Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
libertyworld

Collective Mass Siezure of The American Left

50 posts in this topic

Why They Hate Her

Sarah Palin is a smart missile aimed at the heart of the left.

by Jeffrey Bell

For months John McCain has apparently been hoping to use his selection of a running mate to shake up the presidential race. By picking Alaska governor Sarah Palin, McCain has accomplished that--and very likely a lot more than that, more than he or anyone else could have imagined.

I'm not talking about the widely remarked fact that if Palin performs well, and regardless of whether McCain wins or loses, she becomes a future Republican presidential prospect. Given the end of the remarkable 28-year run of the Bush family--present on six of the last seven GOP national tickets, a record that could stand forever--and McCain's own status as a pre-baby boomer, this was baked in the cake no matter what younger Republican politician McCain chose to elevate.

But even apart from its political implications, the rollout of the Sarah Palin vice presidential candidacy may be regarded decades from now as a nationally shared Rorschach test of enormous cultural significance.

From the instant of Palin's designation on Friday, August 29, the American left went into a collective mass seizure from which it shows no sign of emerging. The left blogosphere and elite media have, for the moment, joined forces and become indistinguishable from each other, and from the supermarket tabloids, in their desire to find and use anything that will criminalize and/or humiliate Palin and her family. In sharp contrast to the yearlong restraint shown toward truthful reports about John Edwards's affair, bizarre rumors have been reported as news, and, according to McCain campaign directorSteve Schmidt, nationally known members of the elite media have besieged him with preposterous demands.

The most striking thing in purely political terms about this hurricane of elite rage is the built-in likelihood that it will backfire. It's not simply that it is highly capable of generating sympathy for Palin among puzzled undecided voters and of infuriating and motivating a previously placid GOP base, neither of which is in the interest of the Obama-Biden campaign. It also created an opening for Palin herself to look calm, composed, competent, and funny in response.

In her acceptance speech last Wednesday night, anyone could see the poise and skill that undoubtedly attracted McCain's attention months ago, when few others were even aware that he was looking. But it was precisely the venom of the left's assault that heightened the drama and made it a riveting television event. Palin benefited from her ability to project full awareness of the volume and relentlessness of the attacks without showing a scintilla of resentment or self-pity.

This is a rare talent, one shared by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. For this quality to have even a chance to develop, there must be something real to serve as an emotional backdrop: disproportionate, crazy-seeming rage by one's political enemies. Roosevelt was on his party's national ticket five times and Reagan sought the presidency four times. Each became governor of what at the time was the nation's most populous state. It took Roosevelt and Reagan decades of national prominence and pitched ideological combat to achieve the gift of enemies like these. Yet the American left awarded Sarah Palin this gift seemingly within a microsecond of her appearance on the national stage in Dayton, Ohio. Why?

The most important thing to know about the left today is that it is centered on social issues. At root, it always has been, ever since the movement took form and received its name in the revolutionary Paris of the 1790s. In order to drive toward a vision of true human liberation, all the institutions and moral codes we associate with civilization had to be torn down. The institutions targeted in revolutionary France included the monarchy and the nobility, but even higher on the enemies list of the Jacobins and their allies were organized religion and the family, institutions in which the moral values of traditional society could be preserved and passed on outside the control of the leftist vanguard...

...the single most important narrative holding the left together in today's politics and culture is the one offered--often with little or no dissent--by adversarial feminism. The premise of this narrative is that for women to achieve dignity and self-fulfillment in modern society, they must distance themselves, not necessarily from men or marriage or childbearing, but from the kind of marriage in which a mother's temptation to be with and enjoy several children becomes a synonym for holding women back and cheating them out of professional success.

On August 29, in the immediate aftermath of the announcement by the McCain campaign, all that was widely known of the governor of Alaska was that she was married with five children, the last one of whom had been carried to term with Down syndrome, and that she was pro-life. No one knew that her oldest daughter was pregnant. No one knew much about what she had done as governor or in her previous career. No one knew how she had been drawn into politics, or that her sister had had a reckless husband and a contentious divorce. Above all, with the possible exception of John McCain, no one knew that Sarah Palin was both a married mother of five and a brilliant political talent with a chance not just to change the dynamics of the 2008 election but to rise to the top level of American politics, whatever happens this year.

The simple fact of her being a pro-life married mother of five with a thriving political career was--before anything else about her was known--enough for the left and its outliers to target her for destruction. She could not be allowed to contradict symbolically one of the central narratives of the left. How galling it will be to Sarah Palin's many new enemies if she survives this assault and prevails. If she does, her success may be an important moment in the struggle to shape not just America's politics but its culture.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...4rlysq.asp?pg=1

Pretty good analysis there I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno.. why do conservitives have a huge fit over Obama or Hillery?

*shrugs*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As evidenced by enough leftists within this very forum. The down-casting, the attempting to minimize, the demonization, it's all quite humorous and, at the same time, quite predictable. How many disparaging threads can Ripley foment, how many times can the chick from LA look down her snoot at folk from "lessor" states?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent article! :tu:

I dunno.. why do conservitives have a huge fit over Obama or Hillery?

Both are phonies!!

They both claim to be of the people, for the people, and yet are about as far removed from the people as you can get.

Both have backgrounds and experiences the man-on-the-street can't even hope to relate to and yet is being told they know what is best for them.

Both have a long history of very questionable dealings.

Both have a well established history of being in bed with the elites and power brokers of Washington yet claim to be above it all, not any part of it, and will change the way Washington works. That's like a shark saying they are turning veggie right after they eat this next swimmer.

And the hard but true fact is neither Obama nor Hilary have ever once been in charge of anything where results mattered.

Hilary's claim to fame is she was married to a President.

Obama's is he organized community programs.

Neither is an executive, even junior executive, position.

Even if Sarah Palin's only leadership experience had been to help her husband as a commerical fisherman that still would have been more than Obama and Hilary combined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dunno.. why do conservitives have a huge fit over Obama or Hillery?

*shrugs*

They don't.

Never have they demonstrated such a severe and unbridled Linda Blair Response toward a political opponent.

Not even one as devoid of character, integrity, honor, judgment, maturity, common sense, love of America and humility as the punk BHO, Most Revered High Priest of Spineless Emptiness.

Hillary actually seems rather respectable compared to the punk.

Edited by libertyworld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hillary actually seems rather respectable compared to the punk.

Hense in part my reason for the thread that Hilary supporters should vote for McCain/Palin if they ever hope she will be President.

Just imagine this: Palin vs. Hilary for President! :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They don't.

Never have they demonstrated such a severe and unbridled Linda Blair Response toward a political opponent.

Not even one as devoid of character, integrity, honor, judgment, maturity, common sense, love of America, and humility as the punk BHO, Most Revered High Priest of Spineless Emptiness.

Hillary actually seems rather respectable compared to the punk.

They might not, but you do.

It's rediculous that you'll only stand up against this kinda stuff when it happens to your "side"... when Hiliary was facing sexist attacks you were pretty quiet about it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They don't.

Never have they demonstrated such a severe and unbridled Linda Blair Response toward a political opponent.

Not even one as devoid of character, integrity, honor, judgment, maturity, common sense, love of America, and humility as the punk BHO, Most Revered High Priest of Spineless Emptiness.

Hillary actually seems rather respectable compared to the punk.

They might not, but you do.

It's rediculous that you'll only stand up against this kinda stuff when it happens to your "side"... when Hiliary was facing sexist attacks you were pretty quiet about it..

nail on the head. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They might not, but you do.

It's rediculous that you'll only stand up against this kinda stuff when it happens to your "side"... when Hiliary was facing sexist attacks you were pretty quiet about it..

So my opinion of what he lacks and what he is qualifies as a huge fit?

Bit of a stretch, to put it mildly.

What sexist attacks are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's rediculous that you'll only stand up against this kinda stuff when it happens to your "side"... when Hiliary was facing sexist attacks you were pretty quiet about it..

The word is ridiculous. What sexist attacks was Hillary facing? Linkage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The word is ridiculous. What sexist attacks was Hillary facing? Linkage?

Yeah, my spelling sucks.

Don't you remember all the flak she got when for the first time in her campaign she was "sincere" and got teary eye'd talking to a crowd in hampshire.

The next day everyone went on and on about her "meltdown"... same thing happened when she got "emotional" durning another speech and was called shrill/b****y when if Obama and Mccain had done it people would be saying they justifibly angry and their emotion really showed how much they cared..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So my opinion of what he lacks and what he is qualifies as a huge fit?

Bit of a stretch, to put it mildly.

What sexist attacks are you referring to?

Just replace he with she and you have the other side.

So why are their worries qualified as a "huge fit"... sure there are some dead set on bringing her down, but the same could be said of those who did the same to Obama (the e-mails, the lies)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, my spelling sucks.

Don't you remember all the flak she got when for the first time in her campaign she was "sincere" and got teary eye'd talking to a crowd in hampshire.

The next day everyone went on and on about her "meltdown"... same thing happened when she got "emotional" durning another speech and was called shrill/b****y when if Obama and Mccain had done it people would be saying they justifibly angry and their emotion really showed how much they cared..

So that was a sexist attack... that I should have come here to defend her from... and since I did not I am somehow equally guilty to what has been heaped upon Sarah Palin...

Okaaaay...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, my spelling sucks.

Don't you remember all the flak she got when for the first time in her campaign she was "sincere" and got teary eye'd talking to a crowd in hampshire.

The next day everyone went on and on about her "meltdown"... same thing happened when she got "emotional" durning another speech and was called shrill/b****y when if Obama and Mccain had done it people would be saying they justifibly angry and their emotion really showed how much they cared..

And my gawd, imagine should Palin show the same emotion. She, with her entire belief-ethic called into question (by some posters upon this very forum).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They might not, but you do.

It's rediculous that you'll only stand up against this kinda stuff when it happens to your "side"... when Hiliary was facing sexist attacks you were pretty quiet about it..

why support someone you don't support. Besides I think she orchestrated most of the attacks herself.

Edited by danielost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just replace he with she and you have the other side.

So why are their worries qualified as a "huge fit"... sure there are some dead set on bringing her down, but the same could be said of those who did the same to Obama (the e-mails, the lies)...

Huh?

If you are saying BHO has been given the same treatment as Palin...

That would make you seem nuts.

I must not be understanding you.

Nobody in their right mind could think that.

Edited by libertyworld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When this race is over. Those who didn't vote for obama will be called racists. Doesn't matter if he wins or loses. Just like when Hillary lost the claim was that those who didn't vote for her were sexiest. IE the country wasn't ready for a woman president or something along those lines.

Except there were people who wanted Mrs Rice to run. Me being one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why They Hate Her

Sarah Palin is a smart missile aimed at the heart of the left.

by Jeffrey Bell

For months John McCain has apparently been hoping to use his selection of a running mate to shake up the presidential race. By picking Alaska governor Sarah Palin, McCain has accomplished that--and very likely a lot more than that, more than he or anyone else could have imagined.

I'm not talking about the widely remarked fact that if Palin performs well, and regardless of whether McCain wins or loses, she becomes a future Republican presidential prospect. Given the end of the remarkable 28-year run of the Bush family--present on six of the last seven GOP national tickets, a record that could stand forever--and McCain's own status as a pre-baby boomer, this was baked in the cake no matter what younger Republican politician McCain chose to elevate.

But even apart from its political implications, the rollout of the Sarah Palin vice presidential candidacy may be regarded decades from now as a nationally shared Rorschach test of enormous cultural significance.

If she loses, then all she is is a washed-up Vice Presidential nominee running for President. You want to ask Al Gore, Lloyd Bentsen, Jack Kemp, and John Edwards how well that went for them?

From the instant of Palin's designation on Friday, August 29, the American left went into a collective mass seizure from which it shows no sign of emerging. The left blogosphere and elite media have, for the moment, joined forces and become indistinguishable from each other, and from the supermarket tabloids, in their desire to find and use anything that will criminalize and/or humiliate Palin and her family. In sharp contrast to the yearlong restraint shown toward truthful reports about John Edwards's affair, bizarre rumors have been reported as news, and, according to McCain campaign directorSteve Schmidt, nationally known members of the elite media have besieged him with preposterous demands.

"Restraint?" Perhaps in releasing it, but once it was out, they stampeded to broadcast it everywhere and anywhere.

Besides, Palin deserves a good vetting. She has a very spotty record during her time in public office, and that's not forgetting the fact that she's under an active investigation for abuse of power.

The most striking thing in purely political terms about this hurricane of elite rage is the built-in likelihood that it will backfire. It's not simply that it is highly capable of generating sympathy for Palin among puzzled undecided voters and of infuriating and motivating a previously placid GOP base, neither of which is in the interest of the Obama-Biden campaign. It also created an opening for Palin herself to look calm, composed, competent, and funny in response.

We'll see. Should she find herself getting indicted on October 31st, do you think Americans will find this suddenly just so worth of being sympathetic too?

Now, I'm not going to say that this won't happen. If there's one thing that Americans have convinced me of, it's that there is literally no bottom to the stupidity of the so-called "Undecided" voters.

In her acceptance speech last Wednesday night, anyone could see the poise and skill that undoubtedly attracted McCain's attention months ago, when few others were even aware that he was looking. But it was precisely the venom of the left's assault that heightened the drama and made it a riveting television event. Palin benefited from her ability to project full awareness of the volume and relentlessness of the attacks without showing a scintilla of resentment or self-pity.

Care to actually point out any pieces of that venom from a major media outlet? They were falling over themselves to praise it as a game-changing event, even though the speech was terrible; it had numerous outright lies plus precious little good content, combined with an off-key delivery that was very jarring compared to Obama's speech.

This is a rare talent, one shared by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. For this quality to have even a chance to develop, there must be something real to serve as an emotional backdrop: disproportionate, crazy-seeming rage by one's political enemies. Roosevelt was on his party's national ticket five times and Reagan sought the presidency four times. Each became governor of what at the time was the nation's most populous state. It took Roosevelt and Reagan decades of national prominence and pitched ideological combat to achieve the gift of enemies like these. Yet the American left awarded Sarah Palin this gift seemingly within a microsecond of her appearance on the national stage in Dayton, Ohio. Why?

We'll see. I think you're getting all worked up over very little; honestly, who cares what the Republican Convention-goers thought? They're all devotees, anyways.

The most important thing to know about the left today is that it is centered on social issues. At root, it always has been, ever since the movement took form and received its name in the revolutionary Paris of the 1790s. In order to drive toward a vision of true human liberation, all the institutions and moral codes we associate with civilization had to be torn down. The institutions targeted in revolutionary France included the monarchy and the nobility, but even higher on the enemies list of the Jacobins and their allies were organized religion and the family, institutions in which the moral values of traditional society could be preserved and passed on outside the control of the leftist vanguard...

That's a load of horse****, and you know it. The main issues of the Left are

1)Conflict - generally pro-cooperation. Not Social.

2)Health Care- Economic, not social

3)Equal Rights - Legal, not social

4)Welfare - Economic, not social

The simple fact of her being a pro-life married mother of five with a thriving political career was--before anything else about her was known--enough for the left and its outliers to target her for destruction. She could not be allowed to contradict symbolically one of the central narratives of the left. How galling it will be to Sarah Palin's many new enemies if she survives this assault and prevails. If she does, her success may be an important moment in the struggle to shape not just America's politics but its culture.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...4rlysq.asp?pg=1

Pretty good analysis there I think.

Not really. This idiot somehow thinks we're targeting Palin because she doesn't fit the "feminist narrative" (whatever the hell that type of thing is), as opposed to the fact that she's a lying, power-abusing, reactionary politician.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When this race is over. Those who didn't vote for obama will be called racists. Doesn't matter if he wins or loses. Just like when Hillary lost the claim was that those who didn't vote for her were sexiest. IE the country wasn't ready for a woman president or something along those lines.

I think as the election draws closer the polls will swing very noticably (more than a point or two) in McCain/Palin's favor. When that happens the popular press and talking heads will bring up the race issue. They will float it as a question, something like "Do you think people just won't vote for a blackman for President?" or "Why do you think people don't want a black man for President?" in a gutless attempt to shame at least some people into think they are racist.

Except there were people who wanted Mrs Rice to run. Me being one of them.

She would have been an interesting candidate. Educated, articulate, clearly highly experienced...She probably feared something similar as to what is happening to Palin. Which is why I've said over and over that we have lost soooooooooo many great potential leaders in all offices simply out of fear of them and their families being raked through the mud during the campaign. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She would have been an interesting candidate. Educated, articulate, clearly highly experienced...She probably feared something similar as to what is happening to Palin. Which is why I've said over and over that we have lost soooooooooo many great potential leaders in all offices simply out of fear of them and their families being raked through the mud during the campaign. :(

Condoleezza "worst National Security Advisor ever" Rice? Interesting is definitely one way to put it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Condoleezza "worst National Security Advisor ever" Rice?

Based on what??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on what??

Based on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For a laugh. Edited by Startraveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a second.

So, you are telling me that negatively attacking someone means you are scared of them?

Sorry, that's incorrect. If it were true, Republicans would be dead of fright by now.

Cheers,

SQLsever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The main issues of the Left are

1)Conflict - generally pro-cooperation. Not Social.

2)Health Care- Economic, not social

3)Equal Rights - Legal, not social

4)Welfare - Economic, not social

Well said!

The thing is, you see, that the insano-ChristoFascists on the Right(Not saying all on the right are ChristoFascists) THINK that these issues are "Social".

They continually try and label everything as Social to fool people into believing that this is something like:

Godless Liberal Atheists vs Nice Family Christians.

They even have a name for it: "The Culture Wars"

It isn't. It is Civil Rights, the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution vs ChristoFascism.

It's no different from the Civil Rights movement of the 60's, where we had the SAME ChristoFascists crying foul.

The SINGLE most important right for EVERY American should be Civil Rights and Liberties.

Until EVERY American agrees, we have a MAJOR problem.

Cheers,

SQLserver

Edited by sqlserver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.