February 25th, 2014

The latest salvo in the war to discredit Scott Walker…

…would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that this sort of stuff works.

First let’s look at the offense, which occurred in 1988 while Walker was running for student body president at Marquette University. Yes, you heard that right:

By speaking before a meeting of the Delta Chi fraternity Jan. 24, Walker, an arts and sciences sophomore, violated the rule which states, “No campaigning may begin before a candidate is registered,” the committee ruled…

At the meeting, according to a student in attendance, Walker asked the fraternity members, “What can ASMU do for the Inter-Fraternity council?” and told them he intended to run for president of ASMU in a few weeks.

There’s more, some of it involving the improper distribution of flyers (under doors at the Y) by a supporter.

How does this sort of thing work? Well, read the comments at the article, for starters. The first thing it does is rally the troops for a rousing good anti-Walker hate-and-mockery fest. Walker is obviously crooked as the day is long, and a Koch Brothers tool as well (not that the brothers had anything to do with his campaign back in college, but they’re so evil that they must be brought in somehow).

The second way it works is by innuendo, because the article clearly links Walker’s behavior with the email problems some of his underlings have had more recently, the ones he was cleared of any involvement with or culpability for. What’s the link? Why, he’s blaming things on subordinates, you know. And the article further links all of this with Christie and Bridgegate, in a vast and nefarious right-wing loosely-connected-yet-dangerous web of corruption.

Never mind the parallels that could be drawn to Obama’s early career and his presidency, acts and denials and buck-passing so much worse that they belong in another realm. Never mind.

One other thing that comes up fairly early in the comments section of the article is mockery for Walker because he did not actually get his college degree. You can bet that little bit of elitist glee will surface, big time, if Walker ever does run for president.

But all of this is not just preaching to the choir. The whole thing also works on the low information voter, who (outside Wisconsin) doesn’t know much about Walker yet and might even like him if he/she learned something about him. Might even vote for him, for goodness’ sake. So the idea is to get in on the ground floor, to brand Walker as corrupt and get people to form a negative opinion of him before they know much else.

It works. The template, of course, is what happened to Sarah Palin at the hands of Democrats and the MSM during the campaign of 2008. I saw and heard it occur in real time, and it happened quickly and was incredibly effective.

They are starting earlier now, that’s all. And although Walker’s life doesn’t give them much ammunition, they will find what they can and make the most of it.

66 Responses to “The latest salvo in the war to discredit Scott Walker…”

  1. Matt_SE Says:

    I might worry about this more, if the MSM’s ratings didn’t keep declining. Piers Morgan just got fired, for goodness’ sake!
    Still, it would be nice to have some pushback. All we have to do is get rid of Boehner and McConnell.

  2. Matt_SE Says:

    BTW, true fact:

    Did you know that Scott Walker is so evil, he was put on the Koch Brothers’ payroll back in kindergarten?
    Even worse, rumor is that he was conceived as part of a post-WWII experiment in eugenics that took place in Brazil, using HITLER’S SEMEN!
    …and you know it’s true…just look at his dark hair! All he needs now is the mustache!

    Seriously, we have to stop this guy. Wake up, sheeple!!!11!!1!

  3. Matt_SE Says:

    Some people may ask, “how is that possible, since the Koch brothers were only in their late teens at that point?”

    Answer: Koch brothers patented Chrono-manipulation ™ technology.

    Come on…do I have to spell everything out for you?

  4. T Says:

    Let’s see, Scott Walker violating a regulation (not a law) while running for student body president and Mitt Romney cutting some guys hair in high school(?) are relevant, but Ted Kennedy’s Chappaquidick was irrelevant and Hillary’s past is irrelevant in her run for the highest office in the land.

    Do I detect a pattern here? (/sarc off)

    I know we here all know this already, but it just needs to be said yet again to attack the fundamentally false premise of the attack.

    I think Walker’s response should be something like: “When you’re ready to discuss the so-called ancient history of Hillary’s potentially criminal Whitewater infractions, then, and only then, will I discuss my ancient activity running for student office at Marquette.” (BTW I think Walker showed excellent presence of mind doing this in his tete-a-tete with Chris Wallace on Fox News so I doubt that he needs any help from me).

    One sidebar though. This is precisely why I was a supporter of Newt Gingrich in the most recent primaries. As opposed to Romney in 2012 or McCain in 2008, Gingrich was really the only potential candidate with the will and the ability to bring the fight to Obama. We don’t know if that would have turned the tide but we do now know that the more complacent and respectful approach of Romney (and McCain) is definitely not a winning strategy. In fact, I would go so far as to say that such a complacent strategy goes a long way to give credibility to the left’s spurious claims and not only doesn’t work, but is actually self defeating.

  5. DonS Says:

    I felt Gingrich’s 2012 performance was based on the realization he couldn’t go the distance, at least without something showing how he was different from the pack. A “hail mary” pass as it were.

    Newt had a number of issues to overcome, including the fact that the left would skewer him and effectively harm him with swing voters, and his problems with conservatives due to some of his post Congress actions. Further, he lacked executive experience.

  6. Oldflyer Says:

    So, how do we counter this strategy?

    Personally, I am sick of these personal attacks on anyone who dares stand in the path of the Statists. But, I have a very small voice. So, I am also disgusted with those Conservatives, Moderate Conservatives, Libertarians, etc. who do have a national voice, but either don’t use it, or become so narrow in their ideological framework that they join the attacks against those with whom they should ally. That is how we end up with an Obama.

    BTW, I really like the looks of Scott Walker, and he is my early favorite. On the other hand, I really liked the looks of Mitt Romney, and still do. So what do I know? Well, as a 25 year Navy veteran, pro-life, concealed carry permit holder, and so on, who supports the likes of a Romney or Walker as the best man available, it becomes really hard to understand where those conservatives who trash them are coming from. Actually, I know the answer. They have fictionalized a memory of Ronald Reagan and everyone must be measured against that mythical standard.

  7. vanderleun Says:

    Just drop the Newt down the privy hole of history and move on…. thank you.

  8. vanderleun Says:

    “They have fictionalized a memory of Ronald Reagan and everyone must be measured against that mythical standard.”

    You got that right.

    Those who wait on the coming of the Reagan are like those who still believe the Beatles will get back together.

    And for those that have been paying attention: “What will it take to reunite the Beatles?”

    “Two bullets.”

  9. T Says:

    To carry the self-defeating idea one step further, I offer that this respectful and complacent opposition (Romney/McCain) is exactly why Neo can credibly write that it “…would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that this sort of stuff works.”

    It works because Republicans are considered “evil” and to respectfully dismiss such claims with a simple “Oh! That’s not true,” tells us that the claims really are true. After all Republicans are no better than Holocaust deniers and flat-earthers — we already know that — and if they can’t mount a vitriolic defense, then it must be because the allegation is true.

