Monday, November 16, 2009

Sarah Palin won me over again

I was thrilled with Palin's nomination last year...thrilled. I'd come to hear about her a month or so before and I was hoping McCain would pick her. Mr Z and I were in Santa Barbara and woke up to the news and we were whooping it up. Then I thought she did a great job on the campaign trail...I didn't buy into the 'stupid' comments because I heard far too many handlers say she grasps information and concepts quicker than anybody they'd been around. The huge leftwing media hatred toward her only whetted my appetite to wonder WHY and hear more about her. When their "journalists" started to look through her trash, figuratively and literally, etc., I knew her polling numbers must be high even in the lib polls. They were scared to DEATH of her (still are....I like that :-)

Then, I was a little done with her, I must admit. I think the leftwing media even wore ME down with the constant 'drip drip drip' of negativity about her, the Couric interviews, the Charlie Gibson interview, etc. The constant nastiness seems to have seeped into my head though I loved how MUCH she loves this country and stands up for its Christian faith.

THEN I SAW OPRAH TODAY. Now, I'm back on the Palin Train. I LOVED how she answered Oprah when Oprah had the temerity to ask "you mean you think it was a POLITICAL agenda Katie Couric had?" (was she JOKING?!!!! What other AGENDA did Oprah THINK?) Oprah asked "Why didn't you just tell Katie what newspapers you read when she asked so you'd not have received such a bad response to your answers?" and Palin WONDERFULLY responded "by that time, I was pretty aware of where she was going and I wasn't going to get into it. It was like she was saying 'Do you really READ up there in Alaska?'" And, of course, if you saw Couric's sarcastic smirk, you know that's exactly the inference she was going for.

When Oprah asked about the flap about the cost of costuming abd coiffing her, Palin rightfully inferred that NOBODY in the media asked how much HILLARY spends on HER hair and clothing! GOOD POINT. Oh, and I'll bet Oprah wasn't pleased when she asked Palin how she thought she could have been VP with five children. Palin's a Renaissance woman with a Renaissance marriage....."the same way male VP's do it, Oprah." "But, males have wives!" Oprah responded, in her leftwinger close-minded way. "Oh, but Oprah, my husband and I are equals and he steps in to do all the things I do if I can't be there." Checkmate, Oprah.

When asked about Levi Johnson (the father of Palin's illegitimate grandson) by Oprah, about how much he sees the baby, etc., Palin responded that he seems very busy on this new media blitz and about how he's 'being handled' (inferring the media's in charge of slamming her through him, which is also probably true, why else would anybody give a damn what this creep's doing!?).. and how he's doing porn. Oprah responded with "you think posing for Playgirl is porn?" Sarah responded with "Yes, I think that's porn!" (who doesn't, Oprah?)

Anyway, if you're interested, Google Oprah Winfrey and you can see today's show and more, apparently. Bravo, Sarah. Except, please, NEVER pose for NEWSWEEK or anything else wearing shorts again...not good. Even if you're not running for president!

By the way, I tried to Google pictures from today's interview, but there are few and they're very unflattering. I guess Sarah just looked too darn good to have too many more than the one I have up at the top left here.....she looked so pretty that they didn't offer more than this one. The rest are kind of mug-shot types of pictures, group shots with Sarah, two of her daughters and Oprah.



Anonymous said...

I am interested to know her take on the most vital subject of illegal immigration and the 20 to 30 million illegals that are already here.
Family unification will swamp the already overfilled lifeboat.
If she recites the republican mantra that we need comprehensive reform I will not support her.
Our system is not broken. The laws are routinely broken.
Other than that I would vote for her in a heartbeat.

Lost in aztlan

Anonymous said...

Z, I'm with you. I do like Sarah Palin, she's real and engaging, and doesn't do a song and dance. Just up front, and answers the questions.

I thought Oprah should have asked her some policy questions, but then upon thinking of it, I figure she wouldn't want views expressed by Palin critical of Obama, now would she.

BTW, that picture of Sarah in shorts was from a running magazine. Newsweek just used it. I don't think Newsweek had an interview with her either.
Just an article which we would probably find more of the same from the left.
I found that out on Greta's show from Tucker Carlson.

No one ever carped about George Bush in his running shorts.

And they swooned over Obama in his trunks playing in the surf.

I thought today, Palin handled questions rather deftly, and was a gracious guest. Also I thought Oprah was fine. She didn't play gotcha.


Soloman said...

I tried to DVR the show but couldn't find it.. I guess I'll be searching YouTube for clips.

ABC has posted a partial transcription of the Barbara Walters interview, seems once again Palin held her own. I've posted excerpts here with a link to the ABC piece, which is also linked from Drudge.

