I knew it! I knew it! I knew it!

Friday, August 29th, 2008 · 159 Comments »

Governor Sarah Palin

I’ve been telling my mother for a month that McCain would pick a woman.

“Governor Palin of Alaska. I’ll just bet you.” Every time I would say that my mother would just roll her eyes.

I knew it. I knew he would pick Palin.

Goddamn, that old buzzard McCain is not so dumb after all.

EDITED TO ADD: The Palin pick is fricking genius, and since I’m a blogger and this is my blog I should probably take a minute here to blog about it.

Why is it a genius move? Because of two things:

1. It will make it easier for center-right Hillary supporters to vote Republican in the fall, and
2. (this is the genius part) It will complete the alienation of the rest of the Hillary supporters from the Obama camp. How? That’s easy — the Obamabots will do it themselves. Go read the Washington Post blog or anywhere online where the Palin pick is being discussed, and you’ll see the trademark Obama misogyny already out in full force. She’s been on the ticket for two seconds and already the Obamabots are saying she “looks like a porn star,” they’re making rude remarks about her childbearing, they’re ridiculing her intelligence.

Keep it up, possums. Keep it up. Just when some Hillary supporters were trying to forget what misogynist freaks you all are, now you’re going to remind us all over again.

Brilliant fucking move by McCain.

UPDATE: Greetings, Instapundit readers. You probably won’t be here long, as this is a genuinely feminist, leftist blog. But while you’re here I shall do my uttermost to be polite, and I ask the same of you. You are welcome to comment on your reaction to the Sarah Palin pick. As ever on this blog, sexist/misogynist and racist comments are of course verboten. Also, please refrain from attempting to “enlighten” me or my readers about abortion. Thank you.

Filed under: Various and Sundry · Tags:

159 Responses to “I knew it! I knew it! I knew it!”

  1. apostate says:

    I hope that doesn’t mean you’re voting for him. I’m sure it doesn’t but just checking.

    This doesn’t mean anything.

    Republican women are one giant cat’s paw.

  2. Violet says:

    No, I can’t imagine myself ever voting Republican. But I’m sure as hell not voting for Obama.

  3. truly for women's rights says:

    HELLO…we’re feminists right? Why would Hillary supporters run to McCain who picked one of the MOST CONSERVATIVE women in politics who doesn’t believe in a woman’s right to choose, the rights of gay people, and is a hard core member of the NRA? If we are true feminist, we should go with someone who believes in feminist ideals such as a woman’s right to choose…simply being a woman doesn’t make one a feminist and quite frankly, a vote for Palin seems to be a vote AGAINST all of what women have been fighting for nearly 100 years.

  4. apostate says:

    I was just coming back to say, that was a very stupid question on my part. Sorry, Violet, I know you better than that and you don’t need a whippersnapper like me telling you anything about anti-feminist women.

  5. Ciccina says:

    All I can think or say is that this is going to be so ugly. So completely and totally ugly.

  6. ladybec says:

    I knew it, too. I told my parents a few weeks ago to look out for this to happen, that she had a perfect profile if McCain was smart enough to make the choice. This is unbelievably brilliant, and it is going to get VERY ugly, VERY fast.

  7. RKMK says:

    All I can think or say is that this is going to be so ugly. So completely and totally ugly.

    Oh, it already is:

    “How is she going to campaign full time with a baby? Is that any way to treat your child? Can she handle the VP duties and also raise a baby, a 7 year old, and a 13 year old?

    My friends, please welcome the Mayor of Wasilla and her eskimo First Gentleman”

    For fuck’s sake.

  8. atheist woman says:

    This is going to end badly.

  9. Violet says:

    Yes indeed. What’s fascinating is that the Obamabots really can’t help themselves. Their behavior is, I think, going to put paid to the notion that their anti-Hillary hate was just about Hillary and not about women.

  10. K.A. says:

    I couldn’t understand the McCain voters until you explained their reasoning to me awhile back. Yesterday, my boss (who alternates between calling me Sweetie and a diminutive form of my name that I can’t stand, no one uses, and he didn’t get permission to use) went on a disgusting misogynist rant blaming women for everything in the world and how Obama’s the man. I swear to God I decided I actually could vote McCain instead of McKinney. It’s a one-two punch instead of a one-punch against Obama, that’s the only difference.

  11. sister of ye says:

    Let me add another couple of examples of why Palin was a brilliant pick.

    It’s going to be hard for Obama to criticize her for not being pro-choice when he’s spent the last months sucking up to the evangelical right and keeps insisting that we need to understand the pro-life viewpoint.

    Obama pulled his kids onstage for those happy family pics; how’s he going to trash Palin for having a family? Especially since Michelle Obama is a working mom. Or will he try to say that Michelle doesn’t have to devote a lot of her attention to her $300K+ job?

    Sure, he’ll try his usual “have his surrogates criticize her and stay nobly silent above the fray” strategy. But each time Palin gets hammmered with disrespect, it’s going to piss off women more. Some will vote McCain, some won’t vote top of the ticket, some will go with Cynthia McKinney. What they won’t do is vote for Obama.

    As Aretha said: R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to me.

  12. Violet says:

    And yet another reason it’s brilliant: the experience issue.

    Palin is young, but she actually has more experience than Obama. If he tries to criticize her as inexperienced, what the hell does that say about him? Same if the media goes after her on that point — it just raises the issue of Obama’s lack of experience.

    But someone just emailed me this snippet from the Obama camp’s reaction to the pick, and they’re fumbling it:

    Obama spokesman Bill Burton:

    “Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.”

    As opposed to Barack Obama, a community organizer with less than two years in the Senate who wants to be not one heartbeat away from the presidency but the President himself? WTF?

  13. K.A. says:

    The other thing is that in her short career, she’s already got a track record of being a “maverick,” so Repubs who are disenchanted with the Bush administration perhaps won’t be as compelled to defect to Obama. She’s so conservative on reproductive rights that Obama will pull the same poorly advised stunt as before and move even further right in an ill-conceived attempt to pick up more votes that he doesn’t have a shot in hell of getting, all while further alienating women!

    Brilliant, indeed. You called it!

  14. marirebel says:

    Do Obama supporters question whether Barack will be able to raise his young daughters while attending to the duties of president?

  15. myiq2xu says:

    This pick is brilliant for several reasons.

    The Obots attack Palin, and the GOP gets to be the party that supports and defends women.

    If McCain wins, Palin becomes his natural successor in 4-8 years, thus extending GOP control.

    Palin is an outsider to Washington and a reformer.

    This puts the inexperienced half of the GOP ticket where it belongs – in the #2 spot, thus highlighting the upside nature of the Democratic ticket.

  16. Violet says:

    My impression is that her reputation as a reformer and an honest-government type is solid. People will love her.

  17. Violet says:

    And she’s got a real apple-pie image that appeals to middle America. Very wholesome sort of Waltons thing going there.

    As opposed to Obama, a man who’s fond of songs where women are referred to as “bitches” and “hos.”

  18. RKMK says:

    I’m thinking of what this year could have been, and I want to cry.

  19. Tabby Lavalamp says:

    The sad thing is that the United States is about to get its first black president or first female vice president, one of these two historic events will happen, and it’s barely going to mean any real progress at all. What should be an amazing moment in your country’s history is going to be overshadowed by what crappy choices both of them are.
    I’ve seen this before. I lived in the UK for a short while, but it was when they had their first female prime minister… Margaret Thatcher.
    Here in Canada our first and so far only female prime minister was also a conservative, but Kim Campbell didn’t come across as far to the right as Palin or Thatcher and she introduced the rape shield law that prevented a rape victim’s sexual past from being used against her. Unfortunately, she wasn’t elected as PM, the party was already in power when she became their leader, and she got a lot of unfair blame for their destruction at the polls that took them from forming the government to only having two seats. Any Tory following Brian Mulroney was going to fail.

    Anyway, I’m an atheist and I don’t believe in miracles, but damn it, here’s hoping for one in November and enough people are turned off by both parties that the US has its first black and first female president rolled into one with Cynthia McKinney.
    Yeah, I know a third party candidate isn’t going to win, but it’s nice to dream.

  20. Joan says:

    Yes, indeed, they are already at it with the sexism, ageism and even disease-ism. McCain had skin cancer-he’s gonna die any day now! She has a family, she’s attractive-she has no brain! He’s old-old people are feeble! She was mayor of a small town-rural folks are so low info! They are gonna pick of the scabs again, and this time, the air isn’t gonna disinfect the pus-pus being the voters not onboard the O train in J.J.Jr’s analogy.

  21. Gayle says:

    “As opposed to Obama, a man who’s fond of songs where women are referred to as “bitches” and “hos.””

    Yep. That’s certainly one of the reasons why he’s a star of progressive dude nation.

  22. Level Best says:

    I’m just sort of amazed all the way around. You’re one smart ghost to have predicted this.

  23. tdraicer says:

    If I was in a swing state I’d vote for McCain. One of two people is going to be President, Obama or McCain. I’m unwilling to see Obama destroy what is left of the liberal impulses in the Democratic Party (limited as they are) and so I’m for McCain winning. To want Obama to lose and not vote for McCain (in any state where it matters) is just an evasion of responsbility: I want Obama to lose but let someone else accept voting for his opponent.

    It sucks that we have to suffer through another four years of a GOP White House. But if you honestly believe that defeating Obama is something that needs doing (as I do) then you might as well bite the bullet and accept doing what has to be done to achieve that end.

  24. Ciccina says:

    @ atheist woman

    “This is going to end badly.”

    lol! As my grandmother would say – you’re not kiddin’, sister.

    I think that’s going to be my new motto. From now on until November, whenever people say “hello, how are you” to me, I’m just going to answer “This is going to end badly.”

  25. Happenstance says:

    Now the race is on! Who will angrily snarl the most gender-based slurs at Palin? The neo-cons? McCain himself? Or the oh-so-Progressiver-than-thous in the Obot Brigade? I don’t envy her.

    I’m of two minds about the election. Part of me is with tdraicer, hoping to suffer four more years of McSame just to put the sticks to the Naderite fauxgressives, who put us through EIGHT years of it already yet now hypocritically insist we have to vote for the party candidate for fear of the consequences (and if you’re a former Nadernuzzler who’s since learned your lesson, hey, good for you, I really don’t care). Downside: four more years of this.

    Part of me wants Obama to win, so we can watch another generation of starry-eyed teens with undeveloped frontal lobes become bitterly disillusioned when nothing changes…and we can put this “youth vote” horsecrap away for what’s sure to be the rest of my life. Downside: the fauxgressives will have gotten their way (they couldn’t care less about the consequences, it’s all Hillary’s fault anyway).

    I guess it comes down to whether I write in Nader (to encourage infighting among the faux) or Hillary (to let the faux know the real reason the carpet got yanked out from under them).

  26. Ciccina says:

    I’ll add that I too think this is a brilliant pick, for so many reasons I just have to list them… (sorry for repeating ones already mentioned)

    - gives evangelicals the warm fuzzies

    - young fresh face shows McCain is not opposed to change

    - new fresh face shows McCain is serious about bringing in outsiders and not doing business as usual

    - makes McCain look extra mavericky because she is not establishment GOP

    - her whistleblower cred complements his mavericky/anti special interest cred

    - says to women voters: Dems may not want to fight for your votes, but I do and will

    - background with energy issues, which also impacts economic issues

    - balances out McCain’s weakness (to GOP) on drilling

    - sets a trap for the Dems that the possums have already sprung with their sexist spewing

    - McCain campaign making bold strategic move should invigorate demoralized GOP insiders

    And – on top of all that – they squash Obama’s morning-after media lovefest.

    OMG. A masterstroke.

  27. K.A. says:

    From now on until November, whenever people say “hello, how are you” to me, I’m just going to answer “This is going to end badly.”

    Lol. I’m actually surprised at how unhappy I am now that I’m realizing McCain probably will win. I refuse to vote for Obama, but now…this is going to end badly.

  28. julia says:

    When I read the ‘People’ article about Obama and his family, the first thought I had was, if you care about your kids, why would you put them in the White House?. They’ll grow up with body guards and never have a normal childhood. If he’s so ‘All American’ why isn’t his first concern his own family?

  29. K.A. says:

    If he cared about his kids, he wouldn’t be a misogynist fuck. But girl children don’t count as real People, so he doesn’t care and neither does the American public. I want to throw up when people are over the moon about what a family man he is, and get all emo about those ridiculous photo ops with those girls he has such contempt for. I pity his daughters.

  30. donna darko says:


    Repubs are scary, Dems are dumb, but major props to Republicans.

    McCain : Palin :: Biden : Obama

  31. Bryan says:

    Hi, just found your blog, really enjoy it. I’m very focused on rural vs. urban issues, and it’s an ingenious trap on that level too. Remember the bitter clingers? What’s the first reaction of the Obama campaign? A statement dismissing her as a small town mayor. And it’s been coming out of the Obama fans and surrogates all day; backwater, empty state, frozen tundra full of moose and nothingness.

    Brilliant move.

  32. Lank says:

    When I saw this news about Palin this morning, I thought to myself, this gal WILL be the first female President down the road. McCain couldn’t have made a better pick from the contenders, Palin will eat Biden’s lunch in the debate. Biden will come off sounding like Ted Baxter compared to her, she knows her stuff.

  33. Mixie says:

    I often wonder if the Obama posters are just McCain plants because no one can really be that stupid. Then I turn on the tv and see Keith Olbermann, ugggggggh.

  34. bc says:

    The one unforgivable sin that is going to drive the Obamabots insane is that Palin actually stands for something. As Obama panders, compromises, and flip flops to salvage his failing campaign, this woman is not going to bend, apologize, or pander to those who disagree with her. And Obama will never figure out what happened as he loses his ass in the general.

  35. JeanE says:


    You said that Palin is against rights for gay people. While she opposes same sex marriage, as governor she vetoed a bill that would prohibit employee benefits for same sex couples. I”m not sure of her position on civil unions, but I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize her record as against gay rights.

  36. Jeffersonian says:

    15 said:

    This puts the inexperienced half of the GOP ticket where it belongs – in the #2 spot, thus highlighting the upside nature of the Democratic ticket.

    Precisely. Well put. The irony is that when presented with the option to invert the current Democratic ticket, primary voters chose this one instead.