    No. Conservatives need to come out fighting. Call the ridiculous “ridiculous” and call the absurd “absurd.” Don’t defend against the false charges (again that implies that the charges are credibile) but attack the fundamental erroneous Progressive premise of the charges themselves(again, just as Walker did v. Chris Wallace).

  10. Paul in Boston Says:

    Walker’s been my favorite for President ever since he broke the Wisconsin Teachers’ Union. He was very shrewd and patient in taking them done. The master stroke was to first force them to collect union dues directly from the teachers and end the practice of having the State collect the dues from their pay checks. He could then wait out the attacks while the teachers themselves promptly defended the union by not paying their dues. The union lost two thirds of its income almost immediately. It was a move that took real guts in the near socialist states of the upper Mid-West.

    On the subject of the Koch brothers, why isn’t there a constant drumbeat against George Soros who was a Nazi kapo as a teenager? Talk about a vile human being. The video of the 60 Minutes interview seems to have been disappeared but there are partial transcripts around that make your blood run cold. http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2006/11/04/george-soros-interview-on-60-minutes/. Fourteen smoreteen is no excuse. Elie Weisel was the same age and didn’t turn to the dark side.

  11. T Says:


    So what you’re saying is that Gingrich couldn’t win. Perhaps that’s true–but with Romney’s loss it’s an academic distinction isn’t it? Conservatives must learn that when they’re fighting opponents who reside in the gutter they can’t bring the Queensbury rules to the fight and expect to win.


    I’m not arguing for a Newt resurgence here, I’m saying that he was the only cadidate in the primaries at that time who had the moxie to take the fight to the adversary.

    This also ties to the fictionalized memory of Reagan. Reagan’s “There you go again” was absolutely devasting to Carter. It implied carter’s ridiculousness, it was done with a smile and a light touch completely disarming Carter. This is what I mean when I talk about addressing the false premise rather than trying to rebut the leftist argument on any merit of a subject.

    So far, Walker seems to the closest parallel we have to the Reagan model.

  12. vanderleun Says:

    I take your point, T, but as far as the Reagan model goes, it’s too much tied to its time to work now. Even if there were a Reagan on the horizon, which there isn’t.

  13. Matt_SE Says:

    I think we’ve all become too accustomed to feckless leadership under the establishment.
    As soon as we get ONE candidate that can speak forcefully for conservative values, we’ll all say “wow, that was so easy!”

    The liberal house of cards will collapse, and like the Soviet Union in hindsight, its fate will seem obvious.

  14. parker Says:

    Not much to add other than I agree that the right needs to get hyper aggressive, not micro aggressive, when the left floats one of these BS attacks. I like how Rand is doubling down on WJC, HRC, and the whole war on women crap. There is nothing nice about the hard core left and they need to be treated with gloves off and a very big stick.

  15. Eric Says:

    T: “Conservatives need to come out fighting.”

    That’s it. The movement is the thing.

    The Dems plug into a competitive activist movement, while the GOP doesn’t have a competitive activist movement to plug into because folks on the Right have neglected to produce one for them.

    The movement can’t be a lesser included element that starts and ends with the election campaign. The movement must be first, always, and non-stop and operate on the plane of cultural zeitgeist and narrative – in other words, as you said, the plane of premise – as the movements on the Left do.

    The party should depend on and be beholden to the first, always, and non-stop Marxist-method activist movement, not the other way around, which is the fundamental error the Tea Party made, through no fault of the GOP.

    The fundamental error of many GOP rank and file is holding the GOP candidate responsible for wrestling in the mud, when that’s the job of the rank and file, not the job of the candidate.

    The GOP candidates have been sufficient.

    The failure of the GOP belongs to the people of the Right and supporters of the GOP who have declined to competitively match the Marxist-method activist popular-political movement produced by the people of the Left and rank-and-file supporters of the Dems.

    The Marxist-method activist game is the only social-political game there is.

    In that game, the people of the Left are earning the victory by getting dirty and doing the work, versus the people of the Right who prissily refuse to wade into the arena and, instead, pass the buck by blaming the GOP candidate for not fighting when the Marxist-method activist fight actually belongs to them, the people, not to the candidate.

    Every day that passes where the people of the Right opt not to produce the proper Marxist-method activist popular-political movement that the GOP needs in order to compete is another day the Left and Dems stretch out their already large lead in the cultural zeitgeist and the narrative, at their leisure, with their false premises unopposed.

    The people of the Left have demonstrated to the people of the Right the gameplan needed to win. Our host and commentators here talk about it enough. The people of the Right just need to apply the Left’s proven, ‘settled science’ playbook. Given the prodigious head-start the people of the Right have already gifted to the Left – a head-start the Left didn’t need in the first place – the people of the Right have much they need to do to catch up and cannot afford to wait.

    At this point, as late in the game as it is, they can’t just match the Left: the people of the Right need to become significantly superior Marxist-method activists than the Left, and quick.

  16. Richard Saunders Says:

    I don’t think being respectful in any way means you can’t go after the President hammer-and-tongs. I don’t think Romney’s problem was that he was too respectful, but that he just wasn’t fast enough on his feet. Deliberation is a very good thing when you’re a business executive or President of United States, but when you’re on the campaign trail against Slick Barry, you’ve got to be able to dish it out, and fast.

    Think how different the election might have been if Romney had had the presense of mind to say, “No, Ms. Crowley, the President did not say that the attack on the consulate in Bengazi was a terrorist act, and since you’ve interrupted the debate already, we’ll just stop here until you get the transcript of the President’s speech and read it to the audience.”

    Or how about, “Just so you know, Mr. President, every rifle issued by the United States military has a bayonet stud on it, and every soldier, marine, sailor or airman who carries one into combat carries a bayonet to go with it.”

    Or, “I’m very aware of the capabilities of our warships, Mr. President, but one thing they’re not capable of is being in more than one place at one time. So if we need a ship engaging in anti-piracy operations off the coast of Africa, and we need a ship to be protecting our allies in the South China Sea, and we need a ship to be rendering humanitarian aid in the Caribbean, but we only have one ship available, what are you going to do?”

    See? Respectful AND hard-hitting. That’s why I like Christie — he can do that. Maybe Walker can, too, I don’t know. But I do know there are way too many people on this list who don’t always keep in mind the words of America’s preeminent political strategist:

    “Winning isn’t everything — WINNING IS THE ONLY THING!”

