediately determined what that profit was.

The video tribute to Palin that aired at the Republican National Convention on Thursday night made the same claim. "She signed sweeping ethics reform legislation, auctioned the governor's jet on eBay," the narrator said, citing it in a list of Palin's achievements.

Liar

Not sure what this guy's malfunction is, but since he doesn't work for the major networks, newspapers, magazines, or the Obama campaign, who gives a flip what he thinks.

I suspect, however if we just concentrate on catching McCain in more lies we'll do just fine.

Do you honestly think that e-mail says anything about who started the culture wars? The only thing it says is what anybody who ever posts on the internet knows --- there are sick people sitting behind keyboards out there.

"I especially want to hear about the belligerent little retard."

You mean the author of the email, right Rod?...

I now think that Mr. McCain, in the ultimate act of sacrificial patriotism, has nominated this unqualified woman knowing full well that it will crash and burn the election. As Dr. Sullivan argues, the GOP now is primarily a religious organization. We need to get it back to its earlier focus on sensible economics and foreign policy, i.e. burn it up and start over. McCain agrees, so he is giving the absurd 'Christianists' (Dr. Sullivan's term) exactly what they want, so that when McCain-Palin loses by a landslide, 'Christianism' in the GOP will be permanently de-legitimized. I find this prospect exciting.

We are supposed to be surprised by the subject e-mail?

The Democrat Party base (I said base, not the entire Party) is comprised of hate-filled, bitter, anti-American, anti-God, pro-Socialist/Communist people. You saw one with a MSM press pass screeching during the McCain acceptance speech. They wallow in their sexual depravity and culture of death and have no morals, which are considered a weakness. Lies (just a natural tool for Communists), therefore, are their trademark, e.g., Media Matters.

When their supporters are embarrassed into a response, they always cry "The extreme Right is just as bad", which is just another lie and which is supposed to excuse their depravity. Even if there were an extreme Right one one hundredth the size of the Democrat base, its members by definition wouldn't be Conservatives; they would be libertarian sickos, like the Socialist Skinheads who don't vote GOP.

Weirdly enough Cleveland, by your own commentary, you demonstrate exactly the conservative version of the gentleman quoted in the initial post.

Your little tirade, equally full of hatred, lies, and exaggeration, demonstrates precisely why both parties would be better off dumping their ugly 10% into some Lord of the Flies-esque version of Survivor and proceeding with the serious business of government without the benefit of their pithy commentary.

Honestly, we could just do a slight take-off on Ayn Rand, and lose the bottom-feeders from both parties on some island. "Atlas Crapped".

Enjoy the rest of the election season, Rod. I'll catch you after November. We can sit and ponder how we are going to survive the nuclear war with Russia.

Clarification: Meant to add after "don't believe in abortion after a moral choice"--it's simply that they're uncomfortable with the notion of government dictating that moral choice for them. Or perhaps, like me, they believe that immensely greater harm would come about as a result of enacting such an outright ban (that is, it would seem to end the "discussion" altogether, whereas under the current scheme reasonable restrictions may be discussed and societal do-gooders are perhaps more likely to take an interest in ensuring that that poor single teen mother makes the choice Bristol made and doesn't wind up at a back-alley clinic).

It has now been more than seven days since Sarah Palin was introduced. All we've seen is her do is read a speech penned by one of George W. Bush's speech writers. What I want to see is her do several interviews with bona fide media outlets that won't treat her with kid gloves, and Fox News and People Magazine don't count. If she's really what people are hoping she is then she should be ready on day one. Day one begins now. After all, what happens if McCain dies tomorrow?

Republicans need to consider McCain's age and how this works out now because Palin is the next in line.

In addition I want to hear straight policy pitches. Enough with personality. Especially since that's what Republicans are accusing Democrats of embracing. If Sarah Palin says she'll advocate for children with special needs, I want to know the details.

I also think Mrs. Palin owes an apology to community organizers who actually take on great responsibilities voluntarily. Otherwise she is a governmental elitist and a hypocrite since Republicans decry elitism in government.