A thought to 'Lost in aztlan' - Palin's statement has always.. always been "close the border first before dealing with any other aspect of the issue."

Anonymous said...

Like her or not Oprah Winfrey is a great example of The American Success Story. She came from a terrible background, started with two strikes against her, and managed to OVERCOME all of that ON HER OWN. She was not funded by George Soros or groomed by the DNC. She made it ON HER OWN.

So, why Oprah would support a MARXIST agenda is beyond my comprehension. Neither Oprah nor Obama would ever have risen above the level of scrub woman or shoe shine boy in a Marxist society.

In fact they wouldn't have been able to achieve even THAT much, because they'd be kept on welfare and assigned living quarters all their lives with NO HOPE of ADVANCEMENT -- EVER.

And they want this for US after THEY made it big by working WITHIN the very system they want to wreck?

Shame on them!

Sarah is a darling person, but I frankly think the media -- and her family problems, which the media has exploited to the hilt, of course -- have so tainted her image that I doubt she will ever be considered presidential timber.

McCain and his rotten staff acted almost in concert with the media in the campaign to discredit and destroy Sarah the moment she appeared.

There is something truly corrupt -- even DEMENTED -- in McCain. I had NO confidence in him as a candidate at all, and frankly think we'd be no better off if he had won the WH, because McCain -- and most of the DC Republican Establishment -- are in cahoots with the D'Rats and the Internationalist Agenda.

That SHOULD be obvious.

This view is not popular here, I know, but my impression after closely observing all the Republican presidential candidates debate several times was that RON PAUL was the ONLY one who told the truth or made any REAL sense.

Naturally, because of his truthfulness and uncompromising view of the constitution, he was unable to win the nomination.

The ungodly alliance between the two parties AND the media is unbeatable, unless something DRASTIC is done to bust it up.

We are definitely due for another Revolution.

"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed [periodically] with the blood of patriots and tyrants..." - Jefferson

~ FreeThinke

sue said...

z - In spite of our clashes and inevitable differences of opinion, I sincerely hope that you are doing well. I know that it's got to be hard.

I've decided that if Sarah Palin does run for President and actually wins, I'm not going to get hysterical. Our country practically runs itself, and we just keep on going from president to president.

sue said...

z - In spite of our clashes and inevitable differences of opinion, I sincerely hope that you are doing well. I know that it's got to be hard.

I've decided that if Sarah Palin does run for President and actually wins, I'm not going to get hysterical. Our country practically runs itself, and we just keep on going from president to president.

sue said...

I hate it when it prints twice.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Freethinke, I liked Ron Paul, too. Crazy, I know.

I'm honestly not sure what to think about Sarah Palin. She has more common sense than anyone in the MSM. I don't feel like she'd be a good candidate for POTUS, but definitely VP.

Couple her up with a strong conservative or right-leaning libertarian and you'd have a good team.

And Oprah? pbthththt. Haven't watched her in YEARS.

FrogBurger said...

My wife loves Sarah Palin but I don't. She may be a maverick, a small government lover and has proven she did good stuff in Alaska but I have a feeling she's a liability long term. I think she needs to really put together a stronger political philosophy before being a viable candidate. She has experience (a lot more than BO) but a president needs more than experience to me. He or she needs to have a body of work from an intellectual standpoint. Some kind of intellectual foundations at a deeper level than just "cut taxes".

In that regard I like Newt. I know he's got baggage but I appreciate his intellect, like I appreciate Ron Paul's.

When I hear Reagan's speeches, that's the dimension Conservatives need.

And to be fairly honest, I'm not sure this type of guy will be there for 2012.

DaBlade said...

Z- Loved this post. I "forgot" to tivo Oprah and missed this exchange. This is the first I have read about it. I have always respected Sarah, and the more they try to bring her down, the more I feel we should rally around her. I don't know that she will (or should ) be the nominee 'cuz it's way too early, but I love to see her book kicking butt.

Anonymous said...

Free thinkie: Amen on Ron Paul. Too old to run in 2012, but I hope he selects an intelectual successor and supports him for POTUS.

Palin may be over-rated as a candidate among conservatives, but it's hard not to fall in love with someone who throws the media into paroxysms so easily. That she was criticized after her convention speech for not having written it herself is evidence of this. That Levi Johnston is on tv. That media considers it investigative reporting to report cost of her clothes.

Today's word was paroxysm, meaning violent fits, such as of rage.


FairWitness said...

Z, do you remember the run up to Ronald Reagan's run for the Presidency? Liberals and the MSM used Ron & Nancy's family difficulties with Patti Davis, Ron Jr.'s ballet dancing, Michael Reagan's whining about his lack of attention, etc., to attack him too. They were scared to death of him, too. He was depicted as a lightweight, a dunce, an actor, anything to diminish his gravitas.