  17. T Says:


    We will have to disagree on the Reagan point (that is if we’re discussing the same thing here). IMO what Reagan was capable of doing was eviscerating his opponent with aplomb. I think that such an approach is timeless — and devastating. Remember, we’re still wondering exactly why Romney didn’t pursue Obama on Benghazi when, during the debate, he had Obama on the ropes. Walker, in contrast, admittedly refused to answer Wallace’s question rather than just sidestepping it or changing the subject (“No, because I’m not going to get into 27,000 different pieces of information. The bottom line is a Democrat who led the district attorney’s office looked at all of this and decided not to charge anything . . . .”). He established not only his credibility but the parameters of the interview.

    Now the leftists simply write Walker’s response off as dodging the question, but they don’t matter; they’ll never vote non-Dem anyway and they’ll dismiss and disparage anything said by a public figure not one of their own. The true independents, however, will mentally respond to this. Now multiply this by 1000 times so that it becomes a modus operandi and the left’s flawed premises begin to fall apart. Their positions, then become unteneble.

  18. Oldflyer Says:

    I read: This also ties to the fictionalized memory of Reagan. Reagan’s “There you go again” was absolutely devasting to Carter…

    Well, there you go, making my point. Is that the standard for a candidate? Someone who can mouth a pre-packaged sound bite? Is that the moment whe Reagan mounted the pedestal?

    Don’t want to be overly harsh, but the fact is that Reagan was adept at speaking the lines that Peggy Noonan, et al fed him, just as Obama is adept at reading a teleprompter. That signifies nothing.

    I admire Reagan. I thought his optimism and gentlemanly demeanor, when backed by steely resolve, were very good for the country. I would gladly accept a younger, more vigorous Reagan Clone as President. But, he is not available, and except in the minds of the adoring, may have never been quite what they remember. Let’s move on with the best man or woman we can find; now, in 2016.

    With regards to speaking forcefully for conservative values, I suggest that Mitt Romney lives Conservative values. It is hard to speak, and be heard, when your message is drowned out by those who should be supporting you, as well as the incessant cacophony from the Statist and their media allies. Soon we will have a primary campaign; and one person will emerge, and that person needs the support of every conservative in the country. If every campaign mirrors 2012, we will all bow down to Hillary and a succession of Statists.

    Thanks fellows for illustrating my points.

  19. artfldgr Says:

    the best defense is a good offense.
    apply it early, hard, and dont let up


    While no one wants to be a real-life Cliff Clavin (of Cheers fame), mistaking trivia for intellectualism, facts matter because they’re small snippets of reality. They’re little pictures – and, as with a jigsaw puzzle – if you have enough of them, assembled properly, you can see the big picture. This is otherwise known as being in touch with reality

  20. T Says:

    Richard Saunders,

    I don’t think being respectful in any way means you can’t go after the President hammer-and-tongs. I don’t think Romney’s problem was that he was too respectful, but that he just wasn’t fast enough on his feet.

    I agree that respectful does not mean avoiding hammer and tong (see Reagan/Carter above). I disagree though that Romney wasn’t fast on his feet—at that level candidates are prepared for any eventuality (or should be). My personal belief is that Romney, like McCain did not have the killer instinct to go “full bore” against a popular black man for fear of having to defend himself against the charges of racism. I think Romney/McCain both still suffer under the fear of “Oh my God! What if they call me a racist?” I don’t think Romney had the sand to simply respond: “Me? A racist? Go take a pill and relax.” I think that’s also true for many on the right; “Oh my God! What if they call me . . . .?”

    Your invented responses to Candy Crowley, the bayonet and the aircraft carrier are precisely what I mean when I repeatedly say attack the premise, don’t rely on presenting facts to people who dismiss facts. Let me carry that (and my thought above) one step further:

    In the Lloyd Bentsen/Dan Quayle debate there was an emminently perfect response to Bentsen’s “I knew Jack Kennedy and you, sir, are no Jack Kennedy.” (see the response below). The point is that it took me almost twenty years to formulate the response for Quayle and I am relatively quick in the reparte` department. Before I could do it, however, I needed to reach a point where I was more comfortable with my own self (in my own skin) than I had ever been. A point at which I was not afraid for someone to call me a racist because I knew I was not; a point at which their opinion simply did not matter.

    I think that Scott Walker and Ted Cruz (and perhaps Rand Paul — I haven’t decided on him yet) are the only conservative politicians out and about to have reached that necessary level of self-awareness. Forgive me, but I think Obama is at that level, too; not because he’s earned it, but because his narcissism, his (unwarranted) belief in himself puts him there. I think that this is one of the reasons for his apparent charisma and popularity and the foundation of this whole “messiah” thing.

    Anyway, IMO here’s how Quayle should have responded to Bentsen (it’s an academic distinction since Quayle won anyway):

    Senator, I didn’t say I was a Jack Kennedy, I, like him, am a young politician. That you would attempt to personally attack me in such a mean-spirited way says volumes more about you than it does about me. The only question before the American people tonight is whether that’s the kind of man they want to represent their country as its vice-president. [walk off stage]

  21. T Says:


    I would actually agree that Romney lives conservative values; the problem is that he doesn’t promote them. There’s a difference and when one is running for public office make no mistake that one is promoting life values (Obama promotes leftist values very successfully–he can’t follow through on his promotion because he doesn’t live them).

    As for Reagan, yes he may have been mouthing some speechwriters repartee, but so what? (See my comment about such preparedness above). A candidate can be fed the most forceful lines in all of history, but if s/he refuses to utter them for fear of criticism of what use are they? Reagan was not only unafraid to use them (Romney and McCain the opposite) but he could use them with an uncanny humor and grace. He reminded me of the age-old definition of a diplomat; someone who could tell you to “Go to Hell” and make you look forward to the journey.

    In that light, think of Churchill. What he said was important because he said it. Imagine saying to you prime minister that “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor; you will have war.” Joe Wilson only said “You lie!” and he was excoriated by the press (no surprise there) even though he was later proven correct. Even many Republicans refused to defend him.

    It takes a lot of sand to tell a group of people to “get bent” under those circumstances (the Founding Father’s to King George III?). One must first be extremely comfortable in one’s own skin. Alas, there is a dearth of such alphas (men and women) on the American political scene.

  22. Richard Saunders Says:

    T: You could be right — it never occured to me that Romney and McCain could have been afraid to attack His Barryness. We certainly don’t need, and can’t allow, any candidate to be nominated who doesn’t have the huevos to go after, say, a middle-aged white woman, an old drunk, or anyone else, for that matter.

  23. T Says:

    Richard Saunders,

    This is the point I keep repeating about attacking the premise so as not to make the leftist critique credible. If you are afraid of being called a racist it means you somehow think the attack is credible (even if unwarranted); “Oh my God! what have I done that offends blacks/women/lgbt (etc.)?” That underlying fear is precisely why the left can use such attacks effectively. Again imagine Churchill: “What? I can’t possibly say that to Prime Minister Chamberlain. After all, what if says I spoke out of turn?” (Like Churchill really was concerned about that — get my point?) Does one fear the attack of a six year old? No. Does one fear the attack of a school yard bully? Yes. When does the school yard bully stop attacking? When he knows you no longer live in fear of him.