Families are off limits. Policy details are on the table.

It's clear that Rod has switched from analytical mode to campaign mode. The Republican party has nothing to run on except cultural resentment, and Rod is playing right along. We've had 8 years of disastrous government because the Republican base gets fooled by these straw men arguments. Clearly the Democratic party leadership does not believe what that one kook wrote. It's disappointing to see Rod slide into this sort of cheap stuff, although he's been doing it for some time now.

I'll leave you all with Joe Biden.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=955Y3NJTRIE

If they keep this up, the Republicans are going to be lucky to retain an ability to filibuster in the Senate.

What a wonderful YouTube of Joe Biden, yank_in_oz: Biden, with the hollow "Change" banner in the background, avoiding the issues by talking about how the GOP Convention rhetoric avoided the issues. Did Biden himself ever get around to the issues? I doubt it.

Obama's whole schtick has been blovating about "change" with no real content. He's very good at that. Really. So I'm not going to get too worked up if the GOP, rather than falling down and worshiping, responds with things like:

* faulting him for voting "present" 130 times in the Illinois Senate;
* noting that he's the author of two Memoires but no significant legislation;
* questioning what the vague "Community Organizer" job was about (BHO's campaign took four hours to frame an angry but lame response 3 am response to that); or
* nominating a VP who solidifies the message "We are the slate with proven records of reform, including bucking our own party as needed."

I love it - we now know that when Rod lets His Excitable Working Boy into *nostalgie de la boue* mode, enough of you will stoop to take the bait in thinking it the proverbial 3am call on the hotline, judging from the all-nighter timestamps. Me, I just turn into another Palin, Michael from the Pythons' Restaurant Sketch, shout "Easy, Mungo!" to his John Cleese with a meat cleaver and a resurgent war wound, then, then become my real self again, and smile bravely as I moonwalk backwards out the doorway unto a relatively more urbane thread about chickens or pedophiles...

For someone on the conservative side in the culture war, aren't Palin's kids' names a bit on the hippie side? What will the next ones be - Peace, River and Moon?

"This abortion prohibitionist hag won't cut it among women with brains. And BTW she is a good example of reproduction run amok. 5 kids; 1 retard. I wonder if the bitch ever heard of getting spayed."

The writer of this screed demonstrates that retroactive abortion should be selectively available, very selectively, to those of his ilk. ;)

Now I wonder why he is so angry. What has she done that has got his goat to this level? Perhaps he is just one of those perpetually angry people, the one's who look for "issues" at which to express their foul mouthed flames. There seem to be more of them these days, spreading their fury, the emotional arsonists who like nothing better than watching people burn.

The quote you posted, Rod, was offensive to anybody of good will- whether they be Democrat, Republican or Independent. So what's your point? That there are nut jobs out there? We know.

Or is it that you need to stir up the conservative base some more? Don't worry, Rod. Palin's vitriol has done that already. She doesn't need your help.

In fact, Rod, the truth be told, since you're opposed to the war (at least you say you are), your beloved Palin would probably question your patriotism in the way that she and John McCain question Obama's patriotism. They are both contributing to making America such a better place, Rod, and you should be proud of being part of that.

Scott, you're the best thing on this thread so far--well, with the exception of JPL's suggestion that we Survivorize the bottom-feeders. Your sense of the absurd is unfailing, and clears the head like a hearty snort of ammonia. Johnette Cleese here . . . that's it, Mungo, step AWAY from the cleaver . . . funnywalks out of the kitchen . . . ; )

JamsM -

Could I please get a quote for an instance of McCain or Palin questioning Obama's patriotism?

It seems that any criticism of policy is immediately construed as an attack on patriotism. So, if I don't think Obama is tough on terror, he says that I question his patriotism, and the press tells me that I have to shut up and call him a patriot. It's the post-racial way of negating all arguments against Obama's candidacy as automatically irrelevant.

