.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Visit Freedom's Zone Donate To Project Valour

Thursday, September 04, 2008

So, What Do The MEN Think?

Update: The pure vitriol of the press and left attacks on Palin really did McCain a HUGE favor. The audience for the speech last night was very large by historical terms - comparable to Obama's. Nice summary at QandO, who have also been providing some good semi-skeptical coverage of Palin's net-vetting. End update.

I'm laughing hysterically over this email message from one man (service, Southern, married):
Quote for the Day
'Whatever you give a woman, she's going to multiply.

If you give her a house, she'll give you a home.

If you give her groceries, she'll give you a meal.

If you give her a smile, she'll give you her heart.

She multiplies and enlarges what is given to her.'

So - if you give her crap - you will receive more shit than any one
human being can handle.
Yes, that was one major can of whup-ass that the media and the frenetic Dems opened, wasn't it? For whatever reason, it strikes me that the intelligentsia knows nothing about Baptists or evangelical theology, and infinitely less than that about their attitudes toward women.

Shrinkwrapped
has two thoughtful posts up. He seems to consider Palin an archetypal figure.

Photon Courier has several posts up. For some reason I can't link directly to them. His remarks on Richard Cohen's reaction:
Richard Cohen, writing in the Washington Post, compares the nomination of Sarah Palin with Caligula's selection of his horse as a consul and priest.

If this is how Cohen feels about a woman who has been a businessperson, a mayor, and a governor, imagine how he must feel about the vast majority of Americans.
Bitter. He feels bitter. Richard Cohen has this problem with women from the lesser orders and flyover country. He consistently displays it. As Sally Quinn clearly does. This is class war.

David also has a Chicago Boyz post that's worth reading, taking up AVI's comment that Dems always talk about fighting for the people, whereas Reps talk about working for the people. David links two other bloggers and then comments:
To me, it seems pretty clear that today’s Democrats view society basically as a neo-Hobbesian war of group against group…hence, their preference for the “fight” formulation–with the fighting, of course, to be done against fellow Americans–is a natural one.
Well, it seemed to me last night that Palin is up for a fight, and her comment that Obama could give an entire speech about the war in Iraq without mentioning the word "victory" except in reference to his candidacy was probably meant to point this out.

Assistant Village Idiot (AVI) on the same topic:
Republicans run for office telling you they're going to work for you, because that's how they perceive progress happening: someone works for it. Democrats run telling you they're going to fight for you, because they believe that's how improvement comes: someone has to wrest good stuff away from others.
No Oil For Pacifists - Carl had the bad taste to take a vacation when he should have been blogging. However, he has stayed in the loop, and is as amazed as I am at Sally Quinn's fifties doctrine. Not to mention that Sally Quinn, who is supposedly a religion writer, seems to know LESS THAN NOTHING ABOUT the huge group of American Protestant Evangelicals.

I have a completely savage attack post on Sally Quinn coming up. She has hoisted herself up the mainmast, and since The Anchoress says we need to hold the press to account, I'll start accounting with Sally, who admits that she herself can't count.But first, I am taking the Chief to the doctor.

Other guys who are clearly guys, which means that they are quite different than me, but also guys who clearly do not hate women and believe that we should be locked in the kitchen. Liberative. A Goy and his Blog. SC&A, not writing his own posts, but the collection of cites is rather indicative.

Comments:
Palin's only on the Republican ticket to attempt to steal the election. If by some miracle (and a sprinkling of ballot miscounting) the Reps win, she'll resign to "spend time with her family" or some such parroted excuse.. so that McCan't pushes through Lieberman, who they really want anyway.
 
Yeah, well Unsympathetic, you're full of it. And they won't need to cheat to win this (and fyi, the Repubs won their elections fair and square unlike what passes for a governor here in WA state). They will win it because of all the people in this country who aren't like you.

And, did you catch Gloria Steinam?
link Just another reminder of why her kind of feminism is out of touch with most women.
 
I wonder if "unsympathetic" is Sally Quinn? BTW, to link directly to Photon Courier (I've always loathed Richard Cohen), cut off the end of the URL, starting at the second "#".
 
Hi MoM,

Palin is impressive, no doubt. But what's more impressive is that McCain picked her. For decades, politicians (of both parties) "talk the talk" but they don't "walk the walk" (GWB included). Not only does McCain's choice show that he may really "walk the walk" but it also blows an enormous hole in Obama's attempt to paint McCain as GWB-2. Beyond that, it's a huge middle finger to the current Republican establishment. With his selection, McCain has demonstrated a remarkable level of authenticity.

The major media is apoplectic -- and rightly so. The sneering condescention to Gov. Palin is remarkable -- and understandable. She's the first Republican candidate in 28 years (since Candidate Reagan) to demonstrate that she can speak past the media directly to the citizens. The major media is terrified. I was APPALLED by Richard Cohen's article -- smarmy, arrogant, and condescending. Although it will never happen, I think that the WaPo should put him on leave for the balance of the election campaign. Looks like the plan to coronate the effete, metrosexual Obama just had a wrench jammed into the machine.
 
MoM,

Now, if only Palin would come out with a concrete anti-bail out speech!

The fact is, the GOP's recent legacy boils down to catastrophic mismanagement of the economy. They have failed true conservatives by aiding and abetting the liberal policy of unsound money, coupled with a socialist attitude towards corporate bail outs. The response of "conservatives" like Larry Kudlow has been to shed crocodile tears while cheerleading the impact of bail outs on the stock market.

The funny thing is, most "conservative" voices on the economy seem to have secretly harbored the hope that the problem could be kicked into the next administration. Their implicit assumption was that the next administration would be Democrat. Now, with Palin on board, there's a fighting chance it will be Republican. How do McCain/Palin feel about being on the receiving end of this strategy?

Of course, there are lots of issues that matter beyond the credit crisis. The problem is, I'm not sure I'll be able to make that statement six months from now.
 
Regarding "... telling you they're going to fight for you ... they believe that ... someone has to wrest good stuff away from others".

This struck a chord with me; I've been pondering for a while if maybe liberals have a zero-sum worldview, while conservatives believe that we can make/ grow/ develop enough "stuff" if we just don't put barriers in the way of those doing the creating...?
 
> The fact is, the GOP's recent legacy boils down to catastrophic mismanagement of the economy. They have failed true conservatives by aiding and abetting the liberal policy of unsound money, coupled with a socialist attitude towards corporate bail outs.

I think the management of the economy has been far from catastrophic, and that most of the problems are related to past democratic damnfoolishness (both the FMs are basically FDR programs, just like the S&Ls were, and like Social Security is -- amazing how many long-term government f*ups can get traced back to FDR when you look at them closely).

I do believe that the GOP has failed in many ways to act with the mandates given by their conservative base (not overriding the Dems on a number of things despite being given the numbers to do so is a large part of that, combined with a failure to stand by most of the Contract With America).

But the current problems with the economy are neither so bad as is often painted by the media (no recession in evidence. REPEAT. No recession in evidence) nor are they particularly worse than the norms, either recent or fairly old. Unemployment is averaging no worse than under Clinton. Inflation is not a problem, and is unlikely to become one. The GDP has slowed, but only barely gone negative for one term, and appears to already be headed upward again. In summary -- not perfect, but not that big and hairy a deal, either.

While the GOP hasn't done a lot of what it's promised, it's also not, unfortunately, got much competition unless you're a liberal nutjob.

When the Dems abandon the middle of the road to go so far off in left field that they can dig new ditches in fresh territory, you can't exactly rationally choose them for a protest vote, can you?
 
> I've been pondering for a while if maybe liberals have a zero-sum worldview, while conservatives believe that we can make/ grow/ develop enough "stuff" if we just don't put barriers in the way of those doing the creating...?

Heh. Welcom to the party, pal!

I think if you really go back looking for statments by the Left supporting this sort of view, you can't miss it.

This is why all their solutions are of the form "Rob Peter to Give to Tom to Hand Out To Paul."

They don't make anything, they just want to take it away from anyone who does. Classic redistributionism.

;-)
 
obloodyhell, I hate to break it to you but some of the worst damnfoolishness [repealing the Depression-era banking laws that would have restrained some aspects of the bubble, passing the 2005 bankruptcy law, the ethanol stupidity (sugar & ethanol tarriffs against imports, while imposing mandates and subsidies for ethanol), to name some recent examples] are either bipartisan or had strong Republican support. You can also look back at discretionary spending over the last decade: since Gingrich was run out of town, the federal government has consistently spent about $125 billion a year more than the trend under Gingrich as speaker. The Republicans lost their way over the last decade.

It is telling that Bush has only vetoed 12 bills, all in the last 26 months. Where was he when the bubble was forming? Cheerleading the so-called "ownership society." Well, it ain't yours 'til you pay it off; it's the bank's, as a lot of people are finding out to their sorrow.

Frankly, I think the weakness in the tickets is the three Senators. The Cranky Old Man still hasn't convinced me that he has a plan. The Young Silvertongued Man has a plan, but it doesn't seem to have any connection to reality. And don't get me started on the Senator from MBNA.

McCain has a tough job to do tonight. Governor Palin has convinced me that she's here to do a job, not just occupy a position. Now McCain has to do the same.
 
David & OBH - I have to agree with John. Both parties got on this bandwagon, and both seem not to want to get off. The lure of magic money is too much for them.

Nor, btw, is swapping presidents going to get most of the job done, because most of it is a Congressional responsibility. Does that affect my feelings about having only a choice of senators for president? YES, IT DOES.