  37. coriolan says:

    “If we are true feminist, we should go with someone who believes in feminist ideals such as a woman’s right to choose.”

    That is ***so*** Correct! Palin renounced her right to choose and bred a retard!!!!!!

    Seriously, folks – I’ve worked with the developmentally disabled for over 20 years, and there are dozens of Downs Syndrome individuals of whom I think far more highly than any Washington pol (OK, an admittedly low standard). Of course, 80% of Downs kids get aborted these days, and I’m sure many readers of this blog will see no irony in this as they congratulate themselves as advocates of the oppressed and downtrodden.

    In fact, isn’t there a disturbingly high ratio of female to male abortions? A Woman’s Right to Choose becomes a Woman’s Right to Choose to Abort Other Women……?

  38. Jack Burton says:

    “Republican women are one giant cat’s paw.”

    Yeppers… this type of attitude and posting will certainly impress the gals.

    “Hey, if you don’t agree with ME, then you’re just stupid.”

  39. David Ross says:

    When I see someone insisting that “women” all care only about the “right to choose”, I have to wonder – is this true for all women? Is it really good for women to give men the impression that they can just, you know, “hit that” without any consequences or commitment?

    Aren’t there other, more important issues affecting women (from health issues like endo & cancer, all the way over to the fact that it’s still not safe for a woman to walk about alone at night in a major city)? Can’t a woman be feminist *because* they oppose abortion, or just without dealing with that issue – and not be accused of being some kind of uncle(aunt?)-tom?

  40. cthulhu says:

    Comment #3 might want to think about that “rights of gay people” comment — IIRC, her first veto as Governor was a bill to restrict rights of gays.

  41. Lea says:

    My friends, please welcome the Mayor of Wasilla and her eskimo First Gentleman”

    Oh, PLEASE tell me the dems are going to bitch about women AND eskimos!!

    This pick is brilliant. Conservatives are energized and the Obamites will be proven to be the small minded, misogynistic assholes they are.

    I thought it was a lovely touch to mention GFerraro and Hillary in the speach. Despite what some people think, conservative women care about the glass ceiling too. That comment will appeal to them. It does to me.

  42. Jeffersonian says:

    Violet’s prophecy comes true…a post from an Obama supporter on a blog I read:

    I’d like to retract some of the thoughts of her qualifications that are stirring in my head. Sarah Palin is, likely, qualified to wash my dishes, even moreso to fetch a Big Wheel from my driveway. I was thinking she wasn’t, but those are just exaggerated thoughts.

    What a bimbo!

    This is one of the tamer comments among Obama fans, I might add. The misogyny is running rampant.

  43. Violet says:

    I seem to have been found by the Feminists For Forced Pregnancy crowd (not you, Jeffersonian — further upthread.) Interesting.

  44. Apostate says:

    Jack Burton and David Ross are welcome to post here? One is promoting guns for personal safety – a monumentally bad idea – and the other is insisting choice doesn’t matter.

  45. Violet says:

    Jesus! I’m not responsible for every nutjob who finds my blog.

  46. Violet says:

    Instapundit! That’s what’s happened. I’ve been linked by Instapundit.

  47. Tennwriter says:

    We wingnuts have noted that Democrats can be absolutely hateful. You’re now experience the awfulness first hand as the Obamessiah’s followers try to burn you at the stake.

    I’m not a fan of Michelle Obama. Her “I’m finally proud of my nation” when she’s gone to an elite law school, got paid extremely well, and apparently requires her husband to be president before she can be proud of her nation seems a LOT excessive.

    But still, I and most other wingnuts are not going to be anywhere near as harsh or rude to Michelle as the Obamabots have already been to Palin. Some of us might be, and I will confess a weakness for some of that, but too much is too much.

    I think it may be because wingnuts are commonly taught the value of courtesy, and we’ve absorbed the point that too much marination in hatred is bad for the liver. It seems the Obamatons are not taught courtesy, and believe that the purity of their hatred will raise them to a new level of consciousness.

    I’ll invite anyone who’s interested to see if its possible to be pro-woman and Republican. Tens of millions of American women don’t find this an impossibility, and tens of millions of American men think likewise.

  48. Mister Snitch says:

    “But each time Palin gets hammmered with disrespect, it’s going to piss off women more.”

    And not just women, friend. Lots of MEN don’t like seeing a woman being abused, and will instinctively move to her defense.

  49. Lea says:

    I seem to have been found by the Feminists For Forced Pregnancy crowd (not you, Jeffersonian — further upthread.) Interesting.

    Does it bother you?

    FWIW, my view on Abortion is that it ain’t going away anytime soon, no matter who wins the presidency, but I understood some people worry. I am far more worried about glass ceilings and jerky MSM commentators and presidential candidates referring to adult female professionals as ‘sweetie’ like they are a waitress in a southern diner.

  50. Mike J. says:

    I second Mr. Snitch. When Palin spoke of the 18 million cracks I wholeheartedly went over to the McCain camp. The contrast between the beaten-down, spat-upon, race-baited Hillary, and the proud Sarah Palin who actually seems to enjoy McCain’s (and his party’s) respect and support, was simply unbearable. Even though Hillary gave a very good speech in support of Obama, all it did is diminish my respect for her.

  51. Letalis Maximus, Esq. says:

    Just you wait. Before this thing is over, the Obamabots will be trying to smear Palin with everything from the Expulsion from the Garden of Eden to the Disappearance of Little Caylee:

    “She is a woman, after all. And so was Eve. And so is Hillary. And so is Caylee’s mom. Can’t you see the connection?”

    Keep it up, tough guys. Obama’s worst enemies are his more ardent supporters.

  52. Letalis Maximus, Esq. says:


    I dunno. I own a bunch of guns. And I’ve never been robbed or mugged.

    So much for what you think regarding good or bad ideas.

  53. Letalis Maximus, Esq. says:

    coriolan brayed:

    “Palin renounced her right to choose and bred a retard!!!!!! Seriously, folks – I’ve worked with the developmentally disabled for over 20 years….”

    Not for much longer, I hope, you dispicable excuse for a human. Surely a more appropriate career awaits you as a washroom attendent somewhere.

  54. DrZin says:

    Whatever. She’s brilliant and gorgeous. Easily the most attractive (politically) of the four.

  55. paul says:

    2006 demographics…


    Women were 51% of the vote, and they supported the democrats 55-43.

    Male vote was 49%, 50-47 in favor of democrats.

    Simple math?

    77.757 million votes cast in 06.

    21.81 million democratic women.
    19.05 million democratic men.

    obamabots see you as the ‘minority’…
    good luck with that.

  56. Bill Whittle says:


    Let me start by saying that I am a conservative Republican, and very likely we disagree on most everything. (And believe it or not, I got here before the Instalanche)

    I’ve been everywhere on the web these last few days, keeping my ear to the ground — left and right and everything in between — but this is the first post I have been moved to comment on, because you seem very reasonable in your analysis.

    All I wanted to add was this: My strong feeling is that you and many of your commenters have been lied to over the years. Republicans — at least the ones that I know, and I know a LOT of Republicans — are neither misogynists or racists. The essence of our philosophy is individualism, and ideally we support or oppose positions and candidates based on their character, rather than their identity.

    I say this because I think it is a big mistake to assume that McCain picked Palin because she is a women. No doubt that is a part of it, but it is Palin’s character that has us just smitten with her. She had a problem at school one day so she went to a PTA meeting. She didn’t like the way things were going so she ran for the PTA and won. Then she ran for mayor of her hometown — where she played basketball and met her husband — and won. Then she got disgusted by Alaska politics and GOP corruption, and as a Republican ran against the corruption in her own party — and won. And she never whined or complained. She’s happily married, she’s a tough lady married to a tougher man, and she got there through hard work and sheer determination.

    She’s the conservative success story, and that is why men and women on the right just LOVE this pick. Not because she’s a woman, but because she’s Joe, uh, make that JANE Citizen, and she played by the rules and beat corruption.

    For Conservatives, Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens and his Bridge to Nowhere pork project are the absolute DEATH of conservative principles. These guys have ruined the Republican party. Sarah Palin went right at them and beat them senseless.

    So it is a mistake to think of her as a token choice designed to woo Hillary voters. (I’ll think she’ll do some of that too, mind you.) But McCain is serious about corruption and reform. He has paid a heavy price in his own party for it — I was there, and I saw the resentment leveled against him. And I think he chose Palin because he plans to not only run against Obama, but against the 9% approval-rating Congress. She is the Real Deal in that regard.

    So as someone who you undoubtedly disagree with on just about everything, let me close with something from the heart. I don’t like Hillary, because I don’t like her policies. But just about every conservative I know thinks she was robbed by the DNC, and that Obama’s nomination was gamed by the Democratic leadership. So since Hillary is off the ticket in ’08, I would ask you to consider this…

    There are two nuclear issues in American politics, and they are The Right to Bear Arms and Abortion rights. They are the only two issues that cause one side, or the other, to actually go out and riot in the streets. You can twiddle with them a little (partial birth bans, assault rifle bans) but there is no way that Conservatives will EVER be able to make abortion illegal, and no way for the Liberals to EVER confiscate a private citizen’s guns.

    With that said, I would encourage you to look at Sarah Palin as what we all hope for: a self-made person who seems to want to do the right thing. She’s not a Woman VP — she’s an anti-corruption VP. That’s how we see her. That’s how she deserves to be seen. She has the enthiastic — actually, incandescant support of every conservative I know — not because she is a politcal missile aimed at Hillary voters, but because she embodies the American dream of the citizen who decided to make a difference.

    One of the earlier posters wondered who would be more misogynistic: McCain or Obama. Is that a joke? McCain picked her because she is the best person for the job he has in mind: go clean out Washington from the inside. The democrats passed on Hillary Clinton — who had been part of the White House team for eight years and was married to the President of the United States. The Republicans chose a woman who is married to a commercial fisherman, because she has shown character, and did what she set out to do. We’re going to back this woman all the way to the wall. She’s earned it.

    I would hope that would make any woman proud. It certainly made me proud, and I’m a knuckle-dragging, war-mongering Neanderthal.

    Good luck in November, and may the best side win.

  57. Jeffersonian says:

    Thank you for letting me post, Violet. Nice site.

  58. FemB4Dem says:

    Amazing! Politically, this move by McCain is brilliant for all the reasons mentioned here. Sarah Palin is strong and dynamic, and while I disagree with her on choice, there’s no disputing that abortion rights on the federal level are a thing of the past since the Dems refused to filibuster Alito. Neither a president or a vice president will have much to say about choice. Instead, all the fights on abortion rights will now be on the state level, and that’s where we will take them, inspired by a woman who will prove women can no longer be kicked to the curb as the Obama party has done. Even though women will split on the issues, I think we can come together on the idea that this is the year we need a woman on the national ticket. Should it have been Hillary? Absolutely. Will I take Palin over Obama? Yes, I will. In fact, watching Jack McCaffery’s head explode this evening on CNN made me very happy for the first time since Hillary suspended her campaign. What I really look forward to now is 2012 — Palin versus Clinton. Now there’s change I can believe in! And yes, I am in a state Obama calls a swing state, so I will be voting for the republican ticket for the first time in my voting life. Everytime Obama says Hillary made it possible for his daughters to be whatever they want to, I feel like screaming they are children, what about us adult women? I want the choice to vote for a woman now. How ironic it took a republican to give me that choice.

  59. paul says:


    “Gov. Sarah Palin vetoed a bill Thursday that sought to block the state from giving public employee benefits such as health insurance to same-sex couples.

    In the first veto of an administration that isn’t yet a month old, Palin said she rejected the bill despite her disagreement with a state Supreme Court order earlier this month that directed the state to offer benefits to same-sex partners of state employees.

    Advice from her new attorney general said the bill passed by the Legislature was unconstitutional, she said.

    “Signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office,” Palin said in a prepared statement released by her administration Thursday night.”

    is that a flicker of a soul?

  60. Oman says:

    I am with Bill Whittle on this. It’s about character, and about not playing the insider game anymore. Maybe Sarah Palin will turn out to be someone other than we think; but I doubt it (do you really think McCain would have screwed up his due diligence that badly? Do you really think that Sarah Palin could fake who she was at her acceptance speech?). I am ready to back her all the way, and to look at McCain more as the Coach who has opened the way for the next generation of Republicans, than as the Old Guy being president. This is epochal.

  61. Natasha says:

    “There are two nuclear issues in American politics, and they are The Right to Bear Arms and Abortion rights. They are the only two issues that cause one side, or the other, to actually go out and riot in the streets. You can twiddle with them a little (partial birth bans, assault rifle bans) but there is no way that Conservatives will EVER be able to make abortion illegal, and no way for the Liberals to EVER confiscate a private citizen’s guns”

    Yea, and South Dakota was just a figment of imagination Right? Even in cases of RAPE–ABORTION ILLEGAL,


    I don’t support Obama due to his ties with those working to establish Sharia,

    but, I won’t support Right Wing establishing Religion either,

    keep the Gods and Religion Our of our vaginas, its THAT SIMPLE…

    and I am Pro-Gun btw [fierce feminist and Independent-left on some issues, right on other but damn sure WON'T compromise on Women's Rights, and I hate Patriarchy as much as I hate Totalitarianism].

    While McCain may have picked Palin for the reasons you suggested, the Right wing chauvinist pigs are already all over it,

    its interesting, how everyone says, Obama [and I can't stand Obama] and his campaign will attack Palin and it will piss women off,

    Gee, but I suppose Right wing men saying, how Hot she is and how they’d ‘pork her’

    why thats just So fucking progressive for women now isn’t it?

    You know the Problem for WOMEN isn’t just politics and political parties, oh no,

    its WOMEN have been too damn complacent in this nation towards MISOGYNY…and No sir,

    women Didn’t hit the streets in droves over South Dakota…THAT WAVE OF FEMINISM IS DEAD, except for a few of us out here pretty much a minority.

    Today’s ‘feminism’ is tits on sticks and ain’t I empowered because hey baby I can grind a pole and fuck three men all at the same time and be filmed while doing so and oooh its just So empowering OR


    the submissive woman who will VOTE IN THE WAY MEN WANT AND THAT WORKS FOR ‘MEN’S INTERESTS’,

    if, if Palin was a Republican that was more Libertarian and Did support Pro-Choice and Gay Rights and Women’s Rights and Worker’s Rights, I can assure you,

    the Right wing majority would be pissed off big time.