More than that, though, why can't someone question his patriotism? Exactly why is that so off-limits? It may be a silly criticism, but why is it automatically invalid? And on what basis should we affirm his patriotism? I would argue that we have more reason to call his patriotism into question than we have to affirm his patriotism.

"It is stuff like this that makes me wonder how much of the left simply and absolutely hate the right and trying to work with the left is like trying to compromise with terrorists - it simply doesn't work because the hate will dominate anything."

This is one person talking about half the country.

This is why we don't deserve to be the great state we once were - because we hate each other and want to crush each other.

Don't disagree with the other side - destroy the other side.

And I'm guilty of the same, because I could never consider someone like that my fellow American.

WASILLA, Alaska -- The biggest project that Sarah Palin undertook as mayor of this small town was an indoor sports complex, where locals played hockey, soccer, and basketball, especially during the long, dark Alaskan winters.

The only catch was that the city began building roads and installing utilities for the project before it had unchallenged title to the land. The misstep led to years of litigation and at least $1.3 million in extra costs for a small municipality with a small budget. What was to be Ms. Palin's legacy has turned into a financial mess that continues to plague Wasilla.

"It's too bad that the city of Wasilla didn't do their homework and secure the land before they began construction," said Kathy Wells, a longtime activist here. "She was not your ceremonial mayor; she was in charge of running the city. So it was her job to make sure things were done correctly."

WSJ: The road to nowhere

I believe this called being stuck on stupid.

"pornography of outrage" is a great term.

Rod, there's no doubt there are idiots on both ends of the 10-80-10 divide you talk about. When I was living in Dallas I read your column in the "News" and even though I disagreed with you at times I almost always felt that you arrived at your conclusions through deeply held faith and a good deal of thought. But to broadcast an email from the lunatic fringe say, "See there?! See there?! They do it too!", and pretend that's contributing to any kind of meaningful conversation is ludicrous. It's a disservice to anyone who cares about the United States when the 80% who are going to decide this election have to dig through a bunch of garbage in order to get to the point of discussing things that really matter.

Steve

In the past year or so, Rod has implied that he isn't all that happy with Bush and the Republicans and considered voting for someone else. After the past few weeks it is pretty clear that he'll vote for McCain/Palin.

People generally make up their minds first and then look for evidence to confirm their conclusion. So it looks like he's taking an e-mail troll and using that as evidence to justify his forgon conclusion.

Most people online who write comments like that are 13-year old middle school students spending too much time reading web sites where everybody talks that way.

I see this pattern a lot on peoples' blogs - this tendency to give the trolls a post of their own, with full quote and accompanying "outrage." Rod can do as he likes ... but IMO it only encourages the middle-schoolers to crawl out from under their bridge and do it more.

That kind of ugliness is all over the web, on both sides. It doesn't require a response.

"I'm really wondering what it means to say that McCain "voted with Bush 90% of the time." It just seems like a weird thing to say given the structure of our government and its separation of powers."

On every major piece of legislation, the White House issues a statement outlining its support or objections to the bill. In those statements, the White House announces its intention to possibly veto the legislation. President Bush is the leader of the GOP. The Republcans in Congress almost always futher an agenda that supports the president's views (with immigration being a recent exception, of course).

Thanks Daniel. But this leads to me another query. Bills, as we all know, are complicated things. Suppose, for example, the White House says, "We support bill X," but the bill goes back to committee and is tinkered with in such a way that it becomes partly unacceptable to the WH, but they support it anyway. And suppose that the unacceptable part was inserted by McCain and like-minded Republicans and Democrats. That would, I would suspect, count for the Obama campaign as "voting with Bush," even though that is not technically correct. My point is that the very structure of over government, and the complicated way in which bills are passed, makes it nearly impossible to say in some cases (and perhaps most cases) what counts as "voting with" the president.

Someone on a different group looked into this and Obama votes with Bush 38-77% based on the measure they used. I think the idea their promoting is that McCain is excessively like Bush. Running as "Bizarro Bush", who let's say hates dogs because Bush likes them or something, is not something I think he's stupid enough to really mean.