I'm not excusing Bush - for example, he appointed Paulson for TS, and that was a bad move from my POV. Just the nonsense with the covered bonds should be a red flag, but everyone who has any knowledge of the current situation should have tumbled to the problem back when his special commission on hedge fund risks and regulation decided that the hedge funds were very worried about risks and could self-regulate. Boy, doesn't that seem STUPID!!!! And hasn't his performance since been more of the same?

Hillary's strong connection to Wall Street, her continuing espousal of various giveaways, and her belief that Rubin and Reich (two guys who had a lot to do with creating this situation) were the appropriate advisors to get us out were enough for me to give her a major thumbs down.

Congress has to pass the legislation to enable real oversight of the deregulated financial sector. The president can propose, but can get absolutely nothing done. Congress doesn't seem to have any desire to do so.

Neither candidate seems to have a clue about that. Both of these guys are for carbon cap and trade, which is a lunatic response to an economic situation cloaked as environmental concern. I am very disaffected in this election because from my perspective, these people are not up to the job.

Believe me, if voting for one party over the another would even be a 65% fix I'd do it without a second thought.

Look at the Dem leadership in Congress. Pelosi, who is rock dumb and truly seems to believe that trust funds with money in them exist to take care of the Medicare/Social Security problem, and Reid, who sometimes seems senile. McCain looks good next to them. Plop him down beside most ordinary citizens who follow any of these issues, and McCain looks stupid.

Obama? I believe he is sincere about wanting to make a difference. I have become steadily more skeptical that he has the background to do it, or the knowledge base to know what has to be done, or the attention span needed to sit down and acquire that base. Believe me, if he calls on the "experts" for most of this they will advise him exactly wrong. We live in an age in which climate scientists are pushing an unfalsifiable theory, and calling it science. An age in which the ratings firms built fake risk models to make money. I could go on and on, but the truth is that increasingly large segments of our intelligentsia are self-made idiots.

As far as I'm concerned, neither of the presidential candidates have a clue. I consider this insulting.

The reason I will vote for McCain, even though I find the prospect of doing so physically and psychologically painful, is that he is less likely to get our service men and women killed. Obama worries me badly on the foreign policy.
 
Mama, I find your comment here very interesting and insightful. I wish I had a better grasp of economics to understand more fully what the issues really are at hand. It sounds like not even some of our leaders really understand this.

Thanks for the work you do here in informing the public. I will keep on reading and some, I am sure, will sink in. Thank you!!!
 
I'm voting for the McCain/Palin ticket ... and hoping that he remembers the bits on budgets, taxes, energy and education going forward. On foreign policy he's much sounder.

He did call out his own party for losing their way, and they didn't like hearing it very much. They had better start acting like they believe it.
 
MoM,

All valid points -- hard to argue the opposite. I guess my view is that Democrats should act like Democrats, and Republicans like...

The supply siders in the GOP have a singular affinity for debt of any stripe. Fine. But combine that with easy money and its a recipe for disaster. Easy money is a Democrat platform plank, and adopting it was a generational screw up.

Democrats, on the other hand, are for protecting the middle class through regulation. Yet, they supported the GSE balance sheet inflation, passed bankruptcy "reform", and generally took financial industry money and looked the other way (thanks Barney Frank and Chris Dodd!) while chasing meaningless policies like the CRA.

If a party doesn't act like its supposed to, I won't give it my vote. Not because I'm an ideologue, but because the practical consequences are that bad. Better to spend four years in the wilderness and then nominate Palin to the top of the ticket!
 
David.."four years in the wilderness"..a lot of bad things can happen in four years, including:

--Iran obtaining nuclear weapons
--Major deterioration in America's electrical infrastructure, due to Democratic/"progressive" hostility toward all practical forms of energy transmission & distribution
--Trade war, with devastating consequences for the world economy
--Government funding of "community organizers" who will make it incresingly difficut to defeat Democratic candidates
--Attacks on freedom of speech, including regulation of Internet content.

I think it's within the realm of possibility that a Dem presidential win, coupled with Dem control of Congress, could represent an irrevocable turning point for this country.
 
Also..don't know what's going on with the strange URLs in Photon Courier posts...will try to get it fixed, but in the meantime, anyone wishing to link to these posts can just cut off the part of the URL after the second # symbol, as Carl suggested.
 
David Pearson The supply siders in the GOP have a singular affinity for debt of any stripe. Fine. But combine that with easy money and its a recipe for disaster. Easy money is a Democrat platform plank, and adopting it was a generational screw up.

Democrats, on the other hand, are for protecting the middle class through regulation. Yet, they supported the GSE balance sheet inflation, passed bankruptcy "reform", and generally took financial industry money and looked the other way (thanks Barney Frank and Chris Dodd!) while chasing meaningless policies like the CRA.


Yep. My father used the expression "Pounding your toes with a sledgehammer because it feels so good when you stop" to characterize irrational behaviors to his children, and I think our Congress and presidents should have it tattooed on their foreheads. This is self-inflicted and it won't get better until we stop.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?