“How’s that hope-y, change-y stuff working out for you?” Former Governor Sarah Palin yesterday the the Tea Party Convention.
She called the Tea Party movement a “ground-up call to action that is forcing both parties to change the way they’re doing business.”
It’s Long, but it good. (59 Minutes).
Two lines that stuck out in particular:
We need a commander-in-chief, not a professor of law standing at a lectern.
Gee, wonder if she had anyone in particular in mind.
In praise of the grassroots Tea Party activists, she said:
You don’t need an office or a title to make a difference.
Gee, wonder if she had anyone specific in mind.
I have no idea. 🙂
Just to show the Liberal Media works: The Huffington Post, a very liberal blog site spent paragraphs talking about “crib notes” allegedly written on her hand!!
That’s the only thing they saw in an hour.
Myopic Liberal vision strikes again.
MSNBC reportedly showed old footage of Gov. Palin watching turkey’s get slaughtered (from 2008) while it ran graphics linking the Tea Party to the so-called “Birthers” (people saying he’s not a legal US Citizen).
Yeah, there’s no bias there.
MSNBC blogger response: Teabaggers in little costumes and Sarah “The Airhead”, what a match!
Sarah, just shut up.
On Tuesday, MSNBC host David Shuster smeared “most Republicans” as birthers. On Monday, Tamron Hall asked if the conspiracy theory is the “definition of a conservative.”
“President Obama sends a message to those who question his citizenship, this as the tea party movement gets ready for its first big convention.”
At no point did O’Donnell explain or justify the connection, other than her apparent assumption that tea partiers equal birthers. The MSNBC host interviewed author Rick Scarborough, one of the speakers at the convention in Nashville. During the piece, this MSNBC graphic appeared in large font at the bottom of the screen: “Obama: Okay to Question My Policy, Not My Citizenship.”(MRC)
Doesn’t that say volumes about the way Liberals view people who disagree with their almighty AGENDA.
With that, I reproduce a piece by Charles Krauthammer from a few days ago:
What A Shame Ankle-Dwellers Are So Clueless
‘I am not an ideologue,” protested President Obama at a gathering with Republican House members last week. Perhaps, but he does have a tenacious commitment to a set of political convictions.
Compare his 2010 State of the Union with his first address to Congress a year earlier. The consistency is remarkable.
In 2009, after passing a $787 billion (now $862 billion) stimulus package, the largest spending bill in galactic history, he unveiled a manifesto for fundamentally restructuring the commanding heights of American society — health care, education and energy.
A year later, after stunning Democratic setbacks in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Obama gave a stay-the-course State of the Union address (a) pledging not to walk away from health care reform, (b) seeking to turn college education increasingly into a federal entitlement, and (c) asking again for cap-and-trade energy legislation. Plus, of course, another stimulus package, this time renamed a “jobs bill.”
This being a democracy, don’t the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don’t they understand Massachusetts?
Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.
Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded.
New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking “in the plain words of plain folks,” because the people are “suspicious of complexity.” Counseled Blow: “The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, ‘Mr. President, we’re down here.'”
A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are “a nation of dodos” that is “too dumb to thrive.”
Obama joined the parade in the State of the Union address when, with supercilious modesty, he chided himself “for not explaining it (health care) more clearly to the American people.” The subject, he noted, was “complex.”
The subject, it might also be noted, was one to which the master of complexity had devoted 29 speeches. Perhaps he did not speak slowly enough.
Then there are the emotional deficiencies of the masses. Nearly every Democratic apologist lamented the people’s anger and anxiety, a free-floating agitation that prevented them from appreciating the beneficence of the social agenda the Democrats are so determined to foist upon them.
That brings us to Part 2 of the liberal conceit: Liberals act in the public interest, while conservatives think only of power, elections, self-aggrandizement and self-interest.
It is an old liberal theme that conservative ideas, being red in tooth and claw, cannot possibly emerge from any notion of the public good. A 2002 New York Times obituary for philosopher Robert Nozick explained that the strongly libertarian implications of Nozick’s masterwork, “Anarchy, State, and Utopia,” “proved comforting to the right, which was grateful for what it embraced as philosophical justification.”
The right, you see, is grateful when a bright intellectual can graft some philosophical rationalization onto its thoroughly base and self-regarding politics.
This belief in the moral hollowness of conservatism animates the current liberal mantra that Republican opposition to Obama’s social democratic agenda — which couldn’t get through even a Democratic Congress and powered major Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts — is nothing but blind and cynical obstructionism.
By contrast, Democratic opposition to George W. Bush — from Iraq to Social Security reform — constituted dissent. And dissent, we were told at the time, including by candidate Obama, is “one of the truest expressions of patriotism.”
No more. Today, dissent from the governing orthodoxy is nihilistic malice. “They made a decision,” explained David Axelrod, “they were going to sit it out and hope that we failed, that the country failed” — a perfect expression of liberals’ conviction that their aspirations are necessarily the country’s, that their idea of the public good is the public’s, that their failure is therefore the nation’s.
Then comes Massachusetts, an election Obama himself helped nationalize, to shatter this most self-congratulatory of illusions.
For liberals, the observation that “the peasants are revolting” is a pun. For conservatives, it is cause for uncharacteristic optimism. No matter how far the ideological pendulum swings in the short term, in the end the bedrock common sense of the American people will prevail.
The ankle-dwelling populace pushes back. It re-centers. It renormalizes. Even in Massachusetts.(IBD)
Ankle-Dwellers Unite! 🙂
Now to end today’s blog with a Test: (I take no credit or blame for it’s origins)
If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him and then demands that every else do so. It’s only fair!
If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
(Unless it’s a foreign religion, say Muslim, of course!)
ed: We wouldn’t want to offend them now would we… 🙂
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
ed: or buckles down and deals with it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
ed: And wants to make it Mandatory!
I have one to add:
A Conservative will debate an issue with you.
A Liberal will debase the person or personality talking about it.
If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a
A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended”.