It is somewhat bogus nonetheless, and I think he knows that, but the unpopularity of Bush is an obvious selling point for the other party. McCain could likely release tapes of every vulgar thing he ever said of Bush, and I bet he has said such things over the years, and it'd still be somewhat logical to run against Bush if you're a Democrat.

Daniel, thanks again. But this leads me to yet another query. The fact that they are late in the game makes the claim even more problematic IMHO. Suppose that the final version is the "lesser of two evils" that the WH promised to support in exchange for Congressional support of a bill on another issue that has nothing to do with the "lesser of two evils" bill. In that case, one could say that the WH supports both bills. But again, "support" is a slippery term, and in this case is used equivocally.

You all will recall I published a few months ago an e-mail I received as part of a chain, informing readers that Barack Obama was a secret Muslim terrorist who would sell this country out, etc. I published it as an example of an ugly, rage-filled sentiment that was present in the body politic, and that should be denounced. And I denounced it. It is my presumption that none of the liberal readers of this blog subscribe to the rancid views of Steyn's correspondent, but I believe that less in-your-face version of that line are present in our culture, and will inform the voting and activism of a certain number of people this fall. When many of us on the pro-life cultural right see and hear some of the attacks on Palin, we see and hear politer versions of what this cretin wrote.

For a good time, google "hillary clinton" plus "hag." Or any other woman in public life in any way. You'll get hits a-plenty.

In my youth, I was a dirty hippie slut-vixen and have now graduated to stand shoulder to shoulder with Mary Daly as I proudly claim the title of Positively Revolting Hag. Check it out--once we move on from being trampstamped as sluts to any wandering eye, we're all hags to someone.

Breakfast shout-out backatcha to Scott. My breakfast today: seeded Alpine bread from the artisan bread truck, with mayo, two colors of tomato slices from my own back yard, summer lettuce from the Mad Farmer, and smoked cheddar from the Amish cheesemaker. Followed by a peach that melted and dripped. All's right with my world.

And now off to our dance class. Dance is the new martial art--all core moves, balance and complementarity. And no one has to get kicked in the head. Unless, of course, they really hack me off . . . ; )

Sigaliris:

"It might interest you... because really, there aren't any conservative feminists--"

Whoa there ladies!
Don't take her word for it!
Starting with Karen Hall | www.imdb.com/name/nm1027107/ | a screenwriter credited with the 3rd episode of Northern Exposure (along with more on M*A*S*H, Roseanne, Judging Amy) there are many conservative feminists out there with blogs:

somehavehats.typepad.com/some_have_hats/2008/09/and-im-the-smal.html (add http://)

and the redoubtable Anchoress has been the "go-to" liveblogging retreat for us ladies on the "reservation" who decline to participate in the sisterhood of the travelling pantsuits

theanchoressonline.com/2008/09/05/reactions-media-errors-and-more/ (add same)

and if you like what you see and want more courageous-under-fire, try Dawn Patrol:

dawneden.blogspot.com/2008/09/horne-on-hanna.html (add same)

your Jewish working girl from New York opines on the civilization of love as potent potion to those suffering the ill effects of the culture of death.

"Just wondering, does anyone know the previous employ of Barack Obama's speechwriters? Unless he's their first boss, they wrote for others."

Obama's self-employed in this case--he writes his own speeches. That's another thing that should receive closer attention. Obama organizes his own thoughts onto paper and delivers the speech, making it quite possible to really agree or disagree with him, because he isn't delivering someone else's thoughts or style. Palin's speech, however, in large part already existed for whatever white guy was going to deliver it, so when McRove went affirmative action on everyone they gave it a quick shave and slapped a little lipstick on it. Perhaps what she really thinks and believes is in there somewhere, but where?

Steve

What were some of you saying about the right wing starting the culture war? Tell me more.

Dear Rod,

If you would be so kind, please explain to me how the e-mail you quoted provides any evidence whatsoever about who started the 'culture war'?

