Category Archives: Sarah Palin

Martin Bashir Isn’t Even a Competent Leftist

Everybody on the right is talking about MSNBC Ranting Head Martin Bashir’s enraged Palin-bashing from the other day, but nobody seems to see the key point. ICYMI and don’t want to watch any Martin Bashir clips (smart choice!), here’s the teapot tempest: In a speech explaining the burden our enormous public debt places on future taxpayers, Sarah said that we in the here-and-now were, in a sense, imposing slavery on our children. Bashir went off on a self-righteous rant about how very awful it was (ignorant, too!) for her to trivialize true slavery by comparing it to a heavy tax burden. While righties focus on the nasty things he called for Sarah to be subjected to, and lefties focus on reassuring themselves that they’re so very much smarter than Caribou Barbie, nobody seems to be aware of the fact that this sort of “slavery” simile is practically a verbal tic among far leftists.

Let’s start with the First Lady of Socialism, Emma Goldman, who wrote: The only difference is that you [people who work for wages] are hired slaves instead of block slaves.

Too far in the past? OK, then, how about Noam Chomsky? What they call wage slavery … was not very different from chattel slavery.

Indeed, so great is the readiness of hard-core lefties to deploy the term “wage slavery” that Communpedia* posts this warning in big, bold font: Comrades: be careful with the use of this term because it can be dismissive of the actual experience of slaves. Sadly, polemics aren’t as easy as they used to be in these days of Dangerous Metaphors, not even the ritualistic bashing of greedy capitalists  exploiting their workers by offering them mere money in exchange for their sweaty-browed toil.

Now, the term “wage slavery” truly is dismissive of the actual experience of slaves, for the simple reason that voluntary labor contracts were precisely what slaves aspired to. It’s a hideous inversion of truth and a grotesque offense to the memory of the enslaved to assert an equivalence between the situation they sought to escape and the one they hoped to attain through emancipation. So if Martin Bashir were really as outraged by the use of stupid slavery analogies as he claims to be, he could find enough material from his fellow lefties to fill a week’s worth of air time with denunciations. I’ll be sure to tune in if he decides to do that.

But Sarah Palin deserves no such denunciation for comparing taxation without representation to slavery. Her point was that the people who’ll have to pay off the huge debt burden we keep incurring now are mostly not able to vote on this policy, either because they’re below the voting age or haven’t even been born yet. Palin’s simile forces us to see the common aspect of both actions, namely the taking of wealth from one group of people without their consent. This does not dismiss the evil of slavery; rather, it uses slavery’s universally recognized immorality to get us to recognize the moral aspect of massive public debt.

It turns out that Chomsky has used the “slavery” analogy in this sense, too:

Chomsky went on to add that some people in Germany, who want to have anything of value in Greece, are “imposing conditions of economic slavery and psychological pressure on the Greeks.”

Pretty clearly one of the rules of engagement the left insists on is, All slavery references belong to us. Equally clearly, Sarah Palin is once again using the lefties’ tactics against them, which reliably makes them howl in outrage. Funny stuff, really, when viewed in the proper light.

Of course, Martin Bashir’s rises to the bait so spectacularly that he reveals himself to be a standout idiot even among his fellow idiots on the left. But you probably knew that already, if in fact you’d ever heard of him before.


*I have no idea why there’s no “i” between “Commun” and “pedia”. Seriously comrades, is meter just too bourgeois a part of style for you?



Filed under Freedom, People Who Lack Self-Awareness, Sarah Palin, TV

Bienvenidos a Peronismo

This story

The Romney campaign is reporting that 75 Republican poll watchers have been barred from precinct polling places in Philadelphia, in some cases by Democrats saying, “No Republicans will be allowed in the polling place.” The GOP has gone to court and obtained an order from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas requiring the Republicans to be admitted to the polls and seated per their legal authority.

is sickening, not only for the sheer criminality of it, but even more for the response it invites–indeed, demands:

Unconfirmed reports of former Navy SEALs heading to Ohio, Pa. to guard against voter intimidation

When I said Obama was like Peron, I was serious. This man has no regard for the importance of legitimacy in the functioning of democracy. He will do anything to win, no matter how deeply he drives a wedge between liberals and conservatives in the process.

He is not an orator. He is a demagogue.


FROM THE ARCHIVES (no, not blog archives):

I have a long-time friend who was a huge Obama supporter in 2008. She kept bombarding me with links to videos of his speeches and long disquisitions on “white privilege”. I let it all go unremarked, out of friendship, but by late September I’d had enough, and sent a long email that started out with this:

For most of this past year I had no particular enthusiasm for the Republican nominee and no particular antipathy toward the Democrat.  I was planning to sit this one out.  But the events of the campaign that have transpired since the Republican convention have changed all that….
Barack Obama … has made it very clear that he cannot abide criticism, and that he views those who challenge him as obstacles which must be destroyed by any means.
Four years later, I regret deeply that I stand uncorrected by events.


Filed under Barack Obama, Freedom, Politics, Sarah Palin

How Palin Will Run, If She Runs

I’m convinced that pundits and the politicos they jabber about are basically not very bright people who simply have an obsessive interest in the superficial aspects of politics. Nowhere is this clearer than in the complete inability of the political class to understand Sarah Palin. So it looks like it falls to me to explain her to everyone. It’s easy if you just pay attention.

If she runs, she’s going to run a third-party campaign. But she’s going to do it while seeking the Republican nomination as well.

No politico seems to have grasped this yet. For example, today I read this typical bit of conventional nonsense in the L.A. Times. It’s a quote from a former Bush operative named Sara Fagen (!):

“To build the kind of organization you need takes several months,” Fagen said. “The infrastructure and lawyers alone amount to putting together a Fortune 500 company overnight. It’s a massive undertaking.”

One major obstacle, Fagen added: “A lot of the talent is already locked up.”

Then there was this insider’s view:

“At the end of the day, the rules usually prevail,” said former New Hampshire Atty. Gen. Tom Rath, a Mitt Romney advisor. “I don’t know any candidate that makes the race into the one they want. Once she gets in, she becomes like every other candidate.

You may be wondering how it is that being A.G. in a dinky state like NH makes anyone an expert on presidential campaigns. That’s because you don’t know much about NH, where every fucking person walking the streets thinks he’s a goddam political expert for the simple reason that every one of them has probably been interviewed by a national TV reporter in the course of a NH primary election. But really, Tom Rath is no more likely to know what he’s talking about here than the guy who made my macchiato this morning.

(Also, is there a surer signal to get ready for an utterly banal observation than the phrase “At the end of the day…”?)

Anyway, to get to my point: Sarah Palin is not going to be like every other candidate, because she is going to be the only candidate who people will believe wants the job in order to do the job, not to have the job. This–not the stuff that policy wonks obsess over–is the most important difference between Palin and any other candidate, most particularly Barack Obama. If the nation decides that it wants the exact opposite of the incompetent egomaniac we’re now saddled with, Sarah Palin is the obvious choice.

OK, fine. But what about organization? Doesn’t it take a big, nationwide hive full of worker bees to run a modern presidential campaign? Why, yes it does. Is it getting to be too late for Palin to populate her hive with dedicated bees? Haven’t most of the die-hard political activist types already joined someone else’s team? Why, no, not at all. You see, Sarah Palin’s hive is already full of worker bees: the members of the Tea Party. They’re already organized at the grass-roots level, and Mrs. Palin is going to be their first national candidate. That “nomination” is hers for the asking. And if she asks for it, she’ll then call on her hive to swarm into the Republican field of battle, to win that party’s nomination as well.

This is what Sarah means when she says that any campaign of hers would be “very grass-roots.” She doesn’t need, and may have little intention, of spending time trying to line up the endorsements of people like Tom Rath–mid-level Republican functionaries who advance their careers by backing the right horse early on, in hopes of getting a boost up the greasy pole locally or nationally if that horse ends up winning. Tom Rath has never lived in a world where those “rules” don’t apply, because he is a political pro. Sarah Palin, incongruously to the politicos, despite having been a governor and a VP candidate, is not a political pro. She is something Tom Rath has probably never met–the leader, indeed the embodiment, of a spontaneous movement. Other candidates have their feet held to the fire by the Tea Party, but not Sarah. The Tea Partiers trust her; their desire to follow her lead is palpable. It is not that Palin’s political fortunes ride on the Tea Party. Rather, the Tea Partiers’ hopes ride on her. She is not seeking their support for her ambition. If she runs, it will be because she has responded to their pleas.

If Sarah runs, I doubt that anyone in the MSM will even begin to understand what’s afoot until the nomination is decided. If she wins the Republican nomination, the MSM will be even less able to comprehend the nature of the fall campaign. The reporters and the pundits will tally the points made by her and against her on the details of a long list of proposed policies that no actual voter thinks are really going to be on the table after the election. Sarah will speak over the heads of the commentariat, to address the deep and real concerns the voters have about the fundamental political values held by their chief executive. Obama’s strength, which will be considerable, will derive from fear-mongering, fantasy, lies, and the fact that a very large number of Americans want to keep their checks from the government flowing in.

The contrast between the two campaigns would itself serve as a sufficient basis for casting a vote, for anyone who was able to see beyond the MSM’s spin. I am not sure that Sarah could prevail against the forces that would fly at her in a fury, but it would be the greatest election day since 1980 if she did.


Filed under Politics, Sarah Palin

Springtime for Palin

Luigi Zingales, a finance professor in the business school at the University of Chicago, has some advice for Republican primary voters who are looking for a winning candidate. Based on survey results gathered for constructing some sort of “trust index,” Zingales concludes that

by articulating a platform that defends free markets but remains autonomous from big business, the Republican Party can gather support from both the Tea Party and independents

He then goes on to say

 the GOP clearly needs a candidate more like [Paul] Ryan than like Mitt Romney, currently the party’s leading candidate and a favorite of the establishment. A candidate in Ryan’s mold ,,, would be a strong believer in free markets who is not beholden to the bailout-addicted big-business establishment. This kind of candidate, if the GOP could only find him, could win in 2012 and help get the nation’s economy back on track. (emphasis added)

Ah yes, quite the conundrum for the Republicans, isn’t it? The good professor’s perplexity calls to mind a rousing song from Mel Brooks’s wonderful movie/Broadway musical adaptation of movie/movie adaptation of Broadway musical adaptation of movie originally known as The Producers. With apologies–largely insincere–to Mel, here is my musical response to Luigi Zingales, to the tune of Springtime for Hitler. The astute reader can figure out the title, I am sure.

USA was having trouble, what a sad, sad story.
Needed a new leader to restore its former glory.
Where, oh where was he?
Where could that man be?
We looked around and then we found
the gal for you and me.
And now it’s…

Springtime for Palin’s America!
Freedom’s the word of the day.
Sarah is on the bus again;
healthcare belongs to us again!

Springtime for Palin and small business;
bailouts for Wall Street no more!
Tea Parties spread from coast to coast.
Social-is-m will soon be toast!

Springtime for Palin and taxpayers,
winter for Obamacare.
Spending will be reined in at last.
Output will rise three times as fast.

Springtime for Palin and all of us,
‘cept for the S-E-I-U.
Springtime for Palin and everyone
means that soon we’ll be voting
we’ve got to get going
to send her on to Wash-ing-ton!

Always glad to help out.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Sarah Palin