    Invulnerability is not a physical condition but a state of mind. To live in fear of the attack is always to give the agressor the upper hand (watch two boxers before a match as each attempts to psych the other). This is why Breitbart was so stratospherically successful in such a short amount of time. He didn’t fear being attacked by the left and he didn’t fear being called names because he was comfortable in his own skin (“Call me a racist all you want. It doesn’t bother me because I’m not a racist and more importantly, I know I’m not. I’m on to your game and I refuse to play”). The left absolutely hated him and still does because he advertised that he was immune to them — and he really was. Like Keanu Reeves’ “Neo” he could see the matrix. Kinda like our Neo, no?

  24. Ann Says:


    You say, “At this point, as late in the game as it is, they can’t just match the Left: the people of the Right need to become significantly superior Marxist-method activists than the Left, and quick.”

    Can you provide some specifics of just what kind of activities this would entail?

  25. Ymarsakar Says:


    What O’Keefe does. What Breitbart did. What the Tea Party does for grassroots.

    Those are specifics. None of them brand themselves as Marxist in either appearance or methods, however.

  26. JR Says:

    Any one read this:

    Former Nixon-era Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, is dropping everything in his Connecticut ranch to fly over to Britain and start a new life as a writer on our illustrious paper
    Henry Kissinger to Get Job Writing For Daily Squib

  27. Ann Says:

    A little passion in Republican politicians wouldn’t hurt either.

    Like Sen. Marco Rubio taking down Sen. Tom Harkin after the latter’s glowing trip report on Cuba. He also talks about politicians who cozied up to Chavez in Venezuela and about what’s happening there now. Powerful stuff.

    Text of his remarks here.

  28. parker Says:

    Rubio was the right stuff in his response to Tom Harkin’s inane drivel about the wonders of utopia Cuba. Tom, on a personal level is a nice and personable dull knife in the drawer, but his New Deal ideology is a disaster.

    I’m hopeful that Harkin’s open seat will be won by a republican. Anyone who has the opportunity to vote for a republican candidate for the senate, no matter where you think they fall on the purity scale, and does not vote ® is a fool.

  29. JuliB Says:

    I haven’t finished reading the comments, but wanted to make this point about Reagan. He was an inspirational person who made people feel good about themselves.

    During his admin, I was in high school when he was shot (freshman/sophomore). I lived in a seriously dem area, so was brought up a liberal. When it was announced that he had been shot, I was in the gym locker room. A cheer went up. I was part of that cheer.

    Yes, how awful. But I knew enough about politics and people to realize that he possessed a certain something that people responded to. And I knew that he was the enemy, but I had a grudging respect for him. I hadn’t wished him dead, I just wished him to be forced to retire from the Presidency. His own side liked him too much, and we felt he was too teflon.

    Mitt never “touched” me (but I voted for the R pres/vp candidate), but Sarah touched me, so I voted FOR her and McWhathisname.

    I think that putting forth a bland Pres candidate is risky, unless accompanied by a more charismatic VP. Someone who touches a chord in people who are LIV.

    Does Walker possess that quality? I don’t know. So far he’s my #1 choice and maybe LIVs will recoil from charismatic leaders, preferring to give a capable person a chance.

    While I agree in part with some of Eric’s postings that we need a ‘movement’ I think it’s more important that we have a team. Would Geo Washington been able to carry the country on his own? No, he needed Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, Addams, Paine, etc. Did they all agree with each other? No, but they were united in face of the main goal, and with passion.

  30. parker Says:

    JuliB Says,

    Interesting post that makes me curious for 2 reasons. 1.) If you cheered for the foiled Reagen assassination how did you later realize how utterly horrible it was to wish someone dead? I don’t wish anyone dead unless they present an immediate threat to me and mine. 2.) Why did Palin ‘touch me”? SP is perhaps the most polarizing candidate on the presidential ticket in the history of the republic. (I’m a SP fan.)

  31. Kyndyll Says:

    Dems will vote D, no matter how absurd it is to do so (feminists voting for Islamist apologists, etc), and no matter how demonstrably terrible and/or unqualified the candidate actually is. As long as we on the right quibble about the non-hard-left candidate not being just perfect, we will be waiting for Godot while the ship of state is on the sea floor.

    That’s because we allow the Dems to elect ever-harder-left candidates. Until that changes, the US will continue on this accelerating destruction course. Dems don’t care what they break. No matter how obviously they cause a problem, they will blame it on us.

    Twenty years ago, one could afford to be picky and I admit that I used to sit out elections when I didn’t like the GOP candidate. The stakes are too high now. How much longer before the Dems pack the Supreme Court, drive the debt to 25 or 30 trillion (and still whine and cry that they can’t spend enough) and completely dismantle every industry in sight that is still somewhat functional? Not too many more Dem-controlled years of presidency and congress, that appears quite evident.

  32. Don Carlos Says:

    “Never mind.” It’s not what conservatives do.

    Unless the Right soon appreciates and really uses Alinsky methods, the USA is dead. For the Right, the end should justify the means just as that motivates the Left.

  33. rickl Says:

    Off topic, but Karl Denninger has gone Galt.

    In Closing…..

    He says he’ll post occasionally when the mood strikes him, but he has taken down his vast forum and archives.

    This was not unexpected; he’s been saying for a while that he would do it eventually, but the reality is upsetting. This is a great blow to the cause of sanity and intellectual honesty.

  34. Tonawanda Says:

    JuliB at 7:10 PM – - your post is great.

    SP is genuine in a way no other public figure is. Do people even read her postings? They are brilliantly accurate.

    I believe our culture is smothered by tons of sodden newsprint. We are suffocating beneath a soggy asphyxiating load of wet paper.

    I truly hope I am wrong, but I do not think we can get out from underneath.

    We (non-Leftists) do not have the means to do it now.

    I hope I am wrong and short-sighted.

    We have all the brilliant and profound culture of Western culture, but that has been successfully denigrated by the advocates of total destruction, destruction (and not reason or knowledge) being their necessary predicate for every thing else, and the thing which they cannot pass by, because it perfectly corresponds to the psychology of Leftists, the beauty of destruction.

    Even most so-called “conservatives” do not get this, bewildered as they are by ridiculous things, often influenced by the culture.

    Reagan and Palin are extremely rare, equaled by Thatcher. Look and see how similar they are. They are in so many ways of clarity, personality and character, Winston Churchill, although they do not (and could not possibly) replicate the extraordinary details of his life.

    Mensch v non-mensch.

    Non-mensch has total control for a long time, the longer because the mensch do not get it, but mostly because the subtle governance of an immense culture has been a long time in the taking, and could only be a long time in the re-taking, which may not happen.