Thank you very much.

Your slightly Aspergian reader,
John E. - Agn. Stoic

Steve: "I do not want to know what Palin knows three weeks from now after being tutored by MCain's aides."

On first glance, I thought you wrote "after being *tortured* by MCain's aides."

Wouldn't *that* be something!

"What did McCain see in her, or hear that made him choose her?"

Having realised his crossover appeal, once he was sole GOP survivor, had reached saturation, he saw his only hope of victory in November lay in energising the base, and only two real avenues suggested themselves, given the life-or-death need to wake up a base previously in clothespin-nostriled, why-bother lockstep:

1) Drop the "maverick" claptrap and go Full Rove ASAP.
2) Pick the most base-"hardening" [for the ladies, too! - Ed.] VP candidate available. And at this point in party demoralization, the pickings were pretty slim, and this was the best they could do. We're talking some of the most cynical, ruthless operatives in US history here, who knew they weren't about to smell victory with a sheaf of civics-text, good-government platitudes.

Later, Br'er Steve - ah reckon you 'n' me's due for more time back @ our home blog, these days...

"No one who is truly "pro-life" would be proud to put a gun in the hand of her 19 year old son and send him into battle."

So, she forced him to join the Army? Last I checked, we all volunteered.

"Obama's self-employed in this case--he writes his own speeches. "

I know Favreau(?) was writing some of his speeches. Obama, supposedly writes most of his own major speeches, but I do not know that for a fact. Most speeches are boilerplate so I am not bothered by who wrote what for a speech. Interviews and writings submitted by the candidates are more informative.

Steve

This whole string is reinforcing my sense that a sizable segment of the "right" doesn't really care about engaging in helpful discourse or even actually winning or losing. The real goal is to be righteous. Does anyone really think that Palin would have any influence whatsoever on how McCain would actually govern? She's a campaign prop. And many of those who will be voting for her (and yes, they will be voting for her and not McCain) will be doing so because it will allow them to say that they made the "righteous choice". McRove know that. For 4 years the republicans had the executive and legislative branches. And what happened with abortion laws? Nothing. And was marriage "protected from the homosexual threat" (never understood that, really, how my wife and I are threatened when our gay neighbors hold hands or anything else)? No. And then they had another two years. Again, nothing. So they're attempting another go 'round, and everyone knows the net effect would be the same. But it doesn't matter, because they can put down another righteous check mark. I don't think Rod cares that broadcasting spurious fringe insults contributes nothing to civic discourse. It's just righteous finger pointing, which, in the end is all that really matters.

Steve

Gees, Rod, it looks like I stirred up Lahti Da, his band of Amazons and the Democrat base.

But enough about Homosocialists. Turning now to your more reasonable readership:

Per Rob: "I've been involved in Democratic party politics for about 30 years. I know very few involved at the county and state level who do not attend church, and I don't know any who advocate socialism... And you would probably be shocked, Cleveland, that we have had arguments over restricting abortion. My side, the restricting abortion side, has lost every single time since 1988, but there are those of us who keep churning out resolutions."

I, too, Rob, was involved in Democratic party politics, but I couldn't take more than two years of it. I did everything from helping perpetuate the lie that the Party views Blacks as human beings who deserve our help for its own sake (rather than a vote-growing plantation), to giving packs of cigarettes to Blacks and getting them to the polling places so they would vote Democrat--you know, vote for the damn near forced abortion of their own children.

As a white male I never walked a mile in the shoes of a Black female, but so help me, Rob, I will never understand the propensity of American Blacks to empower the Party of Margaret Sanger. It was she who founded Planned Parenthood and began the "Negro Project" to get Blacks to adopt programs pushed by "Ministers" and community organizers to eliminate their own race. The Party is fulfilling that mission yet today. Abortion is the leading cause of death for American Blacks; greater than heart disease, cancer, accidents, AIDS and violent crimes COMBINED!

So what will Blacks do about it? They will vote 90% for Obama who favors not only abortion but infanticide. I must grudgingly admit that your Party is damn good at what it does. It seems diabolical.

Per steve: "I know Favreau(?) was writing some of his speeches. Obama, supposedly writes most of his own major speeches, but I do not know that for a fact."

And you never will know that for a fact. Jon Favreau, ex Kerry aid, wrote Obama's 2004 speech (which elevated Obama to Party up and comer), and led the team of speech writers which wrote Obama's victory speech in Des Moines. He also relies on speech writer and chief political strategist, David Axelrod.

Per Joel: "I wonder if the culture of death in our country will ultimately resort to violence on the living to impose its will?"

"Ultimately"? The Democrat Party Homosocialist base already wants to kill all babies who survive abortion as well as the addled old and brain "dead".

Pity there can't be a Godwina's Law to cover the perpetual disinterring of the body of Margaret Sanger, that it may be burned and its ashes sprinkled with anathemas yet again . . . and again . . . . Come on, she died over 40 years ago. Have you not been able to find any new Satans to exorcise since then?

And I see we're also continuing that venerable old meme, "Black people are too stoopid to know what's good for them--i.e., to vote Republican." Yes, Black people are just the pawns of everyone from Margaret Sanger to Barack Obama. Strange, when they're so easily misled, that the Republican Masters of Deceit have made so few inroads on their susceptibility. If they can be bought for a pack of cigarettes, why aren't the Republicans buying? Funny, that.

Wow, if you read all the way through a thread of comments it is hard to recall what the original post was about. It does not seem to matter the past couple of days. The Palin Days, is how they will forever be remembered.

It would not take too much poking around on right wing blogs to find anything as disgusting, from the right, as the email Rod chose to make representative of the culture war. I recall in the 70s, feminists (pre the elegant and high-cultured Limbaughian "Feminazi") accused of cannibalism.

sig, I hope you rejoin cast at the other place.

Lahti - you better keep the good humor pumping over there, because we're gonna need it to get through this election, and possibly beyond.

Signing off.

""Ultimately"? The Democrat Party Homosocialist base already wants to kill all babies who survive abortion as well as the addled old and brain "dead"."

Every time Rod posts a quote demonstrating how rancid the comments are from the left it is tempting to go to the conservative blogs to find counter examples. However, if you just wait long enough you find them here. I kind of miss Donnie too.

"Jon Favreau, ex Kerry aid, wrote Obama's 2004 speech "

First I saw. Source?

Steve

"I published it as an example of an ugly, rage-filled sentiment that was present in the body politic, and that should be denounced. And I denounced it."

Even if you give equal time to the hate-filled rhetoric of the right, and I think you've deleted some of the more rancid examples that have appeared in your comboxes, no good comes from enraging hundreds or thousands of faithful readers of your blog just to say they are righteously angry. We have more than enough righteous indignation going around already.

Homosocialists do good research. Thanks :-)

Steve

The anonymous troll comment displayed so prominently offends me and it makes me sad to think we have so many simple-minded hateful people.

As far as representing the Democratic party base, I think that's laughable.

As far as starting the culture wars, I've got a history-flash for anyone who believes the culture wars are something new: go back and read the history of this country. Bitter divisions during the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, etc. Within 12 years of the country's founding, there were already 2 major rebellions that had to be put down.

Americans have perhaps been united exactly once in our history: World War II. And even then I've heard stories from my in-laws of people privately celebrating the day FDR died.

Political hacks today give themselves far too much credit if they think a "culture war" is a new creation. They could perhaps be ashamed of the particularly thoughtless, crude way it has been conducted of late, though.

"Homosocialists do good research. Thanks [Lahti Da] :-)"

Steve, that is the funniest line this year. In addition to Scott's source, my source was a Jan 6, 2008, Newsweek (on line?) article.

"Cleveland, Honey...: I do like you. A LOT." Scott Lahti

Alas, my Queen, the cockles of my heart have been purloined by a veritable cross between Ann Coulter and Pamela Anderson: the temptress, sigaliris.