    And the Hilary bunch needs to Remember something–it Wasn’t just Obama’s far left misogynist Pan-Islamists lot that slammed Hilary–the Same Right wingers [men And women] who hated feminism ASLO SLAMMED HILARY, USING THE SAME METHODS AND SAME WORDS,

    here’s the Gist of the same ole same ole politics in America

    1. PATRIARCHS RUN THE SHOW [while women run around looking for who to support and both sides throw them off the bus, either pro-choice and cut them elsewhere or pro-life but starve the children, love that cheap labor]

    and in the End–







    [and you'll find that coming from the left too, except its the 'don't that dumb ole woman know what birth control is']


    Give me a break–its the same rhetoric and same crap and Women fall for it Every single time, and then, when the rapes increase and there is NO justice for women, they huddle and complain and Then what?

    We wait for the next messiah to change it all…


    and when those few of us who Do–and are very Vocal, we are crucified, in more ways than one…

    and the First to crucify us, are THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SUPPORT THE PALINS AND MCCAINS

    and when we get a Little more radical and confront the Obama’s of the world,

    then the left men and women come out and crucify–




    [fact, and there IS women who have started an organization but NEITHER THE RIGHT OR LEFT HAS EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED THEM]

    I wouldn’t vote for Either McCain OR Obama

    the Right says, we need the war to keep out Islam but hey, ok to prop them up $$$$ Ka Ching with those investments to PROTECT FREE GLOBAL MARKET

    and the Left says, why no war and besides, those investments [in Dubai esp] and with peace and understanding, we can all sing around the Kumbayah tree and hell, it ain’t oppression,

    forcing 8 year old girls to marry, why its just CULTURE


    and the Greens–great, they Got it down as far as the problems, but then like the left, they got this Kumbayah thing going and Yes Virginia there Really are evil people and regimes out there that if you disarm would run your asses over and enslave you Just as they are doing to peaceful farmers [and Christians] in Sudan…

    but yes, correct, so Much of the war is about OIL and oh, well, Genius huh, making those forces even Stronger in that part of the world…now we have Two hegemonies fighting for Dominance and Imperialism at that.

    and Workers–LOL, which multinational owns you?

    Bottom line, Either way, Women and Workers are going to Lose this election–in a big way,

    no matter Who gets elected, and If you ask me, its been ONE great Political MOCK TRIAL stage show,

    I think even Stalin would be impressed with the propaganda and the bullshit that has been flung to stir the emotions of American voters.

    so Ladies Take your Pick,

    you either have, bow down to the Quiverfull life [and many in the Right are wanting nice little get knocked up camps to boost up ole whitie population]


    you can have, bow down to the Sharia Law camp, because Obama and the far left–Pan Islamist alliance, thats Exactly what that is, to take down imperialism,

    and as for Far leftists [and I used to be in far left party so I know the ins and outs of that nasty little 'elite misogyny']

    you get the likes of Ortega, one day pro-feminist,

    the next, abortion illegal and if you raped, too the fuck bad–

    Either way–we are screwed…UNLESS_-we take this man’s advice, and take it to the streets the FIRST TIME, THEY TRY TO ROLL BACK OUR RIGHTS,


    and get AS militant as the pro-guns, in fact Sir,

    why I support guns,

    I think Every woman should own one–and start using them on some misogynist males.

    But then, oh, we have those protection of VIRTUE laws for women…you know, let the ‘men’ protect you kind of crap…[while rapes go up and more cases acquited in this country]

    and as for Religion–don’t matter if its Sharia or the Right or the Left–just ask the girls in those LDS camps,

    how many so called pious so concerned over fetuses are MARCHING IN STREETS DEMANDING THE END OF THOSE CHILD RAPES=but they can blog about how horrid Islam is…

    [and of course we love global crack downs on birth control esp of those poor colored women because hey thats cheap labor we can buy at Wallie World].

    No Sir, the thing with American politics, THEY DON’T REPRESENT WOMEN, NEVER HAVE, NEVER WILL,




    Director of WAMI
    Women Against Misogynist Imperialism

  62. Apostate says:

    No, Violet, of course you aren’t responsible for every nutjob who posts here – I get plenty of whackaloons.

    But I thought you deleted comments like that one. No matter, not a big deal.

    That person – Letalis – who owns guns and has never been attacked or robbed or mugged – are you suggesting a correlation? I’ve never been robbed or mugged either and yet I have never handled a gun. Do you think the robbers and muggers figured out I didn’t have a gun and so avoided targeting me?

    A correlation is a causation in your world?

    Guns are a bad idea because people usually end up dying when guns are around. Most assailants, on the other hand, can be repelled by physical self defense alone.

    But, that is not a discussion I wish to have here – don’t want to derail.

    Enjoy your guns – glad they make you feel safe.

  63. Shinhao Li says:


    I’m one of the dreaded Instapundit readers who followed the link over. The Republican base is absolutely ablaze after Palin, and in this spirit of enthusiasm, I thought I’d try my hand at bipartisan diplomacy.

    I’d would write a one-world-kumbaya fluff piece on why we should all vote for McCain-Palin, but no one is stupid enough to fall for that. If absolute choice over abortion is a must for you, there’s no way in good conscience that I can ask you to vote for McCain. Your interests are better served with Obama.

    Debating abortion is a perilous topic, so I won’t try. But if you are willing to consider something less that totally unrestricted abortion, you might find the Republican side surprisingly hospitable. After all, we have Giuliani and Thompson, both pro-choice. One the other hand, we have Palin. But most Republicans, including myself, are somewhere in between. Somehow, the rights of the pregnant woman and the fetus both need to be recognized. I don’t know the answer.

    The main attraction the Republican party has to offer women (and minorities) is respect for individual achievement and merit. I don’t know why McCain picked Palin – I’m not a mind-reader – but I do know why the base is excited about her. She is the all-American success story. If you are reading this, you already know her bio. It is a respect for her accomplishments that drives the excitement.

    The most tiresome aspect of the Democratic party is the fixation on identity politics. The instant you step out of line, the instant you deviate from the approved message you are either hated as a “race-traitor”, or ridiculed as a bitter and selfish, or if white, racist.

    That is crazy. That’s not a serious political party. That’s completely juvenile. I find the Republican party to be serious, where you will be taken seriously, but only if you deserve it. Palin has earned our respect. Condi Rice has earned it. She’s not Secretary of State because she’s a woman.

    If it matters, I’m a fluently trilingual (Chinese, Japanese, English) immigrant to the US from East Asia. In Massachusetts. The Republicans shook my hand and took me for an individual (in Boston, they’re positively ecstatic for fresh blood). Opinions are respected – my views on the Chinese government are a little different than most.

    I mean, just look around – which party has ridiculous demonstrations, noise and angst, making crazy accusations on MSNBC and CNN, and which party just silently takes it, and goes about its business? If you want a respectful, reasonable conversation, an adult conversation, consider the dark side.

  64. Violet says:

    Apostate, it seems I’m experiencing a temporary influx of readers from a conservative blog. It shall pass, but in the meantime I shall be a polite host.

  65. Observant says:

    Re: The one heart-beat away from being President fearmongering by Dems like Begala(the jerk on CNN).

    I feel more comfortable with the thought that Palin would be President if McCain couldn’t discharge his duties .. than having Obama as president now.

    The other argument that Palin is not knowledgeable on foreign issues is exactly what Obama represents, and he wants to sell himself as president now.

    In fact, after a couple of years as Vice President, I would think Palin would be fully qualified for the presidency … because she has proven to be a quick study and somebody with political cojones too ..!!!

    Do ya think Condi Rice would be Palin’s vp…??!!!

  66. tinfoil hattie says:

    Another reason the selection of Palin was brilliant: It makes Obama and the Dems-in-charge look like a bunch of cowards.

    McCain picked Palin, and I thought: “See? That wasn’t so hard, was it?” I had a hunch he’d choose a woman, too — but I’m nowhere near as politically savvy as Violet, as far as intuiting who it would be. Nice work!

    I think it really, REALLY makes Obama look foolish.

    If the first woman president of the U.S. is a Republican, the Dems have only themselves to blame.

  67. Clyde says:

    Violet, I think that you are correct that Obama’s worst enemies on this will be his own supporters. I got e-mail from one woman I know who leans strongly Democrat and she said that the things she was reading from the media and the Obama supporters were setting off her misogyny meter. The meaner and nastier the Obamabots get, the more the women who voted for Hillary (whether Democrats or Independents) will remember how mean and nasty those same Obama supporters were to their candidate and to THEM!

    They took it personally because the nasty comments were so personal. They may have a hard time voting for McCain even with Palin on the ticket with him, but it may make it more likely that they just say, “I’m not voting for anyone on the top of the ticket, period. I won’t give those damned Obama supporters the satisfaction!”

    You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

  68. bobbi b says:

    I’ll admit, I’m part of the Insta-lanch. So, you can pass this one by, should that be your impulse.

    But, honest . . . What Whittle Said. (“WWS.” Not going to make a real catchy button, I guess.)

    Before today, I would have said “Palin Who?”

    After I first learned about McCain’s pick, my thoughts covered “there goes our experience argument”, and, “omigawd, he thought that just picking a woman would get him the angry Clintonites?”

    But now I’ve done my homework on who she is, what she’s accomplished, what she’s tried even if it didn’t work, and why she tried, and damned if she isn’t the type of Republican, conservative leader whose death I had mourned back when Bush & Co. was bought out by Drunken Sailors, Inc. and adopted the buyers’ fiscal management policies.

    Smart, energetic, optimistic and self-confident (otherwise, why even TRY against the corrupt GOB network of Alaskan politics), a believer in the value of equal opportunity versus equal outcome, a believer in the idea that your own religion-based attitudes towards gays should not inform your lawmaking efforts . . . Just outstanding. And, a record of winning elections based on convincing people that change was overdue, and then accomplishing much of that change once she won?

    I have friends who were angry with me when I told them that I would never vote for a woman candidate solely because it was time for a woman to win. I’ll have to point out to them that it’s certainly time for THIS woman to win.

  69. Kevin says:

    Wow, Natasha, wow. That was quite a tirade. But I have to tell you: the Right isn’t nearly what you think. The numbers of men on that side are just as few as on the Left who speak about women the way you implied, wanting to “pork her” and all. Can we raise the intelligence of our dialogue please? Bill Whittle’s comment makes me want to stand up and cheer on it’s own accord.

    I’m a conservative with a libertarian streak in me, and I’ve been quietly following Palin for months now, really more interested in her political future than in any kind of hope for her being VP. I am totally surprised and ecstatic, but did NOT see this coming. I’ve enjoyed reading this thread, it’s been very enlightening. I knew Hillary supporters were upset, but this really brought me some understanding! You all aren’t just mad, some of you are willing to vote Republican!

    And like Bill said, I think you’ll find it far more hospitable on this side than you imagined. I was not happy about McCain myself; I felt like a conservative in the wilderness, left to fend for myself by the neocons. But the Palin choice really gives me faith in the Republicans again, and going against what I’ve claimed for months now, I will most definitely vote McCain (instead of third party, which was my other option). Palin was a freakin’ brilliant pick. Great post, Violet!

  70. bobbi b says:

    “It shall pass, but in the meantime I shall be a polite host.”

    - – -

    And I apologize if we sort of intruded or invaded or forgot to wipe our feet or whatever. It’s the internet, so we run the risk of getting a public-place vibe when maybe it’s more like friends sitting around with coffee, looking at us like “did I leave the front door open again?”

    Personally, I was impressed at the level of discourse I read here tonight – compared to blogs of left, right, center, up, and down, I mean – which is what prompted me to put in my five cents worth. So, thanks for the chance to do that!

  71. Interrobang says:

    She’s also a brilliant choice because regardless of whether the criticism is sexist or not, the Republicans can now rush to her defence, saying that anything negative about her is misogyny. Never mind that they spent the entire Democratic primary sporting C.U.N.T. t-shirts; since when did a little hypocrisy stop a Republican?

    Together, they really are the Teflon Candidacy — between John “I Was a POW!” McCain and this, nothing will stick. It’s a clever rhetorical tactic; they stole it directly from Rudy 911uliani.

  72. Loudes says:

    I am voting MCcain NOW, I don’t really think the borg army deserves my vote. the kick out of all this is that if something happens to Mr. McCain, then Palin will become the first ever woman president of the United States of America, amazing, WOOOOOOHHHHHAAAA

    I am Voting PALIN in November

  73. Tabby Lavalamp says:

    Can’t a woman be feminist because they oppose abortion

    A woman can be a feminist, not like abortion, and choose to not have one herself. But as soon as she makes that choice for me, I no longer see her as a feminist.
    To be, the most fundamental building block of feminism is the radical idea that we own our own bodies. They don’t belong to our husbands or fathers or the state. They belong to us. Everything else flows from that.

    I mean, just look around – which party has ridiculous demonstrations, noise and angst, making crazy accusations on MSNBC and CNN, and which party just silently takes it, and goes about its business? If you want a respectful, reasonable conversation, an adult conversation, consider the dark side.

    You pretty much lost me when you talked about the Republicans being serious, but this is where it turned from nice, calm, somewhat level-headed discourse to eye-rolling self-parody.
    Surely, speaking of crazy accusations, you haven’t forgotten Fox News and “terrorist fist jabs”. The home of Bill O’Reilly. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you’ve never heard of conservative talk radio on top of that.
    That’s the small stuff though when it comes to the character assassination the GOP specializes in.
    I do agree that the party does do a good job of going about its business, keeping the well-oiled propaganda machine going.
    I’m sure there are lots of respectful and reasonable adult conversation we can just jump into over at Free Republic. Maybe respectful and reasonable like the Swiftboat Veterans for “Truth”, perhaps?
    Then there’s the lies leading into Iraq to get the terrorists find the WMDs free the people.

    I’ve no doubt you really believe what you wrote about conservatives and the GOP, just as I’ve no doubt I wear roses just as rosy… Well, maybe a little less so as I am aware of flaws we have over here in the lefter side of things. I also appreciate the tone of your post, though it just isn’t going to work on people who see the Republican party for what it really is.

  74. Rich Vail says:


    I too came over from Instapundit…and am a life-long repulican (albeit moderate to liberal–yes it is possible to be so). On the otherhand, like Guilianni and Thompson, I’m pro-choice as are MANY Republicans. You’d be surprised how many are.

    I’d comment more fully, but Bill Whittle and a few others have done so far more eliquently than I possibly could. I do follow a few “left” blogs, because they keep things civil, and don’t allow the “spew” to get out of control. I’m very impressed w/the civility here, it’s not often found online on either side….thanks


  75. Amy says:

    I feel a bit out of place since I’m not a leftist, but hopefully you won’t hold that against me *smile*

    I think the major media and the DNC’s attack on Hillary had nothing to do with Hillary or the fact she’s a woman. They revere Obama, and they want him to be president. Whoever ran against him was going to have to face that bias. With that said, many conservatives I know would have rather Hillary was the nominee. Not because we like her politics, or even like her, but because we were all resigned to losing the election. At least with Hillary we knew what we were getting, and we knew it wouldn’t be horrendous. Obama is an unknown and what is known is radically more left than the core of the Democratic Party.

    I applaud John McCain picking a woman, but more, because she is my kind of woman. A working mother, who holds my values, but even more, who is unafraid to stand up to corruption even within her own party. That’s what this country needs. We don’t need any more party hacks from either side. A more bunch of corrupt people I have never known.

    Good Luck to all of you. I hope you find a candidate that you can all support, because your voices should never be suppressed. You are among the backbone of the American society, and it’s a darn shame Obama doesn’t recognize and respect that.

  76. Lea says:

    Never mind that they spent the entire Democratic primary sporting C.U.N.T. t-shirts

    Or possibly not. And believe it or not, I know some republican women who were excited by Clinton and voted for her in the primaries, not for a distraction but because they liked her. I think that would have increased in the general. The only thing marring Clinton’s race was the perception that she was there in part because of her husband. It didn’t seem right that the first female presidential candidate would get there because of her husband.

    I far prefer the self made woman.

  77. Joel Rosenberg says:

    Yup. Brilliant choice, and the Obamamaniacs are already demonstrating why.

  78. Alex Curylo says:

    Well, as a libertarian (ran for the Marijuana Party of B.C., back in the day) Canadian who thinks this Sarah pick is pretty damn cool, I’d just like to throw one observation out there about what seems to want to become a big anti-Sarah, talking point, “lack of foreign experience”:

    Well, y’know, she was pretty instrumental in getting the $40 billion TransCanada LNG pipeline finally going, which up here in the great white north we think is a good job well done.



    If Messr. Obama has any recorded foreign policy achievements in the same league as that, I’ve certainly managed to miss them so far…

  79. memomachine says:


    1. I must agree that the Obamamaniacs are Obama’s worst enemy in many cases.

    2. I’m a conservative and I was willing, perhaps, to vote for Clinton. Why? Because Obama is just not acceptable under any circumstances due to his positions. And McCain? I’m a conservative. Getting shafted by McCain was/is getting old.

    Palin does change that a lot though.

    3. In a leader what’s important is the space above the neck, not between the navel and knees.

    4. Funny thing but Palin’s relative lack of experience will actually be an asset in the debates. Biden will triumphantly show off the fact that he’s been in the Senate for 30+ years.

    Then Palin can ask him wtf he’s been doing all that time since we have so many problems today that should’ve been fixed decades ago.

  80. Moonzoo says:


    Thank you so much for your graciousness. I like your site.

    I am one of those conservatives sent here from another planet. I am NOT a Republican (or any other party member). Full disclosure: I often vote Republican, after comparing the character and philosophy of the respective candidates, and deciding which evil is lesser. Practicality counts a lot for me. That is why, for instance, I like Schumer as a senator.

    If it were not for the issue of supreme court judges, I think Hillary might have been a pretty good president. I believe Hillary has become a more thoughtful and accomplished person throughout the years. I hope this does not sound condescending: I think she has become more human and likable.

    I would have voted for McCain against Hillary, but simply on the lesser evil principle. They both have character flaws. They both are clueless or nearly so on issues important to me. But we do the best we can.

    Palin is the first politician in many years who appeals to me unreservedly. When she said “a ship in the harbor is a safe ship, but it is not doing what it was built to do,” she expressed my perception of her perfectly. What both parties are lacking, bereft of, actually, is personal integrity. It is hard enough to find in any walk of life. Politics and government, alas, will always be with us and, double alas, are inherently corrupt. It is simply not possible to be in politics and not be corrupt to some extent. I am not talking about bribery (necessarily) but about personal integrity.

    Palin appears to have a rare personal integrity. That touches me, deeply. She appears to love life, and to live it fully. That is very attractive.

    The folks I know who have had Downs Syndrome children unanimously express how blessed they have been. Is it too maudlin to say? Those children are angelic and remind us of what is best in humanity.

    I hope Palin preserves her humanity and integrity. She makes me hopeful.

    P.S. The other posters have been enjoyable to read. You have a nice audience.

  81. Mike G says:

    I’m one of those Instapundit readers and I loved your article. We may disagree on politics, but you’re honest, and choose the correct things to argue about. Kudos. (Whispering – personally, had there been a “none of the above” on the ballot in Nov, that’s what I would have selected.)

  82. Sharon says:

    During the democratic primary season, I developed a new found respect for Hillary Clinton. She’s a tough woman, a fighter. My mother is a big Hillary supporter. I’m a conservative Republican and she’s a moderate to liberal Democrat, but we found common ground on Hillary. I thought the treatment of Hillary by the MSM was deplorable and found it interesting that she was often defended on FOX.

    I’m not a big fan of John McCain, but his VP pick makes me want to enthusiatically support him.

    As far as being pro-choice vs pro-life, I am not squarely on either side. People like to point out that the country is majority pro-choice, which is true. What they leave out is that most people think there should be some restrictions on abortion. Barack Obama doesn’t think there should be any. I find his opposition to a bill that would give protection to babies born after botched abortions and supported by NARAL very troubling. Most Americans oppose partial-birth abortion also.

    I keep hearing that Sarah Palin doesn’t want abortion to be legal for any reason. That is just not true. She supports it for health reasons.

    I just can’t wait for the election to be over. No matter who wins, this country will survive.

  83. kendall says:

    “Never mind that they spent the entire Democratic primary sporting C.U.N.T. t-shirts” Can you provide a photo of a Republican wearing that disgusting t-shirt? It sounds like something an Obamabot would do, not a Republican.

    I am a Republican and believe it or not, pro-choice. There are a lot of us. I joined the party because their ideals are closer to mine (ie work for yourself, smaller government, strong military). I am voting for McCain-Palin because they will stop needless spending (one thing I couldn’t stand about the current administration) and go after corrupt politicians. Of course, I was really wondering if I was going to vote for president or not, until McCain picked Palin.

    I am very impressed with Palin because she got where she is today without the help of a man. She has fought corruption and stood up for what she believes in. She is a strong woman – one thing the Obamabots cannot stand. So what if she is a working mother. I am too. We women can balance a home and a job with no problem!

    Yes, she is pro-life, but so what. We had 8 years of Reagan – no change to the law. We had 4 years of Bush – no change to the law. We had 8 years of Bush – no change to the law. It’s never going to be overturned.

    Democrats use that ploy because they want YOU to stay with the party and vote for them. They use it in EVERY speech. Watch out, those Republicans are going to take away your freedom. It’s a lie. If I thought for one minute, that was true, I would change my party affiliation.

  84. Lexia says:

    “..regardless of whether the criticism is sexist or not, the Republicans can now rush to her defense, saying that anything negative about her is misogyny.”

    I can think of a much more recent example, only misogyny wasn’t the charge being screamed over and over again. And those doing the screaming weren’t Republicans.

  85. DaMav says:

    “Spent the entire primary wearing…” What??

    This Republican knows a lot of Republicans and Democrats and I have never ever not even once seen a Republican do such a thing. In fact my experience is that the only time I hear that word is in English gangster movies and among left wingers who are trying to be cool. Or imitate what they imagine “typical” Republicans to be like in their twisted fantasies. Neither party has a monopoly on misogyny. Isn’t that obvious?

    The surest way to a woman in the White House is to elect Palin VP this year. In 2012, we can have the grand battle between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. If Obama wins 2008, the wreckage includes two failed candidacies with women on the ticket, one for each party, and a powerful male in charge of the Democratic Party.

    Now for me personally, the identity is not a big issue. I love Palin and have pushed her for a year because of her compelling life story of reform against a corrupt Republican establishment and the bankruptcy of ideas in the Democratic Party. But maybe this is an opportunity for some of the Dems and Independents to get beyond your stereotypes about Republicans and actually find out what we are about. Start with Sarah Palin. She is among the very best of us. If she were a he I’d still vote for her before any of the other three. The fact that she is who she is — a woman at the top who got there on her own — only makes that more compelling.

  86. DaMav says:

    Oh, and might I compliment you on your blog. Regardless of our disagreements on party and issues, I’m impressed by your willingness to let both sides air their opinions. You’ll get a bookmark for that, heh. I’ve moderated an internet political discussion group for five years now and believe me I know how tough that can be.

  87. Stephen says:

    Thanks for welcoming us instapundit readers to your blog. Politics does surely make strange bedfellows, but there’s no reason we can’t enjoy it while it lasts, right?

    Oh, and from the objectively good and funny writing of yours I just consumed with much pleasure, I might be here long. Hope that’s okay with you.

  88. Mike O'Malley says:

    Hello Violet:

    Thank you for opening you comments to me. I found your website by way of Hot Air and I was delighted by your irreverent style and insight of your post above.

    Let’s start with some background. I’m a Roman Catholic American, Pro-Life and long-time registered Republican voter, so it seems likely that we might often disagree. I have been a critic of Pres. Clinton and Senator Clinton, although on no few occasions I have entered into protracted heated arguments in their defense. After investing a bit of time studying Jihad and historic Islamic oppression of non-Muslims, I put a premium on our continuing success in the Greater War on Terror; as I do on defense of basic human rights and liberties intrinsic to American democracy. So during the 2008 election cycle I want competent pro-human rights realism in the White House for the next four years no matter who wins in November. The Iranian drive for nuclear weapons alone will be very hard to deal with.

    A few months ago during the primary season I felt tugged to vote for Sen. Clinton, who I would never vote for in ordinary circumstances because in my view Sen. Clinton demonstrated seriousness about the War on Terror and because she seems to have superior experience above all of her more challenging rivals. In contrast to Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton seemed to be a reasonable fall back candidate for our country this year on the chance that a Democrat would be elected in November.

    Sen. Obama is troubling. His experience for the job is shockingly thin. Early on little if anything negative about his background was presented to the public by the Main Stream Media. Yet when one probed one found red flags, one red flag after another. And then one began to notice the narcissistic uncritical worshipful cult like behavior of your “Obamabots”. There was a cult like bi-polar affect that was disturbing. Adoration for The Transcendent One and dismissive contempt to raging hatred for Sen. Obama’s opposition. It’s hard to know what to make of it.

    Violet you might want to browse a few selected websites on the right side of the sphere. There are a couple of shrinks who can offer a doctor such as yourself consultation and food for thought. One of whom is Dr. Robert Godwin who addressed The “Obamabot” topic yesterday, August 29, 2008, in a post entitled “The Fantasy-Based Community and their Messiah” at http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/ . Dr. Godwin is a bit of a mystic too boot so I’ll also recommend Dr. Pat Santy, who is returning to blogging. She can be found here: http://drsanity.blogspot.com/ . Dr. Santy has written extensively on these topics as have NeoNeoCon here http://neoneocon.com/ and Dr. Alfred Adler here: http://sigcarlfred.blogspot.com/ .

    Best wishes

    Mike O’Malley

  89. carlitos says:

    As a libertarian conservative, this was the best pick for many reasons. Thanks for being a gracious host – most Instapundit readers aren’t big on commenting anyway.

    By the way, no matter what your political leanings, you should click Bill Whipple’s link – he’s brilliant, and makes his arguments without, um, threatening violence in ALL CAPS…..

  90. Dani says:

    There is no possible way to say that Obama and Palin are equally qualified, or that Palin is more qualified. here are the facts: Obama is a lawayer, was a constitutional law professor, spent 8 years in the state legislature(where he represented a district that is bigger than Alaska), he has served 4 years in the Senate (where is on the Foreign Relations committee), and he has been scrutinized over the last 18 months as a candidate for president. Do we know Palin’s view on the war in Iraq, tax policy, social security, Supreme Court appointments or anything else. Palin has been a governor for 20 months and was the mayor/city council member of a small town. The facts will not allow a serious comparison of these two people on qualifications. Sexism is the essential belief that gender defines a person’s intelligence, character, and overall self worth. In other words supporting Palin simply because she is a woman or comparing her in terms of qualifications to Hillary Clinton is sexist.

  91. Mishalak says:

    I’m here because I right wing/libertarian fellow posted about your analysis in a blog I follow. He was crowing about it very happy that it was all over for the Democrats and ‘socialism’ this election year.

    I know I cannot argue with you, you’ve been burned badly by a lot of supporters of a candidate I adore. All I can say is that I’m sorry and I’ll be giving a metaphorical dope slap to anyone who makes it about being a woman rather than the fact that she and McCain are paleo-conservatives.

  92. Yanni Znaio says:

    I’m a “small-l” libertarian with strong constitutionalist tendencies who has read everything from Murray and Sowell to Mao and Marx and a great deal more in between. And I enjoy intelligent blogs and chat sites from all parts of the political landscape. Glad I found your site.

    In order to understand the motivations of those with whom you may disagree, you must read their writers; at least the good ones. There are plenty of exceptionally miswritten books all across the political and philosophical spectra.

    I came to know of your site because someplace I was reading clued me in that Bill Whittle had stopped in to post. I tend to have great respect for people who write with perception and intelligence, and Bill is one of those.

    And I have found that this thread had a very high “signal-to-noise” ratio, and that your posters, for the most part, are articulate, and their arguments are well-reasoned.

    I concur that McCain’s choice of Palin was a masterstroke, and that the Obama camp is completely mishandling their response to her choice. They’re coming off as misogynistic hypocrites.

    Thanks for being a gracious host– I read the notice and took my shoes and left them by the door when I came in, BTW.

    Best regards,

  93. Violet says:

    I don’t have as much time as I’d like to respond to the many comments here, but Bill Whittle’s post stands out because it’s so clear and also so — what’s the word? — false. Mind you, I’m sure Mr. Whittle is sincere and believes that, as he says,

    “The essence of our philosophy is individualism”

    because most Republicans I know believe the same. They’ll stand up and tell you that all they really want is individual rights.

    If that were true, I would probably have little quarrel with Republicans.

    But it’s not true.

    -Republicans talk about individual rights, yet they want to legislate what I as a woman can do with my own body.

    -Republicans talk about individual rights, yet they want to interfere with the love lives of citizens.

    -Republicans talk about individual rights, yet they want to bar gay people from marrying each other.

    -Republicans talk about individual rights, yet they want to force Christianity on my children in public school (figuratively speaking – I don’t have children).

    -Republicans talk about individual rights, yet they want the government to spy on citizens.

    -Republicans talk about individual rights, yet they want to eliminate due process and habeas corpus — cornerstones of Anglo-Saxon justice for a thousand years — and grant police-state powers to the government.

    -Republicans talk about individual rights, yet when innocent individuals are incarcerated without cause, denied due process, and TORTURED, Republicans laugh.

    It appears that the true essence of Republican philosophy is not individual rights, but forcing individuals to conform to some paleo-dream of the past, where white men ruled and other individuals didn’t have much in the way of rights at all.

    I don’t wish to get into an argument here, but I just feel compelled to comment.

  94. peter jackson says:

    I will never give up my belief that the left and right could have productive, civil discussions if both sides would quit taking the other side’s arguments, removing their original premises, substituting their own premises, and then mocking the resulting non-sequitur. Both sides do it all the time. And most of the time both sides think they are actually arguing a point when they do it. They don’t realize that their differences don’t reside in their logic, but in their core (and almost always unexamined) premises about how the world works. Based on their own premises, both sides make perfect sense regarding most topics. If we could learn to argue the merits of our premises, we might actually get somewhere.


  95. Susan Mayhew says:

    My reaction was the this was a brilliant, though Maciavellan move.
    Now the Dems have their black guy with little experince, their old white guy with quesionable voting record (who can forget this “I LIKE ‘ya’ to Gonzales)and now have been one-upped by McCain who they badly underestimated.
    In the ‘bots orgy of worship, they missed the obvious – when Dean said that Barack’s first job was to address the sexism of the primary, he was serious but the acolytes were in love and didn’t hear or care – they were high on rhetoric.
    The race was already close – now BO, courting the evangelicals, will have to compete with a Mom who didn’t abort her downs syndrome fetus!
    Lots of luck!

  96. Natasha says:





    And Exactly– it Isn’t about Individual Rights and sadly, it Isn’t about Women’s Rights either, in EITHER PARTY,

    and it hasn’t been for decades. They use women’s rights as ‘token pieces, like pawns in a chess game, same with human rights, pull them out when its necessary to spare the king or queen and sacrifice them when its convenient to do so to save that king or queen’.


    MOST OF ALL–ECONOMIC PRIVILEGE AND THE REST–TO BE DAMNED. Great biological fodder though for WAR and for Cheap Labor baby makers for future labor.

    I now have figured a perfect title for the political feminism today, Cinderella Feminism.

    My basis has always been Women’s Human Rights, Children’s Human Rights and Economic Rights, not necessarily government taking care of us, no, but NO TOLERANCE for propping up monopolies and exploitive economics that thrives on exploitation and therefore interfering with ‘that pursuit of happiness’. And yes I do have a zero tolerance for misogyny whether its under Religion or Totalitarianism or Americanism.

    And I do think it says a lot about the mentality of society when women are easily sacrificed,

    to me, I don’t care if its some woman apologizing for honor killings or some woman who says girls and women should Not have access to abortion EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST, and Palin has asserted that,


    especially to the most vulnerable of women, the poor.

    The Hypocrisy that is so glaring is on one hand you have right wing taliban fundies under Religion screaming about how horrid those Islamists are [using this as example because right now it is the Main one AND it had a lot to do with this Obama criticism] and how they force little girls to marry and so forth,

    but those Same right wing talibans would force eleven year old girls raped to carry pregnancy to term if they got their way, Oh Hell yea,

    and NOT just the right wing, the FAR LEFT is just as guilty, Columbia, Peru, Chile and Nicauraga, (sic) and NOT only are these girls and women forced to bear many children,

    they are then forced to watch those children starve and die horrible deaths and street kids, that AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN MEN have no issue in sexually abusing those same kids–who at one time were the Fetuses they screamed that needed protection.

    The same right wing will go on and on about the horrors of honor killings but hey, SILENCE on the rapes of women by our own in the Military…


    to women’s rights, and yet, I see all the time, how the double standards of the Right wing, THAT ARE JUST AS BAD AS THE LEFT WING,

    are not even challenged. And I’m afraid, really, that many women angered over the treatment of Hilary have pretty much handed over the reigns to misogynists WHO WERE CALLING HILARY CUNT AND LAUGHING WITH THE MSNBC CROWD,

    all Over their blogs.

    AND thats not to say, vote for Obama, I say, VOTE FOR NEITHER, because neither represent or CARE about WOMEN, other than for Breeding machines or for Labor or for Nationalism [which if you dig there its again, breeding machines].

    AND its ALWAYS going to be like this until Women get Fed up with being given candy and roses and when Women say,

    you know, screw this, we’ll form our own damn political party.

    But I don’t see that happening, not in this decade. And Class has a lot to do with it, but don’t think the far left will address that, they haven’t been about class since the days of Stalin,

    either way it doesn’t matter, and for poor women it will Surely not matter because they are nothing to EITHER PARTY, but baby makers and biological fodder…

    and cheap income for cheap goods.

    But what many Don’t want to look at, is that its not just MEN who prop this system up, its a lot of well to do women, who like pro-porn women,

    will sell out masses of women to protect privilege or to boost the race or to establish Religious Tyranny.

    AND they’ll do it in the name of individualism, feminism, liberalism, or family values under

    amen amen and allah abkar.

    Personally, I think the ONLY way out of misogyny is 100 ways to get out from under it…

    torching oneself by fire
    drinking pesticide
    bleeding to death from a self-induced abortion
    being murdered for daring to choose who to marry

    either way, take your pick…

    because the ONLY sound I hear in this whole election, is the nails, being driven into the coffin once and for all,

    before they bury feminism [Women's Human Rights and Children's Human Rights], once and for all.

    director of WAMI

  97. Susan Mayhew says:

    One more thing – how will the Dems discuss a pro-choice position now!! .. Will Biden say – in a debate – Sara, why didn’t you Choose to abort?

    This was a smart move … and it binds the Dems in more ways than one.

    How stupid of the Dems to allow an arrogant novice to steal the primary … he’s ill-equipped to deal with this one.

  98. Aimee says:


    Discovered your site yesterday through a thread that started at the New York Times blog. I was waiting for your last statement – you definitely need to remind people of who runs this blog.

    The posts here were some of the best analysis of the election pulse and Republican VP pick that I have read anywhere on the Web the last 24 hours – thanks so much – I’m bookmarking your site.

    What’s your definition of a reclusive Leftist? Can one be a republican reclusive leftist? Because that’s what I am now.


  99. Eric says:


    Apostate, it seems I’m experiencing a temporary influx of readers from a conservative blog.

    Well, Instapundit is mildly libertarian, not conservative. There is a difference. One of the biggest problems on the Left is the failure to understand that “The Right” is as much of a coalition of a variety of different viewpoints as “The Left” is. Spending some time finding that out might change how you approach politics. It might just change politics in this country in general.

    It shall pass, but in the meantime I shall be a polite host.

    That is something I appreciate. All too often I find that left wing blogs tolerate no discussion or dissent from their approved politico-theology. You appear to be different and that’s worth something, to say the least.

  100. Charity says:

    Excellent summation of the Republicans’ view of “individual rights,” Violet. And kendall hilariously asked for a photo of a Republican wearing a “C.U.N.T” T-shirt. How about the fact that a Republican *established* the C.U.N.T. “organization” and *sold* the T-shirts? did that escape your notice kendall?


  101. Eric says:

    Violet, I also read your “Republicans and Individual Rights” post. I really think you should spend some time seeing the truth of the right. It’s quite clear from the discussion here that you realize that the Democratic Party and the left are not monolithic, right? Why do you insist on believing that Republicans and the right are monolithic? You should actually read Instapundit, for example. You might have your eyes opened to his beliefs. One of his funniest one liners ever was that we should “keep the guns in the closet, not the gays”, for example.

    Or read the very wide variety of libertarian blogs. You might be very surprised. Whittle is dead on with what many Republicans believe. Your decision that what he says is false means that you agree that the GOP is wholly monolithic. The truth, though, is far from that. The reality we on the right face is that we are being “represented” by a group of people we disagree with. JUST AS the Democratic Party has many of the same issues. Or do you agree with Obama and his followers, who are now “representing” all Democrats and speaking for the left?

  102. Violet says:

    Of course I know that the Republican party isn’t monolithic.

    But I also know that Republicans have been in favor of government interference in reproduction, sex, marriage, and religion for decades now. Decades. If you don’t agree with that, why call yourself a Republican?

  103. Eric says:

    Perhaps it is because I can’t stand the neo-socialist Democrats? Perhaps I think it highly unlikely that abortion rights will change just because a Republican is elected as President. Perhaps I think that the Democrats are far worse for individual rights because they wish to do away with my economic rights? And those rights, to property and wealth, are far more significant.

    Perhaps it is because there is no party that represents the classic liberal anymore.

    There’s a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is the insistence by the left that the GOP is monolithic and the truly despicable characterizations of entire groups that is so common on the left.

    Before you say anything, I do realize the right does that too. But I don’t see the same sort of really despicable race baiting, misogynistic crud as I see from “the other side”.

  104. julia says:

    Men rape women all the time: the currernt statisitc is every two minutes. As you are reading this blog, a man is raping a woman.

    As long as men have sexual access to women, abortion must be legal.

    There are only two birth control methods available to men. Rape is one of the least convicted crimes, and yet women are responsible, always, for sex and un-wanted pregnancy.

  105. Eric says:


    But I also know that Republicans have been in favor of government interference in reproduction, sex, marriage, and religion for decades now. Decades.

    And some Republicans haven’t, also for decades. When you say it that way it comes across that you think all Republicans think that way. The same as it would if I were to say “Democrats are in favor of …. ” or “Feminists are in favor of ….. “. I’m perfectly happy to discuss what some people do, or what individuals do. But this branding of groups thing is a huge part of the problem.

  106. Yanni Znaio says:


    Thanks for your courteous response in #93.

    I’m old enough to remember when the Republican Party stood for smaller government and a belief in adhering to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

    Unfortunately, they haven’t taken that stance for quite some time.

    Which is why I am registered as a Libertarian.

    And there *are* pro-choice Republicans out there, although the party apparatus would have you think otherwise. No party is monolithic, even the Communist Party in the PRC.

    Now, mind you, I think that the big-L Libertarians are so Permabonded to abstract libertarian principles that they have forgotten that *any* political philosophy needs to be tempered with a good bit of common sense.

    My personal one-liner is that the Republicans want to control reproductive rights and what you’re allowed to do that only affects yourself, (i.e. the WarOnSomeDrugs), and that’s not cool.

    However, IMHO, the Democrats want to use government as a bludgeon to control damn near every other aspect of your life, and that isn’t cool, either.

    We’re well down Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom”, and both parties are complicit in this unfortunate progression.

    Anyway, it’s good to find a site where there are people who, for the most part, are posting after “using brain first”, even if I may not necessarily agree with every postulate that they put forth.

    I’ve bookmarked your site, and I will be back.

    Enjoy the rest of the weekend and again, best regards,

  107. Violet says:

    And those rights, to property and wealth, are far more significant.

    Now that’s much closer to the real essence of Republicanism: property and wealth.

    Personally, I don’t think property rights are more important than my right to bodily integrity, my right to love and marry whom I choose, my right to raise my children free of religious indoctrination, my right to due process and habeas corpus, my right to not be spied on by my own government, my right to freedom of thought and expression, my right to freedom of the press, my right to live my life as I choose.

    Nor do I think that other people’s right to “wealth and property” outweighs everyone’s right to a clean environment and clean water.

    Nor do I think that other people’s right to ‘wealth and property” outweighs the human rights of children to have enough food to eat and clothes to wear.

    Oh, I could go on but suffice it to say: yeah, I’m a Democrat.

  108. Eric says:

    Of course all those wonderful things you want are about property rights. My right to my property is incredibly important if I, for example, view my body as my property. Or think that the water on my property should be be clean and not be dirtied by someone else. Or …… well, property rights are profoundly fundamental. Without property rights you live at the whim of your lord and master, whether you call that a duke or a senator really doesn’t matter.

  109. Alex Curylo says:

    Hey, good discussion here!

    “But I also know that Republicans have been in favor of government interference in reproduction, sex, marriage, and religion for decades now. Decades. If you don’t agree with that, why call yourself a Republican?”

    As that libertarian Canadian chiming in again here, here’s why if I was in the U.S. chances are I’d generally support Republicans:

    Ideally, the government would leave me alone completely and I’d return the favour. Since that’s not practical, the odd Ron Paul here and there notwithstanding, I’ll support the party that’s going to interfere the least with the three things I care about the most:

    1) My money (which by extension includes running my businesses without stupid hassles),
    2) my guns, and
    3) my drugs.

    Republicans seem to generally have a solid victory on points on point 1); Republicans have a complete shutdown of the board on 2); and there appears no substantive reason to prefer either party on 3).

    Seems to make me a Republican! Definitely makes me an InstaPundit reader, anyways…

  110. Violet says:

    “Ideally, the government would leave me alone completely and I’d return the favour. Since that’s not practical..”

    Well, there’s the rub right there.

    The fact is, there is a strong streak of libertarianism in Americans on the left and the right side of the political divide. It’s part of our heritage, our history. Many of the most radical feminists and leftists I know want above all to be left alone. Americans prize freedom from interference, freedom to live as we choose. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Where we on the left and the right differ is when we come back to real world, where no one is an island. We can’t be left alone, by the government or anyone else. We live in communities, in towns, in cities. We’re a nation of 300 million, not a bunch of isolated Davy Crockets out there in the wilderness.

    And when human beings live together in social groups, questions arise that don’t obtain out in the wilderness. Poverty, pollution, interference between the needs of the many and the needs of the few. Your rights end at the tip of my nose, and all that.

    The chief difference between liberty-loving leftists and liberty-loving rightists is that the leftists recognize that people who live in communities must be good neighbors. No one is an island. Rightists like to continue to pretend that we’re all Davy Crockets, that we’re all islands, and that no one owes even the slightest thought to anyone else.

    The rich white Republican man likes to pretend that everything fortunate in his life is his own doing, that he has created his own reality all by himself, that he is not the beneficiary of being born into the right family and race and class and country.

    And he likes to pretend that everything unfortunate in the life of the immigrant slave who sewed his shirt is because of her own doing, not because she was born into poverty or discrimination or urban blight. Why should it matter to him that she works for a dollar a day and is beaten by her employer?

    The rich white Republican man thinks he has the right to pollute the river that flows by his factory because, in his mind, he’s not responsible for anybody downstream. He doesn’t even know or care that they exist.

    This what the Republican idea of “individual rights” really is: the “right” not to be responsible. The “right” to do as you please no matter how much your actions harm others, and no matter how much you are dependent on others.

    The most striking thing about the libertarian right is selfishness. It is the defining characteristic, really, a “fuck you” to everyone else, an “I got mine” attitude.

  111. Yanni Znaio says:


    All generalizations are false.


    Best regards, and use a smaller brush.

    You’ll paint more skillfully.

  112. Alex Curylo says:

    My, I am getting sucked in here! @Violet:

    “The rich white Republican man thinks he has the right to pollute the river that flows by his factory…”

    That’s a failure of government to establish and defend property rights, technically known as “the tragedy of the commons”. You see it most dramatically in the environmental wastelands which are (former) Communist states. If someone had ownership of that river, that river would not be polluted.

    “The most striking thing about the libertarian right is selfishness. It is the defining characteristic, really, a “fuck you” to everyone else, an “I got mine” attitude.”

    No, it’s that we believe that theft in the name of compassion is still theft, and theft which the proceeds of are mostly wasted at that. We further believe that when lefties spout off the selfishness meme as you do here, what you’re actually doing is projecting; that you personally are selfish and would act the way you described. However, we do not, and would not.

    To take myself as a reasonable example of a libertarian, I unfailingly every year donate directly and substantially to two charities, a scholarship fund at my alma mater Simon Fraser University and a fund supporting local injured firemen and their families, as I trust completely that every penny given to them will be used directly for aims I strongly support and I don’t believe that government funding for them measures up to what I personally feel they deserve. Other than that, granted I don’t do much beyond donating my used stuff to worthy charities, but if it was the case that I wasn’t paying Canadian tax rates to supposedly address other deserving social causes, I would feel that I did indeed have a responsibility to directly address social problems that I was aware of, and although it probably wouldn’t measure up in absolute numbers to the taxes I pay now, it would *unquestionably* result in *far* more effective assistance to the end recipients. And I believe that the vast majority of libertarians think along the same lines I do, and if you eliminated the welfare state completely all you’d lose is the parasitic bureaucracy and anyone who deserved help would end up better off.

    Now, not to pretend that attacking your personal circumstances is an argument, but simply using “I” and “you” to anthropomorphize the opposing arguments in general here — what percentage of your aftertax income goes right now to directly supporting causes you believe in and consider unfunded? It’s not as much as mine, is it? And if your taxes were reduced to zero, how much would you personally bump up your charitable contributions to so that causes you support didn’t lack? Either it’s “nothing”, which in most cases is the honest answer from a leftie — see “projecting”, above! — or it’s “something”, in which case the question becomes why exactly do you think that everyone else would be so less willing to support good causes than you are that you need to steal money from them by force to feed the bureaucracy under pretensions of caring about other people?

    As supporting evidence that the libertarian perspective here is correct, I invite you to compare charitable contributions as a percentage of aftertax income in blue states and red states. I understand the comparison comes off very poorly for those states ruled by “compassionate” lefties.

    Again, where I use “I” and “you” above it’s for purposes of anthropomorphizing the general narrative argument of libertarian freedom vs. liberal tyranny, not pretending that whatever our exact personal circumstances happen to be is a matter of any import.

  113. Yanni Znaio says:

    And an excellent book which discusses the foundations of the very thing we’ve been talking about, or at least talking around: Philosophical differences between the Left and the Right, is “A Conflict of Visions” by Dr. Thomas Sowell.

    (ducks, runs)

    Again, best regards,

  114. Violet says:

    And I believe that the vast majority of libertarians think along the same lines I do, and if you eliminated the welfare state completely all you’d lose is the parasitic bureaucracy and anyone who deserved help would end up better off.

    But why do you believe that, when welfare was created to alleviate atrocious poverty that 200 years of non-welfare had done nothing to address? Do you imagine that there has been some sort of revolution in the human character since 1960? If rich people weren’t helping the poor of Appalachia and the urban hellholes before, why would they do so now?

  115. Eric says:

    The amount of disposable wealth available to the typical adult US citizen today is massively greater than it was in 1900, or even 1960. In fact, the amount of disposable wealth in the world as a whole is massively greater. The number of people living above the poverty line is much greater today than then. Therefore, if we are genuinely compassionate people we genuinely have the means now that we did not have then.

    Alex question stands, what percentage of your income to you donate to charitable causes? How much would you donate if you didn’t pay taxes? I am considered “wealthy” by Barack Obama’s definition (i.e. I earn more than $250K annually). I donate, of my own free choice because it is incredibly important to me to do so, a full 5% of my income to charities providing home and hospice care, end of life palliative care and preventive breast cancer care to poor, uninsured women.

    In the event that no taxes were taken from me to pay for government funded health insurance, I would increase my personal charitable giving to approximately the same level. Would you?

    This is not meant to be one upping you in some fashion. It is meant to dispute the tag of selfish because it’s not true. I am an individual, and you have done the typical left wing thing and brushed me with broad strokes based on a group I supposedly belong too. Now you know why I will never, ever be a Democrat or align myself with the left wing and your group identity politics. Even though I disagree with much of the current GOP platform it’s far better than Obama’s chicago machine politics.

  116. Eric says:

    Oh, by the way, the typical “rich person” in the US in 1960 was being taxed at a rate over 60% and it was JFK that proposed cutting that tax rate. So, those “rich people” didn’t have the disposable income needed to fund charities because it was all being taken by taxes. Yet that had, somehow, not managed to solve the problems of poverty. Why’s that? It is demonstrable that tax cuts result in greater disposable income for all and greater tax revenues for the government (see the Lafferty curve for the demonstration of the this).

    As a matter of interest. Further, it was people like Rockefeller and Carnegie who were giving their money away to charity in the early 20th century, not Progressives, Populists or Socialists.

  117. Alex Curylo says:

    Heh. OK, Violet, if you’re ever in Vancouver we must have coffee and talk this out thoroughly, but I need to go do something productive now. However, let me leave you with some general libertarian talking points:

    1) As a matter of provable fact and not your warm fuzzy feelings, exactly how much “atrocious poverty” has the welfare state managed to alleviate compared to the money thrown at it? An honest appraisal is “not too damn much”, isn’t it now?

    2) The absolute level of social wealth has grown so much since 1960, never mind two centuries ago, that the bureaucrat-free level by income percentage of direct assistance it would take to eliminate all undeserved poverty is far less than it was then, and less every year.

    3) Carrying on from point 2), the best way to help the poor is to make sure everyone capable of becoming rich becomes rich so that helping them is not a burden; and the best way to do that is to lower taxes. Most specifically, eliminate employer taxes on employment, because jobs are the best way to create personal wealth so we want to lower the cost of providing jobs, and eliminate capital gains taxes on business, because rewarding the risk of business creation is how we encourage people to take the risk of creating businesses and therefore jobs.

    Although it’s been fun and all, I’m going to go put my words into action by working on building up Trollwerks to the point where it can afford to create some new jobs now … so if you choose to reply, be warned it’s only for the benefit of any *other* readers you might care about combating my opinions for. Cheers!

  118. Charity says:

    I can’t believe how gracious you are being to these meritocracy loons. “Anyone capable of becoming rich?” Who does that include, or exclude, exactly? Anyone familiar with institutionalized oppression over in libertarian la-la land? I didn’t think so. I don’t know how you’re controlling your blood pressure, Dr. Socks, but my hat is off to you.

  119. Natasha says:

    “And I believe that the vast majority of libertarians think along the same lines I do, and if you eliminated the welfare state completely all you’d lose is the parasitic bureaucracy and anyone who deserved help would end up better off.”

    Bingo–DingDingDing, WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

    Because don’t ya know ladies,

    the majority on welfare ARE WOMEN, EITHER DIVORCED [WHO HAVE LEFT ABUSIVE MARRIAGES, FACT] or WOMEN, with severe disabilities [MS, Epilepsy, head trauma patients, etc] and those teen mothers which btw, ARE the minority, and the largest percentage of women on WELFARE are WHITE AND LATINA, NOT LATINA AND AFRICAN AMERICA–THAT IS FACT.




    now, if you are doing Daycare–taking care of children, THATS A JOB…but don’t expect good pay because thats TRADITIONAL DEMEANING WOMAN’S WORK–


    and of course, all those women with those IMMACULATE CONCEPTIONS just got pregnant because why,

    they are parasites and therefore any WOMAN THAT HAS CHILD IS A PARASITE…

    isn’t That nice?

    and of course, once that mentality rules supreme then hey, no big deal, stone the parasites, rape the parasites, abuse the parasites, exploit the parasites because you know


    cough cough unless a MAN does it for ten minutes out of the day


    so we Bow down to you Gods Almighty, thank you for your graces to us wee PARASITES OF THE EARTH.

  120. Eric says:

    Uhhhhh, the parasites referred to were bureaucrats, not those living in poverty. That was actually contained within the quote you used Natasha. Did you actually read the post, or just see that word and go off?

  121. TJIT says:

    Interesting blog and enjoyable comment thread.

    Reminds me of some of the challenging and entertaining discussions with friends in college. Vast differences in opinion but respectfully discussed and informative for all concerned.



  122. Natasha says:

    Oh I read the post Eric and whether or not the government is parasitical (sic) lets remember,

    the majority of government IS MEN,

    who make decisions FOR MEN, what benefits MEN, and Business especially…

    AS for the whole idea that if you take programs out of government [of course, while keeping those that assist Corporate welfare and bank bail outs, and corporate welfare because Thats somehow tied in National Security somehow someway, there are Always those loopholes]

    but even if, you take those programs out–WOMEN WOULD STILL BE IN POVERTY, AND WORSE OFF,

    but hey, probably could get a lot of sex [paid rape] for really cheap.

    Want proof: CHILD SUPPORT


    which in the day, DV was a private matter, That was just in the 70s, not 1900s, we haven’t come THAT far, by no means.

    And EVEN with gov stepping in, many Still don’t get a dime,

    See Here’s the thing with the Libertarianism and there is a LOT I totally concur with Libertarianism AND ANARCHISM — they all for individual rights and less government BUT WHEN IT COMES TO WOMEN THROWING OFF PATRIARCHY,

    oh, its Don’t go there…they are all for guns but I can Assure you, if women started blowing the heads off a lot of men and hanging them on poles they’d be screaming to the government to roll in the tanks AND PUT THOSE WOMEN BACK INTO THEIR PLACE.

    I support unschooling, homeschooling, guns [oh yea], freedom, but It never ceases to amaze me of all the libertarians I meet [and same goes for anarchists--right and left] when it comes to their ‘little woman’ why she had better not step out of line and dare she demand Freedom from him,

    AND, a LOT of men lean towards libertarianism and anarchism because its the attitude of government not telling me what to do with ‘my biatch ya here’ attitudes,

    and if there wasn’t government welfare WOMEN WOULD SUFFER, thats a given.

    THAT doesn’t mean I support big government, I do support community control by Consent, and probably do tend to lean more towards the anarchist left,

    but I have studied libertarianism and anarchism and Federalists and Militias and hard core leftists [and was a member of a far left radical party with a lot of anarcho-commies until the Stalinistas took over with their Pan-Islamist Totalitarians] and I at one time was a staunch Republican back in my dumb young days in the Bible Belt…I’ve been all over the place politically,

    as well as Religious wise–well, three religions including Islam,

    and let me assure you, its all the same crap, just a different way patriarchs rule women, the End is still the same…


    the Shit hits the fan and Including in the libertarian movement.

    You see Eric I agree with you on a lot of issues, and Yes I AM RADICAL AND I DO MEAN RADICAL,

    the WRetched of the Earth today IS WOMEN, globally, femicides, gendercides, holocausts [Congo], theocracy that rules over women as if we are still in the 6th century, and in many regions the Gender ratio is fewer women than men,


    and I make no qualms in saying so and no compromises and I wish, Hey, Women would get very libertarian against Patriarchy because IF they did,

    oh, Oh hell yea, they’d be running the Dems and the Republicans and the Nationalists and Theocrats and the whole lot into the ground–

    but thats just it, they DON’T have that consciousness on That level,


    The few that do, are a small minority and I do mean very small. Others have some of that consciousness but will pander or cave in to the slams of women who pander to their patriarchs, because being Exiled is extremely difficult…

    in 2008 we Still don’t have a radical abolitionist movement for women. Reforms yes, abolitionist, no.

    You see Eric women Will fight for nation, for de race, for de brother, for de religion and to oppress other women [because hey, its Some kind of power for the powerless],

    but not for themselves…and if we Really want to talk LIBERTY,

    until Women really get That in their gut, they are still, yes sir, slaves. So it doesn’t matter if there is or isn’t government programs…economic dependency is still ruled by man, oh, women might work, BUT THEY HAD BETTER PLAY BY THOSE MALE RULES…

    and if they have Children, they damn sure better do whats necessary and often times, for their very lives, that won’t change with less or No government…in regions where there has been total anarchy–WOMEN ARE BUTCHERED.

    men say, its biological for men to protect women–but the Downside to that, because of that, men also Target the women owned by their enemies or often their own women [nation, race, religion, etc]…

    it goes way beyond just What type of government or how much government where That is concerned…and I would suggest, reading “The Creation of Patriarchy” by Lerner, can’t recall her first name,

    but her analysis was correct, All forms of hierarchy from the nation-state to religion to political ideology to slavery,

    started with, the enslavement of women. And as LONG as that is allowed to continue, it doesn’t matter really what type of government you have or don’t have [and its one of the biggest reasons applied communism was totalitarian as hell], because

    if you can justify enslaving half of the human population–opens the door to every other type of control over humans.

    2008–and we, humanity, generally speaking, Still doesn’t GET THAT,

    and yes Eric, that belief that welfare–which is mostly women, that they are just parasites, but now, DARE those women get abortions and choose to be lesbian or celibate and free from male control, THEN its she’s destroying the nation by not doing her rightful Duty and supplying the race, nation-state, economy, religion, children.

    She’s defying the constructs that has been demanded of her, and we keep perpetuating them…

    IF women, truly got the ideas of Libertarianism FOR THEMSELVES and NOT just opposed to big government–

    LOL, it wouldn’t just be government that women would be revolting against.


  123. 1950democrat says:

    Hullo … I’m an influx of one sfaik. Someone posted Whittle’s post onto Hillaryis44.org, a blog for us ur-PUMA activists. Excuse me for coming over here to shake hands with him, but it’s that kind of a, what did Obama call it, ‘definitive moment in history’….

    After the top level dirty tricks of Nixon, Reagan, Bush, impeachment, the 2000 election…. It seemed to be clear where the good guys hung out and where the bad guys hung out.

    But now here’s the same dirty tricks or worse by the top level of the Democratic party, and here we low level Dems, knowing what was going on, couldn’t do a damn thing to stop them. Epiphany: if FL/MI/Denver 2008 wasn’t my fault, then maybe Florida 2000 wasn’t Whittle’s.

    [ backs out the door ]

  124. cinnabarb says:

    coriolan wrote:

    “Palin renounced her right to choose and bred a retard!!!!!!

    Palin DID exercise her right to choose. I might have made a different choice, but she did make a choice. It absolutely is a woman’s right, as everyone here knows, to exercise ultimate control over her own body, but when one of our own exercises that right and makes a choice different from the one we might have made and is castigated for it, it cheapens us all by association. The words “choice” and “abortion” are not synonymous.

  125. RKMK says:

    LOL @ the Instapundits trying to convert Dr. Socks. Heeeeeee.

  126. Natasha says:


    look at the bright side folks–been doing some reading on the pro-life group Palin belongs to,

    not just against abortion, but in cases of rape, incest, if the Womb [forget woman as human, ok, lets just be frank here, baby making womb nothing more, kind of like the Taliban] but anyway,

    if the Womb is at risk of death, too bad, fetus lives, womb bye bye, there’s plenty of more where you came from,

    AND..while birth control isn’t in their legal scope Yet–THEY ARE AGAINST BIRTH CONTROL UNLESS ITS THE NATURAL METHOD.

    Ok, fine, different strokes for different folks, ya know I can be open minded…if thats what a woman believes, more power to her, don’t fault her for that,

    BUT WHEN ITS A BELIEF THAT IS GOING TO BE FORCED ON ALL WOMEN then thats a different matter,

    BUT, nethertheless, there Is a good side to this…there Really is,

    I’m sure you know about the rich white women buying babies off of poor Indian women in India right? You know they pay ‘brokers’ to pay these women a little bit of money to be baby carriers or surrogates then after they birth the baby the rich white American woman goes to India and pays the broker a couple of grand, the Indian woman has a little milk money to feed her kids so its really philanthropic and all, real sweet and Christian like,

    and the rich white woman gets to fly back to America and give this child a wonderful home–perfectly legal and besides, those trampy sluts in America won’t just give over babies unless by golly they get medical care covered and Thats expensive, and then, some of those trampy sluts even change their mind, and because of the corrupt ‘adoption brokers’ who make thousands off of the sad state of poor mothers,

    well, both mother and adoptive mother get screwed there and our screwed up courts, often times take really good people who do love their adopted child–they take that child at the age of three, four, and give back to the mother, sometimes its justified [in those cases of coercion due to economics and threats it Damn sure is justified and those cases are IN THE HUNDREDS TO POOR WOMEN IN AMERICA you just won't hear about them because hey, they poor trash and don't Deserve to have kids] but

    there ARE those cases where some unfit mothers get their kids back because biological is better to some judges–

    real complex and of course, lawyers love it, Ka Ching $$$, lots of money in that line of work so anyway,

    its just so much easier to buy babies off of really poor women of color in India who live under extreme misogyny and poverty…but,

    its still expensive…so,

    here you go America, on the Bright side, [and remember, I can't stand Obama either, so] but just think,

    what IF they really do overturn not just Roe vs Wade but they force pregnancy even in cases of rape, death, etc AND forbid birth control?

    Well, the Good side of that–lots of babies here can be sold then, but then,

    what happens when there isn’t enough women to buy those babies? Then what? Oh, forget welfare and all that pro-feminist we’ll need to reduce abortion because thats all kaka b.s., what That means is, push marriage and then, if That doesn’t work, make it harder to get divorce and if he kills you, boo hoo…

    but anyway, the Good side of this, we could then have,

    CEAUSESCU’S ROMANIA right here in the good ole USA, orphanages, packed jammed, those women too, forced pregnancy and forced to have five kids each–for de nation, eh, [sound familiar LOL] but anyway,

    babies tied to cribs and not enough workers to care for them, and in fact, in 1989 there were 300,000 abandoned babies, 300,000, tied to cribs, trafficked in the sex trade [and in fact its worse now but due to poverty and abandonment] and

    kids winding up dead or in prison due to that emotional detachment, guess infants left alone in cribs with no touching, sort of warps them, they don’t huddle like other animals or something, too bad but hey,

    look at the bright side

    you got you one hell of a cheap labor source there [if they ain't too messed up]
    lots of kids for sale on the blackmarket
    and lots of kids who one day can be in the military–with lots of rage so they would make really good soldiers

    but the Best thing–JOBS!

    JOBS because Someone is going to have to take care of those kids and babies!!!

    So, you build up the population, create jobs, mass cheap labor pool and of course, future army…AND, even mental experts will be in demand for all those kids.

    And of course, lawyers who rich women can pay to buy those babies…

    why, Why didn’t I think of it, its brilliant!!! Why women, er, I mean wombs, can be pregnant, still work, spit the kid out, hand it over to orphanage, if she’s poor especially,

    and they’ll sell the kid or take care of the kid–

    just ask Romania, they still doing it, seems to work great for them…and the Christians there are working double time to help these kids–

    because Thats what pro-life does.

    Creates the problem then tries to patch it up…but hey,

    guess it Could be worse, ole Mao, when he did that wombs birth for China and it got out of hand, then it was wombs–sorry, that baby got to die by force, cuzz we Can’t sterilize men ya know–ouch,

    unthinkable…besides the nation-state might change their mind and wombs are so easily available.

    And of course there IS no such thing as global warming or food crisis so there will be plenty of food and resources for this mega population,

    LOL, did you Ever see that film Soil and Green? They ran out of food, no big deal–they just killed poor people and grinded them up and ate them.

    seriously, kind of sick movie but based on Malthius’s theory,

    but anyway, sarcasm off, but got to admit, there ARE OTHER WAYS OF LOOKING AT IT…

    CEAUSESCU wasn’t that bad was he?


    I will close on that…have groceries to put away, btw, Did I mention, they have put rice on ration…

    something to do with rice rations and government buying up freeze dried foods, but no global concerns, nah,

    all is well and resources a plenty…enjoy the theocracy on both sides folks…enjoy. Its only babies and wombs and cribs, nothing to see here folks,

    just politics as usual.


    article from 2006 but the conditions still are appalling but pedophiles Love Europe because there are children a plenty and its American and European pedos…

    cuzz ya know, its children’s welfare when we fight for de fetus…

  127. Natasha says:


    One little problem with that er, Jobs thing,

    forgot, government [right wing] don’t believe in that whole using tax payer money to support kids and even the foster care system Sucks [more likely to get abused in foster care and even the Good foster parents--er, starving pretty much]

    but, hmmmm, that Does represent a problem, well Hey, guess it really WILL BE LIKE ROMANIA

    won’t be enough state workers to work those jobs because the monies won’t be there and the libertarians and republicans and if those babies are white, well half of Obama’s lot ya know, Brazille what she said,

    to hell with the white poor,

    well, either way monies for state orphanages going to be slim pickins…cuzz ya got to have monies for corporate bail outs and defense ministry [justified or not] so,

    hmmmm, Well,

    guess that means what, how did Romania do it, one woman per 100 babies,

    think it was something like that. Damn, that Would be quite a pickle now wouldn’t it…

    well, there’s always the Shanty Towns, seems to work for those women in Columbia, Peru, Chile, Nicauraga (sic) where abortion is illegal even if its a matter of life and death.

    Wonder if the world mission funds will come to our shanty towns here? Hmmm,

    maybe we should ask those poor women and children still living in squalor in the Katrina zone? They would probably know…ya know cuzz their ain’t no such thing as global warming


    sorry I am just to the point where I don’t take any politics serious anymore–its just on the border of ABSURDITY–REPUBLICANS OR DEMS–MYOPIC THINKING, LOTS OF HOLLYWOOD AND TOTAL ABSURDITY.

    meanwhile the Tent cities keep a growing–shanty towns USA babies and all, hold on there world US may be catchin up real soon to haves and have nots–but we seemed to have Forgotten that this election,

    somewhere between the Obama messiah and the Nicolae Ceausescu – Pope team now all we need is some more Paris Hilton videos and we’ll be set.


  128. Mike O\'Malley says:

    Well Alex Curylo you seemed to have stirred things up a bit. In a boarder sense you are right “the best way to help the poor is to make sure everyone capable of becoming rich becomes rich so that helping them is not a burden”. So far so good, except that most people will never become rich. Wouldn’t it be better said to say that the best way to help the poor is to make sure everyone capable of becoming independent and self sufficient becomes independent and self sufficient? Almost everyone is capable of becoming independent and self sufficient: if one has a robust productive expanding economy, and if there is enough human capital available to take advantage of the oportunities. Survey the last two centuries Mr. Curylo and I think you will find the universal education and market capitalism go a long way to providing those conditions. Government plays an important role too. Just as a neighborhood needs a cop on the beat to keep the streets safe so people can work and prosper free of the danger of banditry, markets and the nation need effective police protection too. Government has a role. Taxes can be too low as well as too high. Perhaps Mexico and Canada are respective examples of this. Further culture and the health of mediating social institutions play a significant role in the creation of prosperity and the reduction of poverty. Consider the role of culture in producing multi-generational poverty in the US underclass. And the health of those other non-government non-commercial market institutions in vital too. Natasha is on target when she cites the social disabilities caused by divorce and marriage failure. But the very government programs that I think you are concerned about Mr. Curylo have played a determinative role creating the conditions which caused family break-up and socially destructive illegitimacy (fatherlessness) and thereby multi-generational poverty. Reduce marriage failure and illegitimacy and you will go a long way to significantly reducing poverty and along with it the demand for more social services (and taxes) for the poor and socially dysfunctional.

    Best wishes

    Mike O’Malley

  129. right wing nutjob says:

    Came to here from a link on Outside The Beltway (probably my only visit here :) ).

    I was an absolute rabid Clinton-hater in the 1990s (both of them), but after watching Hillary in the Senate for a few years, I felt she deserved the nomination (what’s more, I think she would have won Ohio putting the election out of reach for the Republicans, and thus seemed like the best choice Democrats could make).

    I never understood the rush by the Democratic Party establishment to Obama, but I do have some sympathy for him not picking Hillary as his running mate, mostly because of Baggage Bill (who wants a popular ex-president as the husband of your vice-president?). If I were Obama though, I would probably (with her willingness) keep Hillary in Ohio through the election (again, the Republicans can not win without it).

    As for Obama, someone from Australia has figured him out (“he can make an effective president because he is such a fraud”).


    Palin certainly has energized the right. I worry much more about her readiness for the insanity of a national campaign (and the virtually endless number of opportunities to make a big mistake) than I do about her “lack of experience.”

    Other thoughts:

    “Republicans talk about individual rights, yet they want to legislate what I as a woman can do with my own body.”

    I prefer to look at it as there is a human life there (at some point) that deserves protection. We just disagree about when that protection should begin.

    I don’t care what people do with their love lives (but I don’t enjoy the “you have to like it” attitude that many people with non-conventional behaviors seem to have these days).

    We have a definition of marriage that has lasted thousands of years. Call it something else and you can do whatever you want with it.

    I don’t like seeing indoctrination in public schools. Strangely, the problem of left-wing indoctrination seems much greater to me, but we will probably just have to disagree about that.

    I do very much worry about privacy and the government taking on police state powers (and it does seem worse on the Republican side, but a lot of Democrats have gone down the river on this one, too). I don’t see any possibility for improvement from either side on these issues in this election.

    Thanks for being a polite hostess. :)

  130. Violet says:

    LOL @ the Instapundits trying to convert Dr. Socks. Heeeeeee.

    It’s like being inside an Ayn Rand novel.

  131. Violet says:

    We have a definition of marriage that has lasted thousands of years.

    Which definition is that? The “one man marry as many women as he can afford?” That’s the one in the Bible, by the way.

    The “one woman marry all the brothers in a family?”

    The “each person sequentially marry as many people as he or she feels like sleeping with?”

    All very old definitions of marriage.

  132. Susan Mayhew says:

    Dan is typical of both the Obamabots and the instapundits (who are right wing morons) Both are easily convinced, typically hostile and prone to Jim-Jones like sound bite that they somehow have never questioned… the ‘marriage’ comment is a perfect metaphor!
    How did these people get in?

  133. Tabby Lavalamp says:

    One more thing – how will the Dems discuss a pro-choice position now!! .. Will Biden say – in a debate – Sara, why didn’t you Choose to abort?

    Er, because it’s not an issue? No pro-choice advocate would ask Palin why she didn’t abort. The important and defining word is “choice”. We support whole-heartedly her choice not to have an abortion, just as we support whole-heartedly any woman’s choice to have one.
    There may be a few pro-abortion nutjobs, but for those of us who call ourselves pro-choice, we really do stand for choice. Palin choosing not to have one doesn’t give her the right to make that choice for other women, so I see no problem in a debate. For the record, Michelle Obama twice chose not to have an abortion, Hillary Clinton chose once not to have one, Joe Biden’s first wife – Neilia – made the choice not to have one three times, and his second wife – Jill – made that same choice once. Granted none of the children had Downs Syndrome, but it’s still all about choice.

    “The rich white Republican man thinks he has the right to pollute the river that flows by his factory…”

    That’s a failure of government to establish and defend property rights, technically known as “the tragedy of the commons”. You see it most dramatically in the environmental wastelands which are (former) Communist states. If someone had ownership of that river, that river would not be polluted.

    That’s all fine and dandy, except comparing public land here in North America to public land in the former Communist states is kinda ridiculous as we haven’t had the issue of short-sighted dictators here. We do have problems with short-sighted politicians, yes, but for the most part they’ve been careful not to let things go too far down the crapper because they do have to answer to people who like to have reasonably clean water.
    There are exceptions, of course. I live in Alberta, Canada, and we’ve had the same Progressive Conservative party in power for over 40 years and that’s not likely going to change as we have a pretty conservative electorate here. Right now we are raking in money hand over fist because of oil from our tar sands, something that is also pretty much an environmental disaster. Rare cancers, especially in the native population, are on the increase in people who drink the water there, a fish was recently caught that had two mouths, and nearly 500 ducks died after landing in a tailings pond. The money’s good and the government was just recently re-elected (after the duck incident) with an increased majority. The problem here is entrenchment, and as long as we got ours, screw the future. I can’t believe how many people voted against our own long-term well-being just to keep those bucks flowing.
    What I find laughable here is the idea that if Syncrude bought the Athabasca River, they’d suddenly be hit with the desire to ensure it remains unpolluted. Of course, Greenpeace could buy it instead, but I doubt they could outbid the oil companies.
    You’re working off the assumption that someone who buys a river does so with the intention of keeping it clean, even though private ownership of land has given us no possible reason to make that assumption. And no, I’m not saying I’m against private ownership of land (though I am against private ownership of all land). Rivers are a different thing though as water is something we all need and share and private ownership of it is something we can not afford.
    No, the only way to ensure our rivers stay clean is through strong, enforced environmental regulations. We can see at home and abroad what happens when regulations are lax and unenforced.

  134. Yanni Znaio says:

    Violet #130:

    It’s like being inside an Ayn Rand novel.

    Yeah. “We, The Living”

    I added you to my bloglist, BTW.

    High honor, as there aren’t too many blogs on the left side of the fence that I consider to be rational enough to include.

    But, to be fair, there are a lot of right-side blogs I wouldn’t put up there, either.

    Best regards,

  135. Yanni Znaio says:


    Browser fart.

    I had the selector switch set on semiautomatic.


    Kindly delete the dupe.

  136. trainer says:

    I’m an old pro-choice conservative…yes, we are out there. I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

    …but I’m a bit confused. I thought Palin made a choice. The choice was to have the child.

    The abortion question should have been left to the states, where it belonged.

  137. Bruce says:

    My impression is that her reputation as a reformer and an honest-government type is solid. People will love her.

    My impression is that she is a very right-wing Christian wackjob who wants to take away your right to control your reproduction. Yes, some people will love her for this, but I doubt it will be the vast majority of Hillary supporters.

    If I wouldn’t vote for a man who is a right-wing wackjob, why would I vote for a woman who is one?

  138. Yanni Znaio says:

    My impression is that she is a very right-wing Christian wackjob who wants to take away your right to control your reproduction.

    Show me where she’s indicated that she wants to do that legislatively to affect the lives of other women (AFAIK she has NOT), as opposed to living *her own life* by *her own principles*, (which I think we’ve all seen in today’s events), and I’ll not only grant you that point, but will reconsider voting for her.

  139. Yanni Znaio says:

    Sorry- that was a response to Bruce’s post #137.

  140. Violet says:

    A note to visitors from Instapundit, some of whom are filling up the moderation queue: you’re welcome to comment on Sarah Palin. But the confines of a comment thread on a blog post aren’t really appropriate for a full-scale debate on conservative versus liberal philosophy, or for a rehash of the past 8 years of Republican policies, or for a debate on Keynesian economics, or for any of the other fascinating things we could spend the rest of our lives talking about until we’re blue in the face without convincing each other of anything. So let’s rein ourselves in here and just stick to the topic at hand.

  141. carlitos says:

    Aww, I sense that the comments “filling up the moderation queue” are inconvenient. As in, refuting your arguments.

  142. Violet says:

    That’s really strikingly unfair of you, considering that I have not responded to almost any of the arguments posted by Eric, Alex, or Mike. I’ve let them have the last word.

    I’ve gone out of my way to be polite, and to be insulted by you in return is, as the British say, not on, babe. Goodbye.

  143. Russ says:

    Amazing how much credibility I perceive in people I disagree with when they’re polite. A pleasure to visit your site.

  144. Bob K says:

    Another PajamasMedia/Instapundit reader. Lifetime unaffiliated and chronic ticket splitter.

    For those who are most concerned about breaking through the glass ceiling, but worry about their right to chose being affected, you might want to consider the following.

    It is apparent that both the House and Senate, which have even lower approval ratings than Bush are going to be heavily controlled by the Democrats. No matter which candidate ends up as president the heavily Democratic Senate won’t approve any Supreme Court nominee that will change the make-up of the court toward the abolition of Roe/Wade.

    If Obama wins. Any chance for a woman President gets pushed back to 2016 unless he turns out to be totally inept. If McCain wins. Another level of the glass ceiling has been broken and health-wise he may not want to run for a second term. That would set up a likely two woman race for the top slot as early as 2012 or no more than 2016.

    Another thing to consider is whether you really feel one party should have total control of both congress and the presidency. Personally, I think that road would lead to unrestrained spending and a massive proliferation of new ways to assert government control over the average citizen.

  145. Kelly says:

    All I have to say is that before you slam the woman on her issues, make sure you educate yourself about them first. She is not ‘anti-gay rights’, she does not believe in the word ‘marriage’ being applied to gays but has fought for gay rights including vetoing (sp?) a bill that would have blocked gay couples from receiving benefits from their partner. Other than the ‘marriage’ word, she is very PRO gay rights.

    As for abortion, she is for abortion if the womans life is in danger. She has also said that although she is pro-life in rape and incest, she has no intention of overturning any laws that currently exist for abortion.

    The fact that she has gone against people in her OWN party, including exposing folks doing wrong. Has gone against big oil successfully, and is VERY good on energy issues, that is a big plus for me.

    So, although you may not agree with some of her views, please, at least don’t spread falsehoods about her stance on issues, that’s all I ask!

  146. Joe says:

    I appreciate your thoughtful, level-headed remarks on the Palin pick. I hold no delusions that we agree on political matters, but your post reminds me of the grudging respect I built up for Clinton during the Dem primaries.

    I couldn’t disagree with Clinton more on most major political issues, but seeing her getting attacked by Obama acolytes in an out-and-out misogynistic fashion day after day really hacked me off. To her credit, she didn’t seem to sweat this garbage too much (in public.) Palin is in for the same treatment (and we can see that it has already begun full force.)

  147. Yanni Znaio says:

    ref: your #140.

    Yes ma’am. Understood.

    You’re saying that some of the Instapundit folk (and BTW that wasn’t where I came here from- it was someplace else) are straying off-topic.

    But you need to say that to some of the non-Instapundit posters, too.

    In my defense, all I did was respond to a couple of points made by some here, yourself included.

    However, since you asked nicely, and especially since it’s your house, I’ll comply.

    However, there are some people from all stripes who like lively and reasoned debate.

    Care to crank up a thread for that?

    The ratio of imbecility to cogency on the Web is quite high, and you’ve got some cogent ones here (yourself included, and I’m not just saying that to suck up, hehehehe.)

    Again, thanks for your hospitality.


  148. fsteele says:

    143 Yanni Z -
    What you said. I’m poking my head back in the window to thank Dr. Socks for letting all us visitors meet on what at least appeared to be more or less neutral ground for a while.

    Unfortunately there aren’t many places on the Net for this caliber of discussion from all sides.

    Thanks again!

    (Now back to the rabid PUMA site I came from.)

  149. Yanni Znaio says:

    fsteele in #148.

    Email me the link.

    I *LOVE* those folks.

    There’s something about smoldering righteous indignation that just makes my heart go pitter-patter.

    And they’ve got every right to feel that way.

    Also, click on my screen name and you’ll hit my blog where you can read my thoughts on Palin.

  150. hiraethin says:

    Thank you for your polite welcome to newcomers.

  151. Bruce says:

    She is not ‘anti-gay rights’, she does not believe in the word ‘marriage’ being applied to gays but has fought for gay rights including vetoing (sp?) a bill that would have blocked gay couples from receiving benefits from their partner.

    Sorry, but if you are anti gay marriage then you are anti gay, plain and simple. She can play with semantics all she wants, but if she doesn’t feel like giving gay people the same rights and privileges as everyone else then she is a bigot.

    As for abortion, she is for abortion if the womans life is in danger.

    How very gracious of her.

    She has also said that although she is pro-life in rape and incest, she has no intention of overturning any laws that currently exist for abortion.

    And if something were to happen to McCain and she became acting President and then got the chance to appoint the next Supreme Court judge, just what stance do you think her judge will have on Roe v Wade? I’m not willing to take that chance.

  152. fsteele says:

    Hasn’t Obama said “To me, marriage is between a man and a woman”? (And the Clintons too, ftm.)

    [ I should unsubscribe so I don't keep nodding in. ]

  153. mark d says:

    (Long time reader here but first time commenting. Also disclaim that I’m neither American nor residing there, but I do have a profound interest in GLBTQ movement internationally, especially in the USA. Advance apologies for taking this a tad OT, but we don’t seem to be getting anywhere on the anti-gay topic.)

    Not to provide Gov. Palin with undue mileage on the fight for GLBTQ rights, but I’ll like to refine what Bruce (3rd Sep @ 0310) said. Firstly, “anti-gay marriage” =/= “anti-gay”. There’re a lot of people from the GLBTQ camp who are anti-marriage for many reasons ranging from religious, to constitutional interpretations, etc. The common goal, however, seems to be a fight to establish equal legal and civil recognition for whatever kinship relation they desire. Effectively, this means elevating domestic partnership, civil unions to that of straight marriage.

    However, what Bruce is saying–here I’m interpreting–is that Gov. Palin believes and acts on accordingly that gay unions are sub-class: supporting the Alaskan 1998 Constitution Amendment Limiting Marriage, then in 2007 carrying out the nonbinding referendum vote (post-veto of HB 4001) that aims to rewind afore-mentioned benefits from her veto (source). Her continued belief that marriage is squarely between a man and a woman runs parallel with DOMA, which restricts already limitedly recognised gay marriages from accessing federal benefits accorded to heterosexual marriage (source). This is where Gov. Palin moves beyond mere symbolic “semantics”.

    fsteele (Sep 3rd @ 1012) is right, while Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama are pro-CU/DP, neither are for the repeal of DOMA (Sen. Clinton voted for DOMA, but claims to want full rights accorded to CU and DPs; Sen. Obama was against DOMA, but does not aim to repeal it).

    In summary: presently, CU/DP < Gay Marriage < Heterosexual Marriage. With Gov. Palin’s track record thusfar, and her being unable still to be pro-marriage (when each state is its own deciding factor) without even trying to fight for full instatement of rights to CU/DP, then it’s much more than refusing GLBTQ people symbolic “semantic” standing with their straight counterparts.

  154. salt h2o says:

    A sincere thank you. This is the first ‘feminist website’ I’ve been to that didn’t sink to treating Palin like the girl your boyfriend dumped you for.

    I was beginning to become seriously pessimistic about the thought process of feminists.

    Thank you.

  155. Yanni Znaio says:


    My personal one-liner take on gay marriage is that “it shouldn’t be any of the government’s business what anyone eats in bed.”

    Best regards,


  156. Yanni Znaio says:

    Ms. Violet:

    Can’t WAIT to hear your take on Palin’s speech.

    I think she’s not only hitting it out of the park, but into the next STATE.

    Best regards,

  157. fsteele says:

    to 153 Mark D

    When Clinton first signed DOMA I was shocked. It wasn’t till sometime this year, perhaps at hillaryis44.org, that I saw a long quote from Hillary about it. Long and complicated so I skimmed it, but it was something to the effect that DOMA prevented the anti-gays from doing something that would have been worse.

    Did you know that while she was First Lady she marched in a Gay Pride parade — the only First Lady ever to do so.

  158. mark d says:

    Hi fsteele, thanks for taking an interest in this. Yup, I’m quite familiar with the Clinton Administration’s business with the GLBTQ community. I understand where both Clinton politicians are coming from, recalling that DOMA was drafted and passed by a Repub Senate, though unfortunately finally signed by President Clinton. I think the Clintons’ stand on both DOMA and DADT is that they’re strategic legislations at those times that would open avenues to the GLBTQ without antagonising the conservatives too much. This is especially the case for DADT because the military was on a witch hunt to oust gay personnel.

    Like to note some mistakes regarding the Dems in my earlier comment (Sep 3rd 1455). While Sen. Clinton supports DOMA, she *did not* vote on it. Also, it seems Sen. Obama *is* for the repeal of DOMA, though there’s conflicting evidence elsewhere to suggest that he does not support gay marriage per se but will allow states to define marriage. (I have the hardest time figuring out what he means sometimes, but from what I’ve witnessed in the last year, I’m not alone?) Sen. Clinton was for revision of DOMA to lift restrictions of federal benefits for gay marriages (i.e. as long as your state recognises gay marriages, gay couples are entitled to the full gamut of benefits accorded to hetero-marriage).

    WOC PhD’s somewhat comprehensive list of positions on GLBTQ rights for Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama though I encourage anyone interested to search further if you want exact quotes, updates, progress, etc. (Really hard to find any unbiased exhaustive list anywhere, to be honest.)

    I hope I’m helping to clear some air. Would try my best to address any further bumps if they arise, though at this point I’d rather not bring this thread anymore off-topic. Thanks to RL for permitting my chiming in.

  159. Yehudit says:

    “….One of his funniest one liners ever was that we should “keep the guns in the closet, not the gays”, for example……”

    What he really said is that he “supports happy gay couples with closets full of assault rifles.” He’s also pro-choice. Every once in a while he posts a photo of himself in a tshirt which reads “I had an abortion.”

    It’s symptomatic of the way media tend to conflate more subtle political differences that he is always referred to as “rightwing.”