They're doing the same thing to Sarah Palin. It's up to her to rise to the occasion and overcome all this negativity.

I thought she did extremely well on Oprah and I will go out on a limb and say I think we watched the next and FIRST woman President of the United States. She's got the stuff it takes, I feel it.

The most revealing, important revelation in the Oprah interview? She acknowledged she "allowed" the McCain campaign to handle and control her. She said shame on any candidate who allows that to happen to them. She LEARNED from this experience. She will not let it happen again.

She's a powerhouse leader and exactly what we need to restore this county. She's our nation's Margaret Thatcher and she will soar. I believe it! And I have believed since she entered the national stage. She's got what it takes to go all the way.

Jungle Mom said...

Anyone the media despises so much, is A OK in my book!

Ducky's here said...

My dream ticket is Palin/Bachmann in 2012.

Ducky's here said...

If she runs in 2012, I'm going to have to revise my opinion on Mayan prophecies.

Anonymous said...

I've always had a good impression of Sarah Palin. She spoke of exposing the corruption within government and I think that strikes a chord with many people — at least the sentient ones. That she is attacked from within her own party and from the outside makes me think she represents something that her enemies must destroy. That she has the courage to withstand the withering attacks in the media may attract those who amy feel sympathy especially among women, since a good case could be made that the attacks from he likes of Chris Matthews, Olbermann and ED Schultz are misogynistic. Michelle Bachmann has been treated the same way as Palin — so even if they are not elected in other years, they will at least expose the spittle-spewing rabid dogs as the true enemies they are, IMO.


Faith said...

I also loved Palin when I first saw and heard her, was bowled over by her true conservatism and Real People persona. Then I also got down on her, maybe partly the effect of the bad media but I'm not completely sure it's that entirely. She doesn't come across well in some circumstances. I'm waiting to see.

G-Man said...

How about a Palin/Joe Arpaio ticket? Wouldn't that be sweet?

Ducky's here said...

Sure would G-man. I figure she gets the standard 20% Loony Tune vote and takes the entire Republican ticket down in flames.

The Left is BEGGING her to stay in the spotlight.

FairWitness said...

Ducky, if the Left is so unafraid of Sarah Palin, why are they working so hard to destroy her?

Ducky's here said...



Ducky's here said...

Love your sig, Fairwitness -

Justice is a lady,
Blind, with a scale,
And a big letter-opener.
She's been readin' my mail
I don't know why this should shame me,
But it does, somehow
I don't care what you say,
She don't look like a lady now.
I don't care what you say,
She don't look like a lady now

Anonymous said...

No Ducky, not because she can be destroyed. Because they're afraid and so are you. Since when does the left try to warn conservatives they're making a mistake?

Advising us against a supposed loser? Who are you kidding?

FW is right, we've heard this line before, with Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush, both winners.

Btw Ducky, could it be you're just intimidated and threatened by smart women who are pretty?


Name: Soapboxgod said...

Palin is hardly different than the rest. She too supported the Bush/Paulsen bailout which paved the way for the bailouts thereafter. There's no credibility in that.

And yet she thinks she has credibility to then speak the virtues of Free Markets??

Ducky's here said...

Pris, I have dated a Ph.D. (fine arts) and a runway model.

Believe me, I've been out with better looking and probably more "rambunctious" than Palin.

... and if she is your standard for brains then so be it.

Anonymous said...

Ducky, please check out this excellent little on line book:'Keynes at Harvard" written by Zygmund Dobbs in 1969 and recently made available again, likely because the real world has now flooded us with proof. It is the best that I've seen to succinctly inform the reader about the history of socialism in America — and yes socialism was popular among the elite in America even before the October Revolution of 1917. He shows that at the turn of the 2oth Century the disease had begun to take hold at Harvard. Nobody can pretend that John Maynard Keynes wasn't a socialist, himself — one of the charter members of English Fabian socialism.

Homosexuality is politically correct today. But Keynes was a depraved pedophile, an "intellectual" socialist who hated capitalism and the so-called bourgoise businessmen. The hallmarks of socialism are public education and national health care and while calling this "progressive", their end game is to impose a system of primitive feudal tyranny where the serfs will serve their masters of the so-called Order. If you are lucky you may be appointed to serve and clean your masters tables ... and if you refuse you will be terminated with kindness as the master ideologue, G. B. Shaw said.

I know it is late in the game and the clock is ticking and things see to be going from bad to worse ... but acting smug about current problems is despicable, IMO.


Z said...

FreeThinker, I couldn't agree with you more about Oprah..a friend worked with her at her first TV job and she's totally self made. Yet, she promotes someone who'll malign someone for SUCCESS!! (at least, in America)

Palin is tainted, I completely agree with you. She'd have to pull a HUGE wonderful rabbit out of her hat to get past the media's constant negative barrage.

Heck, I watched four min. of Matt Lauer's interview with Lou Dobbs today and, at the end, completely out of context, Lauer asks Dobbs "Would you vote for Palin?" WHAT?

Then, they were going to do a hatchet job on Palin by Meredith Vieira about the book...I say hatchet job tho I didn't see it because I've seen her discuss Palin as if she's smelling bad French cheese..wrinkled nose, etc. She asked "Media attacked Palin?,...well, I think they CRITICIZED her" (Oh< REALLY? These people are so tone deaf)

So, I doubt if she can become president because sleeping Americans get their actual information from hateful types who are more interested in their agenda than honesty OR what's really good for this country.

Sue....I'm so glad you came by. I miss you when you're not here. I felt very judged that time you said something like "well, the blog's back" as if I wasn't grieving enough or something in your book, but I should have known better. NOBODY can judge another's grief. .
Also, Mr Z adored the blog and was proud of it for me so I'll keep blogging.....I like to think he's reading the posts :-)
It's a wonderful diversion.
Anyway, thanks, Sue.

FrogBurger, I think there's ONE REASON the Conservatives like Sarah the MOST; The biggest reason is this: SHE LOVES AMERICA AND SHE'D DEFEND HER TILL HER DEATH. it's a nutty American thing...too bad more Americans don't see that in her. Especially in contrast to what we've got going now. And, isn't it a crying shame that Palin's love of America stands out SO much largely in contrast to so many others?

tiob; "today's word"? Who are you, O'Reilly? ~!!! (perish the thought)!!!

BY THE WAY, folks.....Sarah's response to Oprah on why the mcCain gang's been so tough on her was PERFECTLY clear and perfectly understandable: They're in the business of handling and they need to get hired. If your candidate loses, you don't blame yourself, you rag on the candidate.

FairWitness and others...great comments all...

Ducky...that's the leftist mantra these days! Do you get the official White House memo??! I had no idea. It's "I HOPE Palin runs"
It makes me laugh because it's so simple to see how much you're all afraid of her. I looooove that!!

The commenters are correct (and right!): anybody the media is scared witless of can't be all bad! :-)

Palin and Buchanan...sorry to disappoint you but Pat won't run.

Ducky, nobody's voting for her for her beauty, trust me.
Odd how many beauties are conservative and what the left has, though....really rather odd. We Conservatives can have it all..and many of the women do!

Elmers Brother said...

I like the totally objective way Rick Sanczhez did it on CNN.

He had 8 people sitting down.

First he says

"How many are Republicans?"

two peope raise their hands

"How many are conservative?"

"How many are independent?"

"How many are Democrat?"

Each time one or two people would raise their hands.

The he says,

"How many of you are going to buy Sarah Palin's book?"

No one raises their hands.

He looks into the camera like it was some kind of scientific poll or that it was a representattive sampling and says "See."

I about fell out of my chair laughing at the dufus.

Elmers Brother said...

Pris, I have dated a Ph.D. (fine arts) and a runway model.

but was it a girl?

BB-Idaho said...

I like Tina Fey.

Anonymous said...

Re: Palin/Bachman ticket

I find your complete disregard for the Constitution a bit unsettling. The Constitution clearly states that the President must be a naturally born U.S. citizen. Michael Palin is from Great Britain, and Randy Bachman is from Canada.

If you insist on having the U.S. subject to British and Canadian rulers, have the Constitution ammended. There is a process for that. Your contempt for rule of law disgusts me.

Today's word was Randy Bachman, meaning "lead guitarist for the Guess Who". (Z--I was thinking more RugCenter than O'Reilly.)


shoprat said...

She is ten times the woman, a hundred times the human, and a thousand times the American that Oprah is. Sarah is what Oprah pretends to be.

Anonymous said...

"Pris, I have dated a Ph.D. (fine arts) and a runway model."

Ducky, I love it when you're on the defensive.


Anonymous said...

I am disappointed that Sarah supported the bailout, because I am very much against bailouts on principle.

Bailouts may SEEM to have a good effect (although I'm not really sure there is much evidence of that), but it's sure to be short-lived.

Bailouts are EXPEDIENT not grounded in sound economic principles and bound eventually to cause devaluation of our currency and ruinous inflation. Expediency should generally be regarded as an evil.

I can't imagine what John Maynard Keynes' sex life had to do with it [There are SO many things about famous people I'd rather not know! -- I believe The Tell-All Age mentality is at the core of our undoing.], but there is no doubt Keynes was a Master Mischiefmaker with his cockamamie theories on deficit spending. Whether his motives stemmed from malice or reckless disregard for the tried and true does not matter. In this mortal world RESULTS ARE ALL THAT COUNT.

Progressivism from its earliest days has always been diametrically opposed to common sense. Marxism goes much farther in that it has always sought to destroy common decency.

I think it's important to point out that The Fabian Society was not connected to Marx and Engels, Gramsci or the infamous Frankfurt School. The Fabians were for the most part upper-class Britishers who felt guilt and distaste for the plight of the servants, miners and factory workers. I think their efforts were sincere and well-intentioned, but wrong-headed, as most of us see clearly from the fruits that kind of thinking has born. They were utopian dreamers not revolutionaries.

George Bernard Shaw was a great literary genius, and belongs strictly in a class by himself. He was involved with the Fabian Society, but from experiencing his play Heartbreak House alone, I feel confident that he would be appalled at the VIOLENCE and sheer GRUBBINESS that overtook what-was-a purely-intellectual, theoretical, high-minded attempt to reform society -- at a safe distance from the lower classes.

The Fabians -- unlike the MARXIANS -- were not HATERS, and their intentions, however misguided, were not to subvert and destroy but to enlighten.

That their path coincided with the ICONOCLASTIC FILTH, TREACHERY and MURDEROUS RAGE of BOLSHEVISM is ironic.

Today's crypto-Marxists who pretend to be Democrats most desperately want us to regard Charles Dickens as "The First Socialist." NONSENSE! He was great storyteller with a heart as big as all outdoors. That he saw much obscene hypocrisy in the Church, and caricatured it brilliantly in his novels, doesn't make him a Marxist.

Glad to see so much support for Ron Paul. He is, apparently, the only person left in government who understands and believes in the Constitution. There's nothing crazy about it, Jen. Good for you!

Sarah is a good egg, but her image is that of "just a mouthy middle-class Mom with lots of nerve, but no sophistication." She appeals to most of us -- including me -- precisely because she looks, sounds a feels the very model of a Washington OUTSIDER.

I was very disappointed when she quit the governorship. I thought it a bad move for every conceivable reason. At the very least it was unprofessional. At worst it may have been cowardly or simply an awkard grab at The Main Chance.

All that aside I am very glad, if Sarah is standing up credibly to the monstrous personalities that dominate TV and what's left of print media.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

How in the world would Oprah even know a policy ? to ask???
Unless her writers put it down for her. And why would she think what'a-his-name posing for Playgirl isn't porn? So much for what Oprah thinks! O.K., so Oprah had a difficult beginning. Whoop-de-do! So have many others, but not with the liberals puffing them over the moon to success. They achieved on their own without affirmative politics.

If the leftie loons weren't so afraid of Sarah Palin, they wouldn't be so pathologically paranoid, or even feel the need to mention her name.


Anonymous said...

FreeThinker, I agree that Keynes has nothing to do with Sarah Palin and does veer off topic. But then Keynes has plenty to do with the financial mess that most of the world is mired in today. I think he is a perfect example to look at if one wants to see the depravity that drives those seeking to undermine Western Civilization and replace it with a form of socialist tyranny.

I disagree that Fabian socialism was a form of kinder gentler socialism — they only advocated "gradualism" as opposed to outright revolution advocated by the Bolshevik socialists — but Shaw himself agreed on the ends which were identical to those of Marx, Lenin and Stalin. Shaw also knew about the genocide committed by Stalin, but his ideas, which drove his writing, made him deny and lie about it.

It would be hard to win an argument about the evils of Marxism while upholding Fabian socialism as a form of enlightened or sophisticated socialism since they both desire the same ends, although Fabians like Shaw knew that causing confusion would assist his cause.


sue said...

z - I wrote a note to you meaning for it to be in this post. It's in Obama Body Language by mistake.
Check it out.

christian soldier said...

shoprat said it for me---thanks SR :-)

Elmers Brother said...

I am disappointed that Sarah supported the bailout, because I am very much against bailouts on principle.

On the radio today she made it clear that she did not support the bailouts. I believe she made one remark while still a candidate that was represented as support for a bailout when it was support for McCain, who did support the bailout.

Taxpayers cannot be looked to as a Wall Street bailout. (Sep 2008)

Elmers Brother said...

Q: Do you support the $700 billion bailout?

A: We have to look at the [details of the] bailout. Unless there are amendments in [Treasury Secretary] Paulson’s proposal, I don’t believe that Americans are going to support this and we will not support this.

Elmers Brother said...

Q: Both you and Senator McCain supported the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You both opposed the bailout of government intervention as it relates to Lehman or Merrill. But now we read this morning that AIG is going to get some type of government bailout. Was that the right call?
A: Well, first, Fannie and Freddie were different because they’re quasi-government agencies where government had to step in because of the adverse impacts all across our nation, especially with homeowners. It’s just too impacting, we had to step in there. I do not like the idea though of taxpayers being used to bailout these corporations. Today it was AIG, important call there, though, because of the construction bonds and the insurance carrier duties of AIG. But first and foremost, taxpayers cannot be looked to as the bailout, as the solution to the problems on Wall Street.

Anonymous said...

Well, that's welcome news. Elbro. Thanks.



While the ends are supposed never to justify the means, the tremendous difference between the means advocated by Marxists and those of Fabians make a world of difference in assessing the character of the two movements.

[NOTE: Beatrice Potter should not be confused with Beatrix Potter, the creator of Peter Rabbit and other children's tales.]

••• Fabian Society, British socialist society. An outgrowth of the Fellowship of the New Life (founded 1883 under the influence of Thomas Davidson), the society was developed the following year by Frank Podmore and Edward Pease. George Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb joined soon after this and became its outstanding exponents.

••• The group achieved recognition with the publication of Fabian Essays (1889), with contributions by Shaw, Webb, Annie Besant, and Graham Wallas.

••• The Fabians were opposed to the revolutionary theory of Marxism, holding that social reforms and socialistic "permeation" of existing political institutions would bring about the natural development of socialism.

••• Repudiating the necessity of violent class struggle, they took little notice of trade unionism and other labor movements until Beatrice Potter (who later married Sidney Webb) joined the group.

••• They subsequently helped create (1900) the unified Labour Representation Committee, which evolved into the Labour party. The Labour party adopted their main tenets, and the Fabian Society remains as an affiliated research and publicity agency.


See studies by A. Fremantle (1960), P. Pugh (1984), and F. Lee (1988).

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia® Copyright © 2007, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press.


Fabian Society

Socialist society founded in 1883–84 in London, to establish a democratic socialist state in Britain. The name derived from Fabius Maximus Cunctator, whose elusive tactics in avoiding pitched battles led to victory over stronger forces.

••• Fabians believed in evolutionary socialism rather than revolution, and used public meetings and lectures, research, and publishing to educate the public. Important early members included George Bernard Shaw and Sidney and Beatrice Webb. They helped organize a separate party that became the Labour Party in 1906, and many Labour members of Parliament have been Fabians. + socialist

Nothing in my opinion has ever been QUITE so evil as the naked, unabashed, anarchic, hyper-aggressive, ruthless, unprincipled, viciousness of Marxism.

There are times when style is almost as significance as substance. This is not a defense of Fabian Ideals per se, but rather a defense of the right of peoples everywhere to express their ideas -- however odious -- publicly in a civil manner.

Such is the basis of our own Constitution, and is generally advocated by free men and women everywhere.

We must allow people their inherent God-given right to be wrong -- as long as they don't resort to violence and the establishment of tyranny.

~ FreeThinke

RaDena said...

I really love Sarah Palin and never fell out of love with her, hon. She's got it together! The more the left bashed her the better I iked her.

By the way, she didn't actually do that picture for Newsweek. They got it from somewhere else. According to Hannity this evening the running magazine didn't give it to them either. I don't know how they got it.

I didn't see Oprah, so thanks lots for the report. It sounds like she did a wonderful job! :)

I disagree with one of your Anonymous commenters who doesn't think she is presidential timber. Good grief! If President Obama can become president, then I'm presidential timber! Even I have more experience than he did, and Sarah runs rings around him!

Z said...

G MAN : Palin/Arpaio..ANY DAY OF THE WEEK :-)

Sue...I'm sorry to appear dense, but I have no idea what you mean...where do I check what out?!

Chuck said...

Couple of thoughts

Has Oprah or anyone from the fringe media thought to ask Michelle Obama how much she spent on clothes during the campaign?

Duck and the rest of the idiots on the left like to ridicule Palin. You can understand since they have mental giants such as Joe "the gaffe machine" Biden as VP, Stewart Smiley in the Senate, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, etc, etc

Anonymous said...

Obama may be president, but he is NOT "presidential timber."

The last person who held the office who possessed that quality was Ronald Reagan.

The presidency should never become captive to anyone's "cult of personality."

~ FreeThinke

Z said...

Chuck..or Hillary, right? And no, nobody stops to consider Michelle's costs OR the fact that her staff is five or six times bigger than any First Lady in the past $$$

FT....we need another Reagan very badly

sue said...

z - Don't worry about 'Check it out'. You answered it already.

Elmers Brother said...

seen the more offensive photo?

Anonymous said...

I recently came across a statement where the individual asserts that the worst statement ever uttered by an American President was "we are all Keynesians now" by Nixon in 1971. It struck me as odd that someone would consider that to be the worst statement. To make a long story short it led to the book I mentioned above which shows the power and influence of Keynes and the Fabian society not only in America but on most countries in the world.

It's not the first reference to their power and influence that I've come across. The book "Keynes at Harvard" is based on an earlier book by Sister Maragret McCarran, "Fabianism in the Political Life of Britain". It wasn't well received by her superiors in the Catholic Church either ... but it contains citations for quotations from Shaw, Keynes, the Webbs and other leading voices in the movement.

Gradualism means that groups and societies should be influenced and starting small from the local level of your local horticultural society and PTA eventually to higher circles of power in education, media and government can and should be pushed in the direction of socialism. Then it can become overt and at that point their "brave new world" can be realized.


Name: Soapboxgod said...

"Well those bailouts are totally different than these bailouts."

Sounds all to similar to the protestations that these subsidies [ethanol, professional sports team stadiums, light rail/mass transit, and all other subsidies of which Republicans over the past 8 years have supported] are much different than those subsidies [National Endowment for the Arts, Foodstamps, Section 8, Cash for Clunkers, etc.].

Seriously, if an individual hasn't the intellectual honesty or intestinal fortitude to conclude that they are one and all the same, they deserve the bitter aftertaste of that which is dished up for them.

Another Reagan isn't going to cut it. Reagan was just a man. But the kind of man that he was was someone who not only believed in the things he professed he fought for them even if it was unpopular with traditional orthodoxy. Just as Goldwater before him did. The people have to believe in what they want. They have to be willing to fight for it and they have to understand the principle of the matter. Unfortunately they are not yet ready to do so.

How many (ahem) conservative Republicans profess to be defenders of the Free Market and of Private Property?? I'd bet a whole lot of them huh. And then from that, deduct the number of them that support professional sports team stadium subsidies, smoking bans on private business owners, etc??

Elmers Brother said...

How many (ahem) conservative Republicans profess to be defenders of the Free Market and of Private Property?? I'd bet a whole lot of them huh. And then from that, deduct the number of them that support professional sports team stadium subsidies, smoking bans on private business owners, etc??

Honestly I don't think you'll find many...

neither will you find ones who support the salary caps.

Parity is just euphemism for redistribution.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

You're in the dark if you honestly believe that one. Take a look at some of the potentials the GOP has for 2012.

Pawlenty and Huckabee both support nationwide smoking bans (even on private property owners). Hell Pawlenty signed it into law in Minnesota thus snuffing out (no pun intended) a flurry of businesses in the process.

Pawlenty also signed two publicly funded stadium bills without a referendum. To Huck's credit, he pandered quite well to the Florida crowd on the campaign trail when he said he was supportive of funding for a NASA mission to Mars (this all the while Tom Tancredo shook his head while stating that this was precisely what was wrong in that everyone wants their subsidy but the fact is our resources are finite).

Then there's Newt who sat side by side on a couch with Nancy freekin' Pelosi speaking the virtues of environmentalism.

And let's not forget Romney and his "conversion" nor his healthcare mandate debacle in Mass.

Elmers Brother said...

You're in the dark if you honestly believe that one. Take a look at some of the potentials the GOP has for 2012.

I thought you were referring to the every day Republican, not those in the public forum.

and if they do...we'll not support those policies

Name: Soapboxgod said...

I don't give the everday Republican that much credit either. Can we assume that rightward leaning bloggers are representative of the everyday Republican voter? I've seen enough blog entries and commentary that runs roughshod over any notions of capitalism, individualism, constitutionalism, etc. vindicate my assertions. I'm sorry but at the end of the day, they'll resort to the 11th Commandment (Thou shalt vote the party nominees).

If you want to move the country in a specified direction, you'll have to be willing to lose an election or two. Once you sacrifice principle on any level you cannot expect to win that issue.

Z said...

SOAPBOX, the problem with third party candidates is this is SO NOT THE TIME. Altho I agree with you plenty on your assessments of the Republican candidate possibilities, we are LOSING OUR COUNTRY, more every day, with this moron in power, and we can't afford to do much more.

It's like we're delving so deeply into PC and infighting in this country and, meanwhile, the Chinese, Russians and Iranians and Saudis are licking their chops waiting for the best time to pounce....and obama's handing them the keys to our city, appeasing, taking more money, not drilling here, etc etc etc etc.

So, can we afford to get a guy we know can't win in, though we might like him (or her), at THIS TIME? America's always succeeded through tough times, but we have never had countries stronger than we are, more revered than us by our OWN NEWSPAPERS AND ADMINISTRATIONS, and more eager to finish us off.

And, I haven't even mentioned the muslim threat yet.

Who would you vote for?

Name: Soapboxgod said...

The only reason why third parties don't win is precisely because the voting majority convinces themselves of this. Thus it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Third parties can and do win. They've won in the past [Lincoln] and they've won more recently [Ventura].

People really need to disabuse themselves of their loyalty to a party and supplant it to fidelity to a principle; a cause and then work towards that goal.

The party is merely the conduit; the messenger.

As to who I'd vote for at this juncture...

I will say that my selection would be narrowed down to that portion of individuals who neither voted for the Obama Stimulus nor the Bush/Paulsen bailout which preceded it.

Ducky's here said...

Does this remind anyone else of the scene in "Bull Durham" where "Crash" Davis takes "Nuke" LaLoosh aside and tells him "Come here kid, now we have to work on your cliches."

Z said...

Ducky, what is "THIS"? Stop with the disdain, it doesn't become you and even makes you look a little stupid.

Soapbox, I SO agree about voting principle..I just don't think we have the luxury this time around..not THIS TIME.
I, too, would vote with those two qualifications you mention in your comment; but I will say that any third party candidate would REALLY REALLY have to have a TON of money (never happen) and a TON of charisma to get elected.

We have leftwingers planning to give in Jan or Feb something like 'automatic voting rights' to many people who don't pay taxes, haven't lived here long and, frankly, don't understand out constitution. We have big problems because of leftwinger America hate ,and we have to just vote for ANYBODY who's NOT a liberal; rather like the reason Obama got elected, as witnessed by the East Coast elections 2 weeks or so ago...they went Republican because the dopes who voted for CHARISMA didn't have their CHARISMATIC MESSIDUH to vote for..they didn't show up on principle, they stayed home because they don't care about principle nor do they even apparently READ, they wanted OBAMA EXCITEMENT.

Z said...

I didn't finish my thinking...sorry.

The point being that we have to come up with someone magical and smart and who loves America...and has a ton of dough behind him/her.

If not, we're DEAD (probably even literally) for voting a third party, in my opinion.

MK said...

I wouldn't have thought ill of her if she told oprah to jump her fat ass off a cliff.

But Palin is bigger than petty socialists like oprah.

Ducky's here said...

Watching Sarah Palin being interviewed is always a little like watching an incoherent art-student film or something from a William S. Burroughs fantasy.

Z said...

then you're not listening, Ducky.

Nice try at insults, but don't look now, you're beginning to sound like that doufus Keith Olbermann!

I'm watching him for comedy relief these days. Tonight, I put him on thinking "Let's see how long it takes him to slam Palin". I counted and got to 3.

Man, you guys are SCARED WITLESS


Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Z: I have to agree; there is something in Palin that turns the Left into running drool. On the drool topic, mush-brained women will soon possibly not have anyone to mindlessly adore, as Oprah has indicated she might be giving up her TV show. Some judge's daytime half-hour show is tromping her in ratings.


dmarks said...

Z: Maybe if Ducky had said "William F. Buckley fantasy", it might have made more sense.

dmarks said...

blovi: "as Oprah has indicated she might be giving up her TV show"

I think Oprah should just turn it over to Sarah now.

Z said...

I'm with dMarks on Oprah to Sarah..

was thrilled to hear Oprah'd have to stop brainwashing American women every day until I hear she's starting her own cable channel. CNN was all agrin yesterday (Rick Sanchez, the LOUT) about how HER station will really outdo "that station which thinks it's so hot" (or words to that affect)...he makes me puke...oh, sorry, a lady shouldn't say that.
Ah, well. She just did! :-)

Ducky's here said...

It's sad that Palin's followers will not know that she is the perfect patsy for our system, designed as it is to channel popular anger in any direction but a useful one, and to keep the public tied up endlessly in pointless media melees over meaningless nonsense (melees of the sort that develop organically around Palin everywhere she goes).
Like George W. Bush, even Palin herself doesn't know this, another reason she's such a perfect political tool.

Z said...

Ducky, stop the socialist rantings....
I absolutely understand your point but this woman's tapped into real anger at the socialist CRAP you and yours are hoisting on us and that's not HER FAULT.

If she's focusing the anger, more power to her. We need someone like that to get us out of this unAmerican MESS the Left's created. And, no, I don't hold Bush innocent because TARP brought us down this road.

Anonymous said...

I've been fascinated by the dead silence on the part of feminists over the disgusting, pointedly sexist treatment Sarah has received.

This just proves once again that the Feminist Agenda has little or nothing to do with the rights of WOMEN. Rather it's about the establishment of Socialist DICTATORSHIP.

ALL the grievance junkies and the "environmentalcases" are unified in their determination to use any and every means possible to destroy our constitutional republic and bring Liberty to her knees.

~ FreeThinke