  35. neo-neocon Says:


    And yet it’s very very common that conservatives say they’ll sit this one out. To me it’s crystal clear that that should never happen these days. But I fear it’s happening more often, not less.

  36. Ann Says:

    What’s scary to me is that the Walker article Neo linked to is at the Huffington Post, which as of last November, was the #1 political website, with 85,000,000 estimated unique monthly visitors. In second place was the Drudge Report, with 23,000,000 estimated unique monthly visitors. Pretty big difference.

    Huffington Post stuff then gets tweeted and shared on Facebook et al., and away we go. Like folks standing around the water cooler sharing news, only on steroids. How do the Republicans combat that?

    And thank you very much, Breitbart, for helping Arianna launch Huffington!

  37. JuliB Says:

    Parker – You may have missed it, but I did say later in the paragraph ” I hadn’t wished him dead, I just wished him to be forced to retire from the Presidency.”. I suppose ‘wounded’ would have been the proper word.

    And I think that even back in the early 80s, the left considered the right evil, and I think I thought that way as well. I was 15 at the time, most likely. There was a little pushback from some of the teachers, but minimal. Looking back, there really should have been more of an issue made of it, but there wasn’t.

    While I share somewhat in Neo’s repeated statements that many on the left/liberal side are good people, I think I really side more with Mike. 15 year olds shouldn’t cheer the shooting of the president, fatal or not. Did we come up with it ourselves, or was the leftism present and I didn’t realize it much like a fish doesn’t understand water until he is out of it?

    Sarah – well, that is more of a personal reaction on my part, and I know it wasn’t shared by all. But I was never able to pin down my liberal friends as to why they hated her so much. The main reason is that she’s an R, therefore evil, therefore she must be destroyed. Personally, she touched me because I felt she loves America, is sincere, and is patriotic. Plus, she is not an elitist.

    Why she was so polarizing is beyond me. I understand how some felt she was not ready for prime time, but I could never understand the R disdain sent her way.

  38. neo-neocon Says:


    That’s why I wrote of the HuffPo article: “The first thing it does is rally the troops for a rousing good anti-Walker hate-and-mockery fest.” HuffPo has a HUGE readership, and articles there point them in the direction they are supposed to go. The article gives them the excuse, the reason, the talking points, for hating Walker, even if the reasoning behind it is preposterous. “Everybody” will know the college election story after a short while, and “everybody” will be agreeing that it shows Walker to be a dreadful person.

  39. M J R Says:

    To JuliB (7:10) and possibly others, regarding Sarah Palin . . . this may be of interest. (For some it can be a little off-topic; in which case, do scroll past this.)

    Robin of Berkeley [a "changer", as is our esteemed neo-neocon] wrote, in 2009, “I finally beheld what my eyes had refused to see: that leftists are Mr. and Ms. Misogyny. Neither the males nor the females care a whit about women.”

    Have a read!

    [I'd have been content to just post the link, but said link no longer works. Since I felt this one was a keeper, I kept it. Here's the text . . .]

    M J R

    The Wilding of Sarah Palin
    By Robin of Berkeley
    American Thinker
    November 24, 2009

    When I was in college, I read a book that changed my life. It was Susan Brownmiller’s tome, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, which explained rape as an act of power instead of just lust. What I found particularly chilling was the chapter on war — how rape is used to terrorize a population and destroy the enemy’s spirit.

    While edifying, the book magnified the vulnerability I already felt as a female. Fear of rape became a constant dread, and I sought a solution that would help shield me from danger.

    The answer: seek safe harbor within the Democratic Party. I even became an activist for feminist causes, including violence against women. Liberalism would protect me from the big, bad conservatives who wished me harm.

    Like for most feminists, it was a no-brainer for me to become a Democrat. Liberal men, not conservatives, were the ones devoted to women’s issues. They marched at my side in support of abortion rights. They were enthusiastic about women succeeding in the workplace.

    As time went on, I had many experiences that should have made me rethink my certainty. But I remained nestled in cognitive dissonance — therapy jargon for not wanting to see what I didn’t want to see.

    One clue: the miscreants who were brutalizing me didn’t exactly look Reagan-esque. In middle and high schools, they were minority kids enraged about forced busing. On the streets of New York City and Berkeley, they were derelicts and hoodlums.

    Another red flag: while liberal men did indeed hold up those picket signs, they didn’t do anything else to protect me. In fact, their social programs enabled bad behavior and bred chaos in urban America. And when I was accosted by thugs, those leftist men were missing in action.

    What else should have tipped me off? Perhaps the fact that so many men in ultra-left Berkeley are sleazebags. Rarely a week goes by that I don’t hear stories from my young female clients about middle-aged men preying on them. With the rationale of moral relativism, these creeps feel they can do anything they please.

    What finally woke me up were the utterances of “bitch,” “witch,” and “monster” toward Hillary Clinton and her supporters early last year. I was shocked into reality: the trash-talk wasn’t coming from conservatives, but from male and female liberals.

    I finally beheld what my eyes had refused to see: that leftists are Mr. and Ms. Misogyny. Neither the males nor the females care a whit about women.

    Women are continually sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. If under radical Islam women are enshrouded and stoned and beheaded, so be it.

    My other epiphanies: those ponytailed guys were marching for abortion rights not because they cherished women’s reproductive freedom, but to keep women available for free and easy sex.

    And the eagerness for women to make good money? If women work hard, leftist men don’t have to.

    Then along came Sarah, and the attacks became particularly heinous. And I realized something even more chilling about the Left. Leftists not only sacrifice and disrespect women, but it’s far worse: many are perpetuators.

    The Left’s behavior towards Palin is not politics as usual. By their laser-focus on her body and her sexuality, leftists are defiling her.

    They are wilding her. And they do this with the full knowledge and complicity of the White House.

    The Left has declared war on Palin because she threatens their existence. Liberals need women dependent and scared so that women, like blacks, will vote Democrat.

    A strong, self-sufficient woman, Palin eschews liberal protection. Drop her off in the Alaskan bush and she’ll survive just fine, thank you very much. Palin doesn’t need or want anything from liberals — not hate crimes legislation that coddles her, and not abortion, which she abhors.

    Palin is a woman of deep and abiding faith. She takes no marching orders from messiah-like wannabes like Obama.

    And so the Left must try to destroy her. And they are doing this in the most malicious of ways: by symbolically raping her.

    Just like a perpetuator, they dehumanize her by objectifying her body. They undress her with their eyes.

    They turn her into a piece of ass.

    Liberals do this by calling her a c__t, ogling her legs, demeaning her with names like “slutty flight attendant” and “Trailer Park Barbie,” and exposing her flesh on the cover of Newsweek.

    Nothing is off-limits, not actress Sandra Bernhard’s wish that Palin be gang-raped or the sexualization of Palin’s daughters.

    As every woman knows, leering looks, lurid words, and veiled threats are intended to evoke terror. Sexual violence is a form of terrorism.

    The American Left has a long history of defiling people to control and break them. The hard core ’60s leftists were masters of guerrilla warfare, like the Symbionese Liberation Army repeatedly raping Patty Hearst. Huey P. Newton sent a male Black Panther to the hospital, bloodied and damaged from a punishment of sodomy.

    The extreme Left still consider themselves warriors, righteous soldiers for their Marxist cause. With Palin, they use sexual violence as part of their military arsenal.

    Palin is not the only intended victim. As Against Our Will described, the brutality is also aimed at men. By forcing men to witness Palin’s violation, the Left tries to emasculate conservative men and render them powerless.

    The wilding of any woman is reprehensible. But defiling a mother of five with a babe in her arms, and a grandmother to boot, is particularly obscene. It is, of course, Palin’s unapologetic motherhood that fuels the leftist fire.

    Because as a mother and a fertile woman, Palin is as close to the sacred as a person gets. She is not just politically pro-life. Her whole being emanates life, which is a stark contrast to the darkness of the Left, the life-despoilers.

    These “progressives” are so alienated from the sacred that they perceive nothing as sacred. And they will destroy anyone whose goodness shines a mirror on their pathology. The spiritually barren must annihilate the vital and the fertile.

    It has been almost two years since I woke up and broke up with liberalism. During these many months, I’ve discovered that everything I believed was wrong.

    But the biggest shock of all has been realizing that the Democratic Party is hardly an oasis for women. Now that it has been infiltrated by the hard Left, it’s a dangerous place for women, children, and other living things.

    In the wilding of Sarah Palin, the Left shows its true colors. Rather than sheild the vulnerable, leftists will mow down any man, woman, or child who gets in their way. Instead of a movement of hope and change, it is a cauldron of hate.

    From Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    “Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it.”

    In these dark times, with spiritually bankrupt people at the helm, thank God we have bright lights like Sarah Palin to illuminate the darkness.

  40. Don Carlos Says:

    That the HuffPo has a huge ‘readership’ comes as no surprise (no hits from me). It is likely a leading indicator. But at the same time, is it read, heeded, obeyed by the ‘readers’? How influential is it?

    At supermarket checkout today, I find TIME mag is a thin shadow of its former self; its stupid stuff persists though.

  41. Oldflyer Says:

    T, had to go to a high school track meet and watch my adorable grand children run, so I return late to this forum. There is a big world outside of politics and the blogsphere.

    Good God. I just don’t know what you expect. A Churchill? He could only get elected when the wolf was at the door, then he was thrown out as soon as the Yanks killed the Big Bad Wolf. His exceptional and unique oratorical talent were of little use at that point. Churchill was the perfect man for a specific moment in history. Neither the man, nor the moment are likely to coincide in our life time.

    Likewise Reagan, despite his optimism and good nature, could probably have only been elected in the first term as an alternative to the miserable Jimmy Carter.

    I insist that Romney was every bit as attractive as a first time candidate as was Reagan. The differences lie in the electoral landscape, the nature of campaigns, the corruption of the news media, and the ideological rigidity of the conservative base.

  42. RickZ Says:

    Richard Saunders Says:

    T: You could be right — it never occured to me that Romney and McCain could have been afraid to attack His Barryness.

    Could have been afraid?

    We have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House. ~ Juan McLame on the campaign trail, October, 2008

    And don’t forget, McCain’s campaign kept Sarah the Pit Bull on a short leash. Even she wasn’t allowed to go after Barry the Incompetent, and he’s such [a] low hanging fruit.

    Also, I have to agree that we need more Gingriches when it comes to being media savvy. Too many eGOPs want to be liked by the media (how’d that work out for you, Juan?), and do not view the media as the traitorous enemies they are. Republicans have to learn a few rules when running for public office, most especially on a national level:

    Rule # 1: The media hate you, they really do.

    Rule # 2: When in doubt, see Rule # 1.

    neo-neocon Says:


    And yet it’s very very common that conservatives say they’ll sit this one out. To me it’s crystal clear that that should never happen these days. But I fear it’s happening more often, not less.

    Voting for milquetoast, go along to get along, reach across the aisle RINOs has worked out so well of late. I also believe continuing to vote for RINOs over and over again, hoping against hope they will morph into being a ‘conservative’, is the definition of insanity. Let’s face it, if we’re going to hell in a hand basket at ludicrous speed (as the Dems are doing) or we go to hell in a hand basket at a more genteel speed (as the Republicans will do in the name of comity and bipartisanship), we still end up going to hell in a hand basket. Thanks, but I’ll pass on voting for either Dumb or Dumber. Voting for the lesser of two evils still means you’re voting for evil.

    Let. It. Burn. The pain’s over more quickly and so maybe sooner we can have a Federal Constitutional Republic rise from the ashes. Or maybe not. But either way, the course we are on is unsustainable so something has to give. In my world, that would be entitlements and wasteful spending. YMMV.

    Speakig of wasteful spending, I wish someone would ask Frau Direktor Cruella de Sebelius or President Historic First just how much money has been thrown down the toilet on 404Care, all of it from the campaign stops, the ads, the non-functioning websites. Let’s say for argument’s sake it is $315 million (definitely on the low side). With that money, they could have given every citizen in the US $1 million to buy their own health insurance and still saved serious bucks. But the Unaffordable Health Insurance and Patient Denied Care Act was never about health insurance or health care. Only those who bought into ‘free health care’ ever believed that and they, too, will soon be disabused of that belief.

  43. Doom Says:

    I think that worked better before people started waking up. I have seen a bunch of these types of attacks falling absolutely flat lately. Walker isn’t my candidate, and if he got the nomination I probably wouldn’t vote for him, so… Now, you are right, I would like to see candidates get a fair chance. Oh, wait, this isn’t minor sports. Meh, let him take his risks when he enters the ring. This is a different sort of sport.

    He’s just another Bush… compassionate conservativism is dead. I just wish politicians like Walker, and Christie, would accept that and bow out. Well, and that the truly conservative candidates would choose conservativism over cult of personality and ego.

  44. lacune Says:

    This probably dooms him. No joke. Low information voters make up their minds on the smallest scraps.

  45. T Says:


    I hope you had a great timer and that your grandchildren both enjoyed themselves and did well.

  46. physics geek Says:

    It works. The template, of course, is what happened to Sarah Palin at the hands of Democrats and the MSM during the campaign of 2008.

    And therein lies the rub. I have a lefty friend who to this day swears that Palin is the most corrupt politician ever. When asked why, he responded “Look at all the ethics charges filed against her!” The fact that all were dimissed -but not at zero expense- as baseless did not penetrate his skull. He’s a lefty after all. Sadly, he’s not alone. The LIV doesn’t pay attention to politics except when the commercials interrupt “Real Hollywood Transgendered Wives Who Smoke Crack”. They promptly change the channel to some other crap, but not before hearing “Scott Walker broke the law!”. This happens repeatedly. Now this imbecile steps into the voting booth and sees Walker’s name. He doesn’t know why, but there’s something about that name that bothers him, so he votes for ther other guy/gal.

    In truth, I don’t know how to combat the fact that the U.S. media works so tirelessly for the Democrats. It’s so bad that even the former Pravda “editors” are probably taken aback. That makes this a very dangerous time for this country.

  47. Ymarsakar Says:

    While I agree in part with some of Eric’s postings that we need a ‘movement’ I think it’s more important that we have a team. Would Geo Washington been able to carry the country on his own? No, he needed Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, Addams, Paine, etc. Did they all agree with each other? No, but they were united in face of the main goal, and with passion.

    Something an Australian national mentioned at the South Carolina Tea Party would work, I think.

    He proposed that the ticket would involve around 5 true patriots, not just 1 President with his cult of personality, with a useless VP attached. The way things tend to run normally in American affairs. But in coalition type governments, the Prime Minister tends to have in his cabinet the top leaders of the various minorities and alliances.

    For us, that would mean Sarah Palin becomes Secretary of Energy. Ron Paul can get the Treasury ticket or some other related task. And so on goes down the list.

    That would unify the party, decrease the reliance on the LEft’s Cult of Personality to win the Presidency, and remove a lot of the “we got to vote for the establishment Republican candidate or lose” kind of stupidity choice available to voters.

  48. Kyndyll Says:

    RickZ, there are a lot of us who would rather not spend our declining years scavenging out of garbage cans. With ever-more-hard-left Dems, it’s a feature – not a bug – that working US citizens be destroyed. I really, really don’t want to have to wait 20 or 30 years until the litmus test GOP voters fade out of the picture and what’s left of us right-of-center types can get something electable at the national level. Maybe. Our position is so weak now that the left is busily turning Constitutionalism into a bad thing. I shudder to think what we’ll be up against by that time.

    Because of the increasingly obvious excesses and overreaches of the current regime, there are many of us who believe that a right-of-center candidate who can concentrate on jobs, economy, true small government and Constitutionalism may have a chance.

    I realize that the current GOP power in DC is so limp-wristed that we can’t even trust them to represent us on these basics. I won’t argue there.

    The problem is, the GOP just simply cannot concentrate on these issues. It’s a cliché, but it’s a cliché because it’s true. The moment the Dems have done something particularly stupid and are in a corner, instead of decisive action on jobs or the economy, or even landing some effective blows on the many scandals of this administration, the GOP will present legislation on gay marriage or abortion. If nothing else, it shows where the real priorities must be – and those priorities are not on the issues that matter to those of us under, say, 50.

    The next presidential election will occur in 2016, not 1980. The chance of electability will be approximately zero if that candidate gets saddled with the far right’s social issue baggage. Against a gentlemanly rival faction, with an informed and neutral audience, it is basically impossible to present a valid, non-contradicting argument about equal rights for all and small government when you’re proposing laws to restrict other people’s personal lives. Against the vicious mud machine that is the Democrat party and a hostile, indoctrinated audience – well, you can guess how that will work out.

  49. Ymarsakar Says:

    I really, really don’t want to have to wait 20 or 30 years until the litmus test GOP voters fade out of the picture and what’s left of us right-of-center types can get something electable at the national level.

    Well, that all depends on whether you think US civil war is inevitable in 10-20 years.

    If you do, then elections are not that… important, so to speak. Winning, preparing, or preventing a civil war would be higher on the agenda than NASCAR or national elections (local elections are still all important, such as Walker’s trashing of the unions).

    If you don’t believe it is so, and think political reform is a “solution”, then your priorities and behavior will differ due to that. You won’t be building fall out shelters, you won’t be dropping off the grid, you won’t be learning how to shoot or evade zomebie riot mobs in inner cities.

    Then there’s the people going Galt, going off the grid, that doesn’t care which one it will be, they are just planning for the worst. They still vote, presumably, but only hope keeps that up. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

  50. Ymarsakar Says:

    Against the vicious mud machine that is the Democrat party and a hostile, indoctrinated audience – well, you can guess how that will work out.

    The thing about propaganda is that it works up until it has to resurrect a dead person and put the head back on the neck. Then the propaganda starts not working so good.

    Even propagandists need to be alive to issue propaganda. That’s the weakness of propaganda.

    The Left is already fighting a war they declared. Everybody else seems either involved in politics or in their own pet projects. If you don’t think you are at war, and your enemy thinks they are at war with you, guess who will win, even on the elections platform.

  51. artfldgr Says:

    we should write a book…

    “the opposition movement that showed up 75 years to late”

    too funny…

    while america likes underdogs, unless you have a way to oust them all, restructure eduation, get women to side with their mates over the state sugar daddy, and on and on…

    your movement will do diddly…
    as this is the final days of the old USA

    the states are fully supplied, stocked up even, and readying for action.

    2017… the 1917 of a new century

    on another note:
    U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a New York Times interview published Monday that state attorneys general aren’t required to defend laws they consider discriminatory

  52. T Says:


    Good God. . . . Churchill was the perfect man for a specific moment in history. Neither the man, nor the moment are likely to coincide in our life time.

    Likewise Reagan, despite his optimism and good nature, could probably have only been elected in the first term as an alternative to the miserable Jimmy Carter.

    One does not bring in an expert to restructure the company when it’s running well only when the comapny is in trouble. Difficult times have a way of causing effective leaders to become available and we are now in times not unsimilar to the end of Carter’s administration: Iran on the rise; domestic policies a proven failure; an incompetent president. If Chamberlain’s failure vis-a-vis Hitler was a cause to bring Churchill front and center, then who might rise as an alternative to the miserable and abysmal Barack Obama?

    Physics geek,

    I have a lefty friend who to this day swears that Palin is the most corrupt politician ever. When asked why, he responded “Look at all the ethics charges filed against her!” The fact that all were dimissed -but not at zero expense- as baseless did not penetrate his skull. . . . Now this imbecile steps into the voting booth and sees Walker’s name. He doesn’t know why, but there’s something about that name that bothers him, so he votes for ther other guy/gal.

    But this imbecile is not the target; it’s the (true) independent voter who can recognize cognitive dissonance and incongruity in the left’s position (as Neoneocon, herself, did in her own past). It’s a matter of piercing the media veil which the left has constructed. there are the accepters (“it didn’t work.”); the deniers (“If we can just get more people to believe.”); and the deflectors (“It would have worked if the stimulus was larger.” “Socialism just hasn’t been implemented correctly, this time we’ll get it right.”).

    The accepters will come to the conclusion themselves. The deniers (your friend) are hopeless. The target is in people who deflect and so-called conservatives who are willing to sit on their hands. IMO they do so because the three most difficult words in the English language are “I was wrong.” It takes time to come to that realization and perhaps even more time to be able to admit it, but slowly and gently they can be led to that awareness.

    And we should all have great hope. Yes, Obama won relection when he shouldn’t have, but even with what many have concluded was a rather anemic Republican campaign, Obama only won by 4% and Republicans (as distinct from conservatives but at least non-Democrats) took control of numerous state houses. What this tells me about the underlying electorate is that even with the Progressive juggernaut and the supine media (Democrats with by lines as Instapundit calls them), the tipping point is in sight and within conservative reach.

    We must keep fighting the good fight!

  53. physics geek Says:

    It’s a matter of piercing the media veil which the left has constructed.

    You say that as though it’s easy. It is not. Think not only of how certain stories get report. Instead, think of the stories that never see the light of day except for here and like-minded sites. This has a significant impact.

    I might despair of my fellow man on occasion, but I don’t despair in general; my family needs me. I don’t worry about what might happen. Instead, I try to focus on what must be done. At this point, that involves certain preparations, because I can foresee almost no way that the fecal matter does not eventually impact the rotary impeller.

  54. T Says:

    Physics geek,

    “You say that as though it’s easy. It is not.” [emphasis mine]

    No my statement carried no qualitative assessment about how hard or easy it is. It’s a necessary step. I agree with you that given the numerous and pervasive outlets which tend left it is, in fact, not easy at all. That doesn’t make doing any less a necessity.

    Furthermore, piercing the veil doesn’t necessarily mean replacing it. It means ensuring that there are enough recognized credible alternative points of view that the leftist media organs are seen as precisely that, leftist media organs rather than repotage of “the way it is.”

  55. T Says:

    “I can foresee almost no way that the fecal matter does not eventually impact the rotary impeller.”

    Totally off topic but for a laugh here is a funny story given the “rotary impeller.”

    It seems that Rex Harrison (Henry Higgins) and Stanley Holloway (Alfred P. Doolittle) were leaving the theater after performing My Fair Lady. A fan who had been waiting at the stage door for quite some time in the rain asked Rex Harrison for his autograph, which he refused. The fan rolled up her Playbill and struck Harrison with it to which Holloway guffawed that this was “the first known instance of the fan hitting the shit!”

  56. Lizzy Says:

    MJR, thanks for the Robin of Berkley’s post on Palin (I’ve looked for it before and found it had disappeared). One of her best.

    So why is Palin “polarizing”? Or better yet, why is Hillary not “polarizing”, or Obama, or any number of whacko Democrats that have said and done outrageous things only to remain in office for years?

    The MSM. What they did with Palin was unbelievable. Outlets like MSNBC would run a silly story on her (misquote or outright fabrication), then the comedy shows (SNL, the Daily Show) would run a segment mocking her for it, and then more mainstream news outlets would show the comedy clip as a jumping off point to discuss “Is Palin too wacky to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?” (or on MSNBC, just run the clips over & over again and laugh at her).

    Their strategy was to overwhelm the public with stories about her idiocy & her family’s crazy circus/train wreck lives to the point that people would just shut her out entirely (like most of us avoid all things Kardashian). And then they declared her “polarizing.”

    RINOs keep putting up someone bland thinking that this time the MSM won’t find anything terrible to report about him, never understanding that any candidate they put forward will be found stupid/evil/bigoted. And of course, “polarizing.”

  57. Richard Saunders Says:

    Sorry, folks, but this is a binary solution set: you either win, or you lose. There is no other option. There is no, “nobody won a majority, so there will be a runoff.” There is no “form a coalition government.” We either win or we lose.
    We can’t win the progs, so we have to ALLl come out ourselves, AND win the LIVs. Simple as that.
    If it means electing somebody we only agree with 65%, that’s what it means. 65% is better than 0%.

    For those of you who think it’s better to let a prog win because it will bring the revolution faster, you’re being both immoral and foolish. Immoral, because you’re deliberately inflicting suffering on those who don’t deserve it, and
    foolish because there ain’t gonna a be a revolution in this country, no how, no way. Ain’t gonna happen. The US has a long and unbroken history, dating back to the Whiskey Rebellion, of crushing rebels. Besides which, the frogs will never jump out of the pot if it’s gradually heated.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Winning isn’t everything — WINNING IS THE ONLY THING!

  58. Ymarsakar Says:

    Robin of B is correct, the Left had to destroy Palin. They won’t allow another Ronald Reagan to come to power to lead the anti Left coalition against the Left.

    As for Neo Neo, people like her with internal motivations more powerful than the external influences in their life, constitute 1-3% of the US population.

    If you are depending on them to shift in any kind of mass movement, even the optimistic 3% won’t do much to sway 10%.

  59. Ymarsakar Says:

    so we have to ALLl come out ourselves,

    Good luck making people come out using coercion, force, and intimidation. The Left was always better at it than you.

  60. M J R Says:

    Lizzy, glad someone has found the Robin of Berkeley piece on Sarah Palin worthwhile. And Ymarsakar, your two cents’ worth are appreciated as usual.

    Here’s hoping maybe some others got something on which to chew from R of B’s analysis.

  61. JuliB Says:

    I dunno Doom, according to this (http://www.ontheissues.org/Scott_Walker.htm ), Walker is pro-life and pro-gun. Those are my 2 “single issues” (I can have 2, right?) and they are enough to win my vote.

  62. JuliB Says:

    Yes – the R of B column was good. I found her not too long after she found God, and ended up removing her columns. Such a pity – I would have enjoyed to read them.

  63. Ymarsakar Says:

    I hope Robin was able to read the various links I sent to her comment section. Otherwise, she would be very vulnerable to Leftist operations, in a physical sense, given her occupation and location.

    Given what we know the Left is capable of, I wouldn’t be surprised.

  64. Richard Saunders Says:

    Ymarsakar: I see, the goal is to lose elections!(slaps face) Why didn’t I think of that!

  65. T Says:

    “My personal belief is that Romney, like McCain did not have the killer instinct to go ‘full bore’ against a popular black man for fear of having to defend himself against the charges of racism.” [T, 2/25 @4:54 PM]

    The left even admits it:

    “Don Lemon admitted today on CNN,
    ‘As a journalist, you weigh how much you should criticize the president because he’s black.’”

    The link [see 2/27/2014 @ 5:02 PM]:


  66. Ymarsakar Says:

    Richard S, people like you that think things can be fixed with elections are taking the Left rather lightly. Reality isn’t so naive as that.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge