Actually, Palin’s endorsement of McCain really does stink
posted at 7:25 pm on March 29, 2010 by MadisonConservative
One of my fellow Green Room contributors, CK MacLeod, stirred the pot with his recent post on the topic. Now, personally, I think comments should be responded to with more comments, and not with the bullhorn of the Green Room posting privilege. However, Allahpundit, with his beta wisdom, suggested a response in kind.
My first qualm was with the designation of critics of McCain, and of this move in particular, as “McCain haters”. Apart from being a tactic usually adopted by the left to demonize their critics, it also sounds eerily familiar to the RINO-in-question’s daughter, Meghan, who created the “NO H8″ campaign. It’s a cheap shot, meant to portray one’s opponent as operating on bigotry. Disliking the guy for his statements, penned legislation, policy positions, and campaign decisions does not amount to hate. Unless, of course, you’re talking about Barack Obama(haters!).
Then we get to the meat of the issue: why did Palin endorse McCain? We’ve all got various ideas, but CK’s precis is that she simply supports him.
Gov Palin agrees with Senator McCain close to 100% on foreign policy. She respects and likes him personally. She doesn’t blame him for the actions of some of his operatives during and after Campaign ‘08, and never believed it was his responsibility to play the roll of political Dad and discipline the other kids for her. She was and is quite capable of defending herself and charting her own course, and would have found it condescending and presumptuous for him to play protector.
So he’s a hawk. Good. So is Joe Lieberman, one of his best pals. Will Palin endorse him on that basis alone? Lieberman is a liberal in almost all other ways. Additionally, foreign policy is but one of many factors to consider. I’d argue that it’s far more important to focus on that aspect of a candidate’s philosophy when they’re running for president, not for Congress. If she likes him personally, there’s really nothing to argue. Whether she blames him for the muzzling she was put under in October of ’08, the post-campaign treatment, or not, is her business.
The key here is that Sarah Palin has been swelling her political influence at an accelerated rate in the last year, almost exclusively by weighing in on domestic issues. CK eventually gets to her compatibility with McCain’s positions:
She has no problem with the main thrust of his domestic views or his overall approach to politics. If she cares much about immigration politics – I’ve seen little evidence of it, though it’s clearly still a big deal to many grassroots conservatives – she’s happy with McCain’s post-”Shamnesty” positioning. I suspect that she cares enough about the Republican Party’s long-term prospects to want to see the issue handled soberly and positively.
Though post-’08 she’s been driven into a conservative cul-de-sac – in part by political circumstances in the US of A ca. 2010, in part by a learning experience that has included attacks on her from the left and from Brooks-Frum moderate/elitist conservatives – her political profile and her actual political conduct when in office, was moderate, bi- and non-partisan, and altogether maverick-y.
The importance of her positions is rather considerable, as people throughout the blogosphere have been casting Palin as the new face of conservatism; a latter day Reagan. If this is the case, let’s do a little comparison.
First up, the one that comes to everyone’s mind: amnesty. McCain authored the bill himself, with none other than Ted Kennedy. What’s Palin’s view on illegal aliens? Well, she’s stated she’s not for “total amnesty“. That’s sufficiently vague. Would it matter more to a Senator from a border state? Yes, but as 2007 proved, it matters to the majority of the conservative movement as well. Boiling it down to “I support his position on immigration” is not comforting, either. Tough call on that one. Perhaps they do agree.
How about global warming? Well, she was one of the first out of the gates after ClimateGate struck. In the same vein, she’s been one of the most outspoken proponents for domestic drilling, including in the ANWR area. McCain, on the other hand? He not only is against drilling in ANWR, but has long partook of the AGW kool-aid. Cap and Trade is another area where McCain and Obama get along swimmingly. Palin begs to disagree.
What about a Hot Air favorite: gay marriage? Well, we’re well aware of the McCain camp’s position, considering Meggie Mac’s approach. Sarah, once again, parts ways on the topic. Evolution? Again, they disagree. Some may say it’s a minor issue, but it’s seemed important to Sarah Palin.
Now, I’m not well known as a friend of birtherism. Hence, JD Hayworth’s membership in that group certainly gives me pause. However, at the same time, he’s anti-amnesty. He’s pro-drilling in ANWR. He doesn’t buy global warming, nor does he like the idea of cap and trade. Gay marriage? Uhhh…yeah. This is by no means an attempt to express support for Hayworth, but on the issues, he does have a more conservative scorecard than McCain.
Overall, my point is this: is Sarah Palin a strong conservative? If she is, why is she endorsing McCain? They disagree on a number of relevant domestic issues. She and Hayworth share more common views. If it’s personal, so be it. If Sarah Palin is a moderate, then very well. Let’s get that out into the open, and stop presenting her as a conservative icon, because there are few left who would consider McCain as such. Some have suggested that she is just being loyal to the man who chose her as his running mate for the presidency. Ultimately, the argument that Sarah Palin supports McCain because of his politics is frail. They’re at odds all over the place. It’s not “hatred” to point this out. Deal with it.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
If it hurts you so much, then don’t argue with “your own people.” BTW, I didn’t see anything negative posted about Boehner himself, so maybe you’re just looking to start a fight.
MeatHeadinCA on March 29, 2010 at 8:37 PM
Your medical knowledge is very lacking young man, as rigamortis will set in within a few hours and pop, back up again.
Sigmund on March 29, 2010 at 8:38 PM
Ah. Ha ha. Hee hee. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Holy balls.
You really have never been around when I’ve been in Palin posts, have you? I’ve been called a Palin-hater possibly more than anything else.
MadisonConservative on March 29, 2010 at 8:38 PM
well, then!
let’s hope the zombie apocalypse occurs right then and there so i can “rise” from the dead
blatantblue on March 29, 2010 at 8:39 PM
You just accuse JetBoy of holding onto a Boehner. Happy coincidence or magnificent bastardness?
DFCtomm on March 29, 2010 at 8:41 PM
I think that Sarah Palin and Scott Brown have far better sense than MadisonConservative and most posters here. Sarah and Scott are absolutely right to endorse John McCain. What most people are focused on simply here does not get to the bottom line of why Sarah and Scot are right is seeing John McCain as the superior candidate.
Worried about the deficit spending we are doing and the national debt we are racking up? You should be. John McCain, throughout his career, has been a fiscal conservative who has gotten into heated argument over his opposition to earmarked and out of control federal spending. McCain voted against Obama’s deficit spending budgets, denouncing them as “generational theft,” a phrase picked up by Sean Hannity. John McCain also voted against all the Obama bailout bills. J.D. can’t compare on this critical subject; he had his pork barrel spending moments in the Congress.
Worried about ObamaCare and socialized medicine? You should be. John McCain had the most free market approach to health care in 2008 of all the candidates and had always been adamantly opposed to national health care. The GOP National Platform in 2008 was excellent on health care because it adopted the McCain platform on the subject. McCain has strenuously opposed ObamaCare and has been accused by the New York Times of throwing bombs on the subject. J.D. can’t compare on this critical subject.
Worried about bailouts? You should be. McCain voted AGAINST every Obama bailout bill and even voted against the second release of TARP monies when Bush was still President in late 2008. J.D. was on the sidelines on these issues because he lost his last race for Congress to a Democrat in an overwhelmingly Republican congressional district that should have been a safe seat even in bad year for the GOP.
Worried about the kind of people in the Obama Administration and nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court? You should be. McCain voted AGAINST the confirmations of tax cheat Geithner, radical pro-abortion advocate Sibellius, leftist attorney Kagan and transnational advocate Koh to their respective positions in the Obama Administration. McCain voted AGAINST the confirmation of Sotomayer to the U.S. Supreme Court. Again, J.D. was on the sidelines on these issues because he lost his last race for Congress.
Worried about foreign policy, military matters and national security because of Obama’s appeasement mentality, lack of experience and naivete? You should be. Few people have the experience and knowledge concerning foreign policy, military matters and national security that John McCain has. He was right about the Iraq War when even many Republicans went wobbly and fought off Democrat led efforts to cut off funding our troops in the field in Iraq. McCain was right to attack Obama for dithering about committing to General McChrystal’s plan for Afghanistan and for not supporting the Iranian dissidents. McCain could be right because he knows his stuff when it comes to Commander in Chief decisions. J.D. can’t compare on this critical subject that cannot be ddownplayed as a big so what in the way MadisonConservative does.
Worried about the lack of real patriotism and the kind of example being set by people in the Obama Administration? You should be. He was a combat naval aviator during the Vietnam War who braved one of the toughest air defenses in history over North Vietnam and served as a P.O.W. for over 5 years in a North Vietnamese prison where he was subjected to real torture. He is the grandson of the Admiral McCain who was Bull Halsey’s right hand man during World War II and the son of the Admiral McCain who was CincPac during the Vietnam War when John McCain, the combat aviator, was a P.O.W. in North Vietnam. John McCain’s 2008 campaign theme of “Country First” reflected a family tradition of military service that has continued with one son who is a Marine who has served several tours of duty in Iraq and another son who is a Naval Academy graduate and serves in the Navy. John McCain’s discussion of serving with a servant’s heart was and is genuine. J.D. can’t compare on this critical subject. No one can.
Phil Byler on March 29, 2010 at 8:41 PM
bravo
honestly
blatantblue on March 29, 2010 at 8:44 PM
MB4 on March 29, 2010 at 8:45 PM
Atheling versus Everyone.
Tomorrow on Crossfire!
Bishop on March 29, 2010 at 8:45 PM
Then stop calling them deranged and blaming them for the Obama mess simply for pointing out his truly un-conservative history. If we had our way, he wouldn’t have pushed amnesty or CFR or cap and trade or any of the other crap that bothered us about him. That’s his fault, not ours.
MadisonConservative on March 29, 2010 at 8:45 PM
I agree. I think it’s naive to deny that Palin or any other politician is not calculative enough to use what she can toward political advantage. But as you say, she can only take this so far with McCain.
James OK on March 29, 2010 at 8:46 PM
This strawman of being against “disagreeing with John” is wrong
blatantblue on March 29, 2010 at 8:46 PM
That is probably the biggest problem on HA. I guess it’s the size of the audience, and number of commenters, but it always strikes me as funny when someone goes that far off the mark. Don’t get me wrong, I have did it myself, unfortunately, but it’s still funny even when I do it.
DFCtomm on March 29, 2010 at 8:47 PM
In a way, it’s really kinda like a three day holiday for allahpundit. The more greenroom transfers means less work for him. He (deserves a break today) should make a trip to McDonald’s tonight.
Americannodash on March 29, 2010 at 8:47 PM
Iterating your love and then tossing that out at us. Tsk.
ericdijon on March 29, 2010 at 8:47 PM
Translation: McCain’s suck up to La Raza
By Michelle Malkin • July 14, 2008 12:04 PM
While John McCain’s lips move this afternoon during his speech to the Race’s open-borders lovefest, let me serve as your interpreter:
MCCAIN: My friends, you are right. Those people who killed my shamnesty bill have ill intentions. They are bigots, just like my friend Lindsay Graham told you they were when he spoke before you two years ago.
My friends, I don’t want to talk about securing the border any more than you do. But trust me, when the “border” is “secure” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), then we’ll do what we all want to do: Formalize our Sanctuary Nation. Rejoice that illegal aliens are serving in the military. And sanctimoniously demonize and marginalize all those pesky bigots who keep obsessing about immigration enforcement and national security. I’m as committed to peddling sob-story platitudes and whitewashing your ethnic nationalism as you are! (What was that about the 15 things about The Race you should know? Shhhhhhhhhhh!)
Just work with me here, ok? Brother Obama may have marched with you at the Chicago May Day illegal alien parade. But I have a lifetime commitment to Hispandering! And you have showered with me with honors for my open-borders work.
Remember?
They don’t call me La Raza’s voice in Washington for nothing.
MB4 on March 29, 2010 at 8:48 PM
I’m trying to give her the benefit of the doubt, but THAT was funny!
MeatHeadinCA on March 29, 2010 at 8:48 PM
I love you, too. :)
MadisonConservative on March 29, 2010 at 8:48 PM
QOTD
blatantblue on March 29, 2010 at 8:49 PM
She is the most atypical and apolitical politician to ever reach her level of influence in politics. I believe she disagrees with McCain in some areas but would never admit it and is trying to live through it. He is not a political ally of hers; he is a family and personal friend whom she owes alot to. Like, millions…. I’ll be interested to see how she acts when she considers her debt paid.
PaCadle on March 29, 2010 at 8:54 PM
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”
That’s Republican Sen. Thad Cochran on John McCain, via WaPo.
Will the McCain supporters accuse Sen. Cochran of “MDS?” “Dyspepsia?” Immaturity?
Sen. Cohran is not alone.
MB4 on March 29, 2010 at 8:55 PM
Yeah I Get Loyalty (Sarah Palin has an (R) after her name) but I can’t go along with Amensty or Cap and Trade.
Michelle Malkin is updating on the murder of the Arizona Rancher…and his dog. John McCain is from Arizona this is his home state. So what does he have to say?
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/29/the-death-of-an-arizona-rancher/
As far as Cap and Trade goes who hasn’t gotten the memo that it’s a SCAM ? Apparently John McCain, Lindsey Graham and by association they being his favorite Republicans Charlie Crist.
Dr Evil on March 29, 2010 at 8:56 PM
Thank you. You said it better than I did.
Don’t we have more important issues going on today?
Knucklehead on March 29, 2010 at 9:00 PM
Thad Cocran…that makes sense. 1 earmark is NEVER enough WHEN he can get 10 or 100. As profligate a spender as exists, now that Sen. Steven’s is gone. Obama probably learned at his knee.
I’m sure he’ll get lot’s of love here.
Regards,
the Dragon on March 29, 2010 at 9:01 PM
Well although he likes surges, I think we can rule out his calling for one on our border.
MB4 on March 29, 2010 at 9:01 PM
Well he got quite a bit at Michelle Malkins site with what he had to say about McShamnesty.
MB4 on March 29, 2010 at 9:03 PM
Malkin’s continuous sniping at McCain during the election — when she should have known (or chose to ignore) that the much greater threat to our country came from Papa Doc Obama — lost her a great deal of credibility in my opinion.
That “100% my way or the highway” attitude of hers (and many here at HA) is a sure way to let the real enemy take over. As he has.
BTW: If Palin was supporting McCain for a presidential bid in 2012, I’d be against that. She is supporting him for the Senate, where his patriotism, fiscal sense and national-defense cred outweigh the “value” of electing a semi-RINO with what can politely be called a “checkered” past like Hayworth.
MrScribbler on March 29, 2010 at 9:06 PM
How come I don’t hear french horns while reading your comment? Next time add the appropriate Youtube audio/video.
Americannodash on March 29, 2010 at 9:07 PM
Palin couldn’t really win with the choices available. Reject McCain and she would be painted as an ungrateful ideologue who can’t even respect the man who gave her a national platform.
aikidoka on March 29, 2010 at 9:07 PM
Now this is a well considered post. Good Job.
antisocial on March 29, 2010 at 9:08 PM
I like Palin but she will not be on the ticket next time around. No matter what she does the MSM will try to knock her legs out from from beneath.
CWforFreedom on March 29, 2010 at 9:10 PM
Reporter: Senator McCain, is it true that if you are reelected Senator you will push to put a real fence along the Arizona border with Mexico rather than just some phony so called “virtual fence”? And a follow up question sir, if so what will the physical fence look like?
John McCain: That is a very good question and yes when I am reelected Senator I will push hard to put up a physical fence. What will it look like? Well it will run the full length of the border and have special security gates every 100 feet.
All the security gates will have on them:
1) Press one for Spanish (with a response of “Welcome Amigo, my state of Arizona is your state and please take a free map to the wonderful plantation owner employer and campaign contributor of mine of your choice. Also please feel free to enroll you children in our schools and demand that they be taught in Spanish and please also feel free to avail yourself of all the free medical care that you want. If any Gringos get in your way just shoot them or something.”).
2) Press two for English (with a response of “Go to
Infierno you damned bigoted nativist lazy madre fornicario gringos like J.D. Hayworth who do not want what is right for Arizonia del Mexico Norte!!!”).
MB4 on March 29, 2010 at 9:14 PM
What ever do you mean? Isn’t his name pronounced Bayn-er?
Are you some kind of a sick bastige? Do you want to be?
Americannodash on March 29, 2010 at 9:16 PM
My brother and I have a running conversation about whether it is a good thing that John McCain didn’t become president. We both voted for him, but I decided early on, as much as I oppose every Marx-tinged thing President Obama stands for, I was glad Obama had won and McCain had lost. At least, I was glad McCain had lost.
That’s because only out of ashes may the phoenix be reborn. The liberal-lite frustrations of a McCain administration would have smoldered on the Right but lit few fires, dampening the possibility of real post-Bush regeneration. From Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” (read: liberalism) to McCain’s compassionate bipartisanship (read: more liberalism), the nation would have continued to drift in the wrong direction. The “good” thing about the economy-crashing, military-breaking, ideologically mind-blowing Obama administration is that it puts us on a collision course that just might force Americans to bail and start over in a better way — metaphorically speaking.
But also, McCain didn’t deserve to be president, at least not under the false flag of “conservative.” McCain is no conservative, a fact that stands out as he faces a serious Senate primary challenge from J.D. Hayworth, a genuinely conservative former U.S. Representative.
MB4 on March 29, 2010 at 9:18 PM
If you think in terms of a year, plant a seed; if in terms of ten years, plant trees; if in terms of 100 years, teach the people.
- Confucius
If you think in terms of a year, elect McCain; if in terms of ten years, defeat McCain; if in terms of 100 years, never allow another McCain to ever again get the Republican party Presidential nomination.
- Confucius’ Nephew
MB4 on March 29, 2010 at 9:23 PM
Atheling versus Everyone.
Tomorrow on Crossfire!
Bishop on March 29, 2010 at 8:45 PM
I hope not. The free-for-all that happened with her in the late evening about a week ago was really ugly. I don’t know who threw down the first really nasty insult, and I really didn’t see the reason for the men, especially, dog-piling it on. I would think that everyone involved in that dirty nastiness (that should be reserved for the leftist trolls when necessary) should have regretted a few of the things said, in the subsequent light of day. I was not directly involved, but was reading it and I felt sick about it. We don’t need to act this way, imo.
tigerlily on March 29, 2010 at 9:39 PM
I really didn’t realize the depth of LOVE for ObamaCare on this site.
But it makes sense, in my lifetime…from Helping Jimmy Carter get elected, NEVER underestimate the ability of conservatives to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Regards,
the Dragon on March 29, 2010 at 9:53 PM
atheling always has
and always will be
the provocateur of every massive squabble in which she is included.
blatantblue on March 29, 2010 at 9:57 PM
I have no problem with McCain losing despite Sarah’s endorsement. In fact, I hope he does lose. His type isn’t the future of the Republican Party, and he should get back to private life PDQ.
It’s my opinion that she followed her heart – gratitude, friendship, loyalty. I also think she’s being a real Christian here by forgiving his very ungentlemanly behavior, because I sure as heck wouldn’t have supported him after he left me hanging out to dry in the vicious post-electoral feeding frenzy of the RINOs. Proof positive that it’s a lot more than just politics with her.
I don’t think she’d lose her soul in DC (one of Glenn Beck’s favorite measures of a person).
That being said, she should stay away from a presidential run until maybe 2020 (if ever). I think she’s much more valuable inspiring conservatives to take back government, starting on a local level and working up. And she can call the shots – her life is her own.
So unless you’re one of those people who is desperately seeking someone to pin the “saviour” label to (something we should ALL feel uncomfortable about after the election of The One), it’s no negative for her in the long run.
disa on March 29, 2010 at 10:02 PM
McLame’s funding by Soros since 2001, funding by LaRaza, LaRaza big wig on his staff, funding by the Tides Foundation…
Oh yeah, he’s a sweetie…
And don’t forget his “Obama is a good man”……
nondhimmie on March 29, 2010 at 10:06 PM
Kiss me, you fool!
disa on March 29, 2010 at 10:12 PM
Yeah, the Bridge on the River Kwai.
disa on March 29, 2010 at 10:16 PM
Did she get banned? What thread was this?
MadisonConservative on March 29, 2010 at 10:19 PM
Other than loyalty and the fact he was the GOP’s nominee in the last election and is still a big man in the GOP leadership, why nothing.
This column is as dumb as your birther comments.
Basilsbest on March 29, 2010 at 10:23 PM
Thanks for reading!
MadisonConservative on March 29, 2010 at 10:29 PM
Tsk tsk, this is a nasty thread.
disa on March 29, 2010 at 10:31 PM
I’m not gonna blame Arizonans if they decide to keep McCain. I don’t like his attitude on Immigration and AGW, but who knows?… maybe he did get the message.
And it’s not necessarily his fault if his daughter acts like a perpetual teenager. That’s just how it is in families. Sometimes, the Good Lord sees fit to send you a kid that you just can’t do a damn thing with, but as a parent, you’ve still got to do the ‘love and support’ thing. lolol
There’s something about Hayworth that I haven’t quite put my finger on… It’s more than the “birther” claims. But whatever it is, it’s creepin’ a bit, and if Arizonans decide to take a pass on him, I’m not going to be surprised.
Murf76 on March 29, 2010 at 11:15 PM
The one after where she ridiculed me and then went after other women (made some sense, but not really) for voting with their t*ats and being hypercritical of her while she was hypercritical of everyone else. Super irrational.
There’s your comment for your front pager. :) Read your email, sir.
Diane on March 29, 2010 at 11:17 PM
atheling always has
and always will be
the provocateur of every massive squabble in which she is included.
blatantblue on March 29, 2010 at 9:57 PM
I assume we’re adult enough here to be able to take a little provocation from time to time without going ballistic. I didn’t get the impression that atheling intended to take such a nasty and personal offensive – I got the impression she was ganged up on with some very personal insults hurled her way resulting in her response. In other words, I don’t think she went nuclear first. And I got the very distinct impression that some of those involved were baiting her gleefully in hopes of fanning the flames – dull evening or nothing better to do or something.
And it made me feel kind of sickened because I saw some posters that I really respect getting pretty down and dirty. Not saying that I haven’t probably done worse, in real life, no less, but at least we should all recognize our trespasses, not try to multiply them.
And what is it anyway with men attacking conservative women here so visciously? I expect more from conservative/traditional men. I guess I’m just old fashioned that way.
tigerlily on March 29, 2010 at 11:22 PM
This column is as dumb as your birther comments.
Basilsbest on March 29, 2010 at 10:23 PM
QOTT
tigerlily on March 29, 2010 at 11:26 PM
Some things she said made complete sense. Then she left the reservation…out to lunch, whatever…it was irrational.
Diane on March 29, 2010 at 11:32 PM
I think this is much ado about nothing. My opinion is that Sarah Palin is responding to a request by McCain for support. When McCain made the request Sarah Palin was forced to weigh her politics against their friendship. She decided that friendship would win in this situation.
The other possibility that I see is that Palin is being pragmatic about the future. If she does become POTUS in 2012, she knows that J.D. Hayworth will support most of her positions purely on principle. So by supporting McCain she gets some goodwill with him in case he beats Hayworth. This allows her to get support from that senate seat no matter which Republican candidate wins. Maybe just a bit of realpolitik is going on here.
Hawthorne on March 29, 2010 at 11:36 PM
Not even the guts to concoct your own insult, but you have to steal someone else’s dead rat of a quip?
Oof.
Having my own history with that little witch, nothing would surprise me. Ever since she cheered someone on for saying women should be stripped of the right to vote…Christ.
MadisonConservative on March 29, 2010 at 11:36 PM
MadisonConservative on March 29, 2010 at 11:36 PM
You, on the other hand, don’t have the self awareness to realize that you don’t do your image any good in having to refer back to your past “history with that little witch” in order to throw out a gratuitous insult and to wrap it all up with the use of the Lord’s name in vain. As far as a man attacking a woman in an overly aggressive or ugly way, well, my concern is for the conservative men on this site, many of whom have intelligent and insightful commentary. I guess that lets you off the hook.
tigerlily on March 29, 2010 at 11:47 PM
And you’re apparently too dense or illiterate to note that she was a f**king anti-suffragette. I have no nice words for people of that mindset, be they man or woman. Besides, what happened to “equality”? Would you cry if I called a guy a bastard? Or are you just taken aback by names against women. I didn’t even use a foul one. Women are not immune to hostility or criticism if they’ve earned it, and atheling earned it time and time again with her stalking and harassment of anyone she disagreed with, as well as implications of all sorts. Get off the pedestal, honey. You’re stumping for a loser. As for the outrage at my using Christ’s name, get over it. Blasphemy isn’t a crime, nor should it be. You aren’t even bright enough to realize that my usage was a plea, and not the taking of anything in vain.
MadisonConservative on March 29, 2010 at 11:54 PM
Diane on March 29, 2010 at 11:32 PM
I think that her observation that women are rarely found in positions such as fighter pilot were not meant to say that women were inferior because of that, just that they didn’t possess (generally speaking) the coordination required for the job in as great a number as men do. I think that is true when I think of the sterotype of “women drivers”. I think there is some truth to the stereotype. So what? Men have their gifts and talents and we women have ours. We are not identical beings, either as individuals or in terms of gender. As far as atheling saying that women getting the vote was the start of our decline – well, I would really have to hear a point by point argument for that position before I would consider it. But I wouldn’t tear her up because I didn’t agree – why should anyone? She has a right to that opinion.
Anyway, I don’t think we should spend too much time revisiting the event, I just think that everyone could have taken a different tack. I think tempers were raw because of obamacare.
tigerlily on March 30, 2010 at 12:00 AM
That’s where it went.
Although with the Margaret Thatcher and Sarah Palin caveat, of course.
Yeah, mine was so raw I called lots of other women commenters c*nts, cows and t*ats for not agreeing with me…oh, wait. No I didn’t. I just took it out on Obama and congress.
Diane on March 30, 2010 at 12:07 AM
Considering atheling was one of the most foaming Palinistas, who attacked anyone doubting her divinity, it was one of the most galling and stunning hypocrisies I’d ever been unfortunate enough to encounter.
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:09 AM
She endorses McCain on one end, and Rand Paul on the other. War mongering and welfare statist on one end, more liberty-centered, classic conservative on the other. They believe in very different ideals, so this makes her look unprincipled, as the only thing she cares about is becoming President. So it’s obvious that she’ll side with the power elite side (Rove, Kristol, Horowitz, McCain, etc.) and govern like a McCain/W Bush. I’d like to be wrong, but I’m never wrong and it’s not going to start with this.
The Dean on March 30, 2010 at 12:21 AM
The battle raged from night to almost morn
Her adversaries seemed to think that in her the Devil Herself had been reborn
But she parried many a round of her many opponents blows
And one must take note that her reputation now just grows and grows
PercyB on March 30, 2010 at 12:23 AM
It is hard to read this thread from the cesspool of personal insults flying around.
Hawthorne on March 30, 2010 at 12:28 AM
And you’re apparently too dense or illiterate to note that she was a f**king anti-suffragette.
MadisonConservative on March 29, 2010 at 11:54 PM
Can hardly stop laughing. Are you serious?? A f**ing anti-suffragette, no less. Gasping for air here…hold on…ok. How extreme and obscure could you be??
If atheling thinks that women shouldn’t vote, WHO CARES? Why are you so comically over-reacting, recoiling in horror, revulsion, “Sound the alarm, it’s a danger to the Republic! Why, lands alive, did you ever in all your born days?! Comrade obama, move over, atheling is the problem here!!”
Let’s tar and feather her, brand her with the “f**ing AS” hot iron and always, always, speak to or about her with the nastiness, pettiness and shrewishness of the most beta of males because she holds an opinion that is very unusual, but completely harmless.
You are really a discredit to yourself in every way, Madman, and your posts, with which you hope to degrade others, including women, (who you pretend to be concerned about in their “suffragette mode” LOL, are you about 100 years old or something?), while you openly admit your eagerness to insult them whenever and however you feel necessary only degrades you, of course.
Let me clue you in on something. There is a big difference between spirited, robust discourse and differences of opinion stated clearly and defended honestly, and malicious, insulting invective laden with low down verbal stabbing.
And with that I am done “speaking” to you. You have all the manners and thought processes of a feces-throwing monkey.
tigerlily on March 30, 2010 at 12:28 AM
Oh, pardon me. I’ll embrace every idea with love and tenderness. Sure, take the vote from half of eligible Americans because of their sex. Absolutely reasonable. Let’s encourage the Westboro Baptists to post here as well, shall we? Don’t judge, by cracky!
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:31 AM
That you included this line in a post speaks volumes. I’ll judge solely by it, since the rest of your post leaves little to add.
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:33 AM
Sink me, your somnambulism has betrayed you.
PercyB on March 30, 2010 at 12:33 AM
Meaning?
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:36 AM
Sink me, the lady is a poet.
PercyB on March 30, 2010 at 12:39 AM
Oh, pardon me. I’ll embrace every idea with love and tenderness. Sure, take the vote from half of eligible Americans because of their sex. Absolutely reasonable. Let’s encourage the Westboro Baptists to post here as well, shall we? Don’t judge, by cracky!
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:31 AM
Wasn’t going to, but I don’t let people who use the obama-straw-man technique get away with it. I NEVER said that it was absolutely reasonable for women to have the vote taken away from them. I said, that if atheling is of that opinion, WHO CARES? I vote in every election and will continue to do so until I no longer can.
btw, if your extreme reaction to atheling’s somewhat bizarre opinion is based on the fact that YOU think she has the power to make women lose the vote, then I really can’t help you, nor can anyone else for that matter.
And one more thing, I never mentioned anything about Westboro Baptists, let alone having them post here. I have never even heard of the Westboro Baptists.
tigerlily on March 30, 2010 at 12:40 AM
Well, meaning is in the eye of the beholder, don’t you think?
PercyB on March 30, 2010 at 12:41 AM
SHE CALLED WOMEN COWS AND C*NTS REPEATEDLY ON AN OPEN THREAD. Set aside the apologetics for a sec and think critically. The very thing you criticize MC for, this person most certainly did in spades.
Or a name-calling woman basher? Whatevs, though. Just fill it in as you go.
Diane on March 30, 2010 at 12:41 AM
PercyB on March 30, 2010 at 12:39 AM
You, Mr. PercyB, are a gentleman.
tigerlily on March 30, 2010 at 12:41 AM
Actually, this is more disturbing to me than Hayworth’s birtherism. Hayworth isn’t just anti-gay-marriage. He is pro-marriage-amendment, i.e. a federal ban on gay marriage and yet another usurpation of states’ power (in this case,to define intimate unions as they see fit).
With his support of this expansion of federal government power, I don’t see how any small-government conservative can support this guy.
Even if you are not a die-hard states’ righter, consider this: conservative groups like GOProud are opposed to marriage amendment (even though they have no stated position on whether individual states should define gay unions as marriage). Acceptance of people like Hayworth would lead to alienation of groups like GOProud, and as much as I was heartened to see Ryan Sorba booed down at the last CPAC, I don’t think that’s the direction most conservatives want to go in.
novakyu on March 30, 2010 at 12:42 AM
If I’m of the opinion that atheling is a little witch, why do you care? Why does it seem that whatever despicable opinions she holds are none of your concern, but mine are? More importantly, where do you get off telling people about proper discourse while obliterating the very rules you preach?
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:43 AM
Oh you are wrong there. Surely I can help him. I have all sorts of treatments: Donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmin, electroshock and leaches. If none of those works, I know a priest who does exorcisms.
Sigmund on March 30, 2010 at 12:46 AM
g’night my friend. Have fun! :)
Diane on March 30, 2010 at 12:47 AM
With a blade that is as sharp as your wit is dull.
KentAllard on March 30, 2010 at 12:49 AM
G’night to you, as well. I think I’ll leave atheling’s best bud to continue her quest to preserve the little witch’s joke of a reputation.
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:49 AM
So you’re saying she uses a club?
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:50 AM
Diane on March 30, 2010 at 12:41 AM
I’m not filling anything in as I go. As far as profanities from atheling, I don’t defend them. Never did. However, I think she may react in an angry and pottymouthed name calling way when she feels ganged up on. And don’t take that as a defense. And I think the melee of a week ago spiraled out of control on everybody’s account. And I don’t like bullying or ganging up especially when it has nothing to do with defending viewpoints and everything to do getting vicious. And I don’t like it when men dog pile on women. Not in “real life” and not on a blog. If someone is having an argument with another, butting in with facts is one thing, butting in to degrade is another.
tigerlily on March 30, 2010 at 12:51 AM
Well with as much sense as you are now making you might be of that opinion.
KentAllard on March 30, 2010 at 12:53 AM
On the internet, all we have are our words. Why the hell does gender make a difference when we are debating ideas? You have a rather arbitrary complaint, given that you seem to care far more about the genitals of each side, with no concern whatsoever if actual misogyny is being advanced as an argument. Yeesh.
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:57 AM
Have you ever made sense?
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:58 AM
G’night to you, as well. I think I’ll leave atheling’s best bud to continue her quest to preserve the little witch’s joke of a reputation.
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:49 AM
Another obama-straw-man? I never set out to preserve anyones reputation. My entire reason for posting was in answer to Bishop’s post which indicated that he was looking forward to another exchange like the debacle that took place a week ago. I would rather not see such an ugly sight again. However, that’s my opinion, and why are YOU so concerned with it?
I can’t believe you have the temerity to think you are capable of writing a post, let alone an intelligently reasoned article. Doc Zero you ain’t. The only thing I have seen you master in your exchange with me is the good ole lyin’ obama-straw-man. That’s a solid B+
tigerlily on March 30, 2010 at 1:02 AM
Have you ever had any sense or at least been able to recognize it when it is presented to you?
KentAllard on March 30, 2010 at 1:03 AM
I might have known your latest maladies would be something serious.
PercyB on March 30, 2010 at 1:07 AM
I can’t believe you think I care about your opinion of my writing skills.
Have you managed to complete a post without blacking out from overexertion?
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 1:10 AM
On the internet, all we have are our words. Why the hell does gender make a difference when we are debating ideas? You have a rather arbitrary complaint, given that you seem to care far more about the genitals of each side, with no concern whatsoever if actual misogyny is being advanced as an argument. Yeesh.
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 12:57 AM
If you wouldn’t verbally abuse a woman in the real world, why do you think it’s ok to do it here? I think I have made it more than abundantly clear that in the conservative/traditional world, and I don’t care if it’s on the internet or not, real men don’t bully/torment a woman, no matter how out of hand she may be. A real man diffuses an over the top woman; doesn’t jump in with both feet.
In case you forgot, it is a communistic tenet to degrade and “equalize” the genders, so that women are not treated with respect, and men are encouraged to let their more brutal abiliities be unleashed upon them, thus destabilizing the family and society.
tigerlily on March 30, 2010 at 1:13 AM
If a person is calling everyone in the vicinity c**ts, I call them like I see them. I don’t discriminate. Why does it make a difference if they’re a woman? If they’re an assh*le, they’re an assh*le. Not calling someone like you see them is useless, politically correct bulls**t.
Ah, so if you treat men and women as mental equals, you’re a communist. Got it. Thanks for the tip.
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 1:16 AM
You flatter yourself with delusion as a comment to you requires nothing in the way of exertion.
KentAllard on March 30, 2010 at 1:16 AM
As empty and mindless as yours are, I don’t doubt it.
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 1:18 AM
The above said, atheling has a responsiblity clean up her act, but something is happening with her, it seems to me. It may very serious, none of us know her personal story, it may be very grave in some way. I think if we looked at things with more than just our eyes, we might back off sometimes rather than attack. We are strong enough for that, aren’t we?
tigerlily on March 30, 2010 at 1:20 AM
Your failure to grasp something is not a valid comment on it’s meaning.
KentAllard on March 30, 2010 at 1:23 AM
Considering the amount of attacks you’ve made tonight, clearly we aren’t.
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 1:25 AM
In case you forgot, it is a communistic tenet to degrade and “equalize” the genders, so that women are not treated with respect, and men are encouraged to let their more brutal abiliities be unleashed upon them, thus destabilizing the family and society.
tigerlily on March 30, 2010 at 1:13 AM
Ah, so if you treat men and women as mental equals, you’re a communist. Got it. Thanks for the tip.
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 1:16 AM
Isn’t it past your obama-straw-man’s bed time? This is the last time…don’t make me come up there…
One more time. No where in my definition of the communistic understanding of “equalization” of the sexes did I mention the positive virtue of respecting intellects.
In communism, as with obamaism, the language is hijacked, and “equality” is really degradation, as described above.
Now, you and your obama-straw-man get to bed!
tigerlily on March 30, 2010 at 1:27 AM
Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, for everyone can see and few can feel. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are.
semloh on March 30, 2010 at 1:27 AM
Considering the amount of attacks you’ve made tonight, clearly we aren’t.
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 1:25 AM
I’ve sized you up with more than just my eyes. You deserve it tonight. And I haven’t gratuitously attacked you at all, but have used ever-skilled argumentation and exhortation.
tigerlily on March 30, 2010 at 1:30 AM
Amazing how you’ve mastered the art of rationalization. Attack one person, and you deserve it. Attack everyone, and you deserve understanding…see further.
If I attack in a debate, I’m a brutal man who should note that one is a woman, and therefore hold back because of some imagined inequality. If you attack, you’re fighting the crusade of Saint Atheling, she of the Shield with the Coat of C**ts.
…is that you? Did you have a backup name handy? Wouldn’t be the first.
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 1:36 AM
Hatred may be engendered by good deeds as well as bad ones.
semloh on March 30, 2010 at 1:37 AM
Our intellects are all that are being engaged here, yet you claim that because of gender, one should hold back. You’re either a hypocrite, a liar, or too stupid to realize you’re contradicting yourself. I’d go with the “all of the above” option.
MadisonConservative on March 30, 2010 at 1:37 AM
Your paranoia can be treated but you have to seek help first.
Sigmund on March 30, 2010 at 1:39 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »