Gay Patriot Header Image

Sarah Palin & the Need to Communicate the Gipper’s Vision

As I finished Sarah Palin’s book earlier this morning, I wondered if she were the right person to spearhead a Republican Renaissance in the United States.  She clearly understands why our party has lost its way, but remains a controversial figure, even a divisive one.  The mere mention of her name whips a huge segment of the American left into a frenzy.

But, even if she is not the right person to lead the GOP, Sarah Palin can help carry the Republican message forward; she certainly understands what has been ailing our party in recent years.  Toward the end of her book, she gets at the twin failures which have plagued the GOP, losing sight of our small-government principles and failing to communicate those principles.  To be sure, she recognizes the challenge of articulating them:

It’s easy to promise free medical care and a chicken in every pot.  It’s more difficult to explain how we’re going to pay for it all and to explain why social programs that were supposed to help the poor have ended up hurting them, becoming unsustainable financial liabilities for all of us.  Ronald Reagan was the last president to explain this to us.

Somewhere along the way, those clear principles got lost.  People look at the Republican Party today–the supposedly conservative party—and say, “What happened to the Reagan legacy?”

In short, the issue is not just conservative ideas, but communicating those ideas.  One reason I believe Sarah Palin matters is that she has shown a knack for communicating that vision and connecting with voters that few Republican politicians have shown in recent years.

And the Republican Party, despite it rises in most polls in recent days, still has an image problem.  Many young voters still see ours as the party of backward-looking social conservatives.  A Hollywood friend recently dismissed the GOP as “old-fashioned.”

No wonder some in the media wish to portray Mrs. Palin as a troglodytic social conservative.  It helps maintain the party’s backward image.

T the GOP has lost favor with many suburbanites and young voters, in large part, because in becoming indistinguishable from the Democrats on fiscal issues (as we did in the pre-01/20/09 era), it allowed people to see social issues as the only distinguishing aspect of the GOP.   And with confidence in our political leaders on the wane in recent years, people turned to the out party (then, the Democrats).

Today, the GOP is gaining because we are now the “out” party.  

To build on those gains, however, we can’t rest content in being the “not Barack Obama” party, we need offer an optimistic vision, showing that ours is the party of choices, freedom and innovation.  We need leaders like the Gipper who can communicate the optimistic message of conservatism to the next generation.

And we need politicians who adhere to Reaganite principles once in office.



  1. Sarah Palin is for Republicans what Adam Lambert is for gays. I am extremely disappointed in Adam Lambert. His performance on AMA simply reinforces every gay stereotype. He demonstrates that the default position for anyone in the gay community is sexual liberation, gender-bending, and anti-tradition (a stereotype which is also reinforced by Ellen’s new haircut). Please, stop! Just stop! Can’t gays do something new? Is every talented gay man destined to become another Freddie Mercury/Elton John/George Michael clone?

    In the same way, Sarah Palin, wonderful as she is, reinforces the fact that Republicans must be anti-intellectual (though she’s smart), fundamentalist instead of mainline, uncultured philistines who like to kill things. Her dispensationalist view of the Rapture and Israel does not help build bridges to people who don’t turn to the Scofield Reference Bible for suggestions on foreign policy. Is she now going to be mentored by Franklin Graham? Oh, Jesus, no!

    She, like Lambert, has a great chance here, and both seem to be wasting it by simply morphing into rather than confronting and changing their admirers.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — November 28, 2009 @ 3:12 pm - November 28, 2009

  2. The reason she sends us into a frenzy is that she is George Bush in lipstick – barely articulate, lazy, thin-skinned and incurious. We are rightly terrified that the right is going to elect her via Rove’s 50+1 strategy and that she’ll finish the job Bush started by destroying this once-great country once and for all.

    But I took heart in reading this article. If Republicans really think their party’s problem is its image and that all they need to take back the govt is better messaging, there is hope for America after all.

    Yes, the image — old, white haters — is horrible, but the core problem isn’t packaging, it’s the package. Independent voters will be comparing GOP claims that they’re competent at running the economy and defense with the record: Under Bush, the economy crashed (again) and the biggest military blunder in U.S. military history was committed.

    Comment by Caheunga — November 28, 2009 @ 5:18 pm - November 28, 2009

  3. Her dispensationalist view of the Rapture and Israel does not help build bridges to people who don’t turn to the Scofield Reference Bible for suggestions on foreign policy.
    ______________________________________________________Well, that is what she believes, if you don’t I would say there is a parting of the ways….and if you ARE Gay then Palin believes you are an abomination. End of story….I mean, as WONDERFUL AS SHE IS…

    Comment by DEO — November 28, 2009 @ 5:41 pm - November 28, 2009

  4. I’m sorry–where did Palin say gays are an abomination? Where does the Bible say that? As far as I can see, and I’ve read the Bible over and over, there is no word for homosexual in the Bible. So I don’t know what you’re talking about.

    I condemn any sexual behavior which involves exploitation, multiple partners, open relationships, gender-bending or anything which goes against one’s God-given orientation. If that’s what Palin believes, then I, as a gay man, am completely with her and against Adam Lambert’s understanding of what it means to be gay.

    I don’t agree with Palin on what it means to be conservative, though. I find myself sticking with Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Olympia Snowe, and Hillary Clinton.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — November 28, 2009 @ 6:13 pm - November 28, 2009

  5. I don’t agree with Palin on what it means to be conservative, though. I find myself sticking with Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Olympia Snowe, and Hillary Clinton.

    In other words, being conservative to sucker people into voting for you and then pissing on them while taking a sharp left turn. How is that desirable?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 28, 2009 @ 7:49 pm - November 28, 2009

  6. DEO, please provide the evidence behind your claim that Sarah Palin believes we’re an abomination. Thanks.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 28, 2009 @ 8:45 pm - November 28, 2009

  7. Um, Cahuenga, independent voters are looking at Republicans and a majority now prefer the GOP to the Democrats.

    And I do hope you read my post; it’s not just messaging, it’s returning to conservative economic principles.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 28, 2009 @ 8:46 pm - November 28, 2009

  8. I love Sarah Palin posts because they bring out all of the hate and insanity in the modern left. DEO is a classic example.

    Ashpenaz is actually on to something. Much as I love Sarah Palin, her negatives are simply too high for her to make a viable presidential candidate. It would be like when we ran Ollie North for U.S. Senate here in Virginia against Sen. Chuck Robb in 1994. Robb was a terrible Senator and weak candidate, but won anyway because so many people came out out just to vote against North.

    Palin can serve her party and the cause of conservatism by doing what she’s doing now; political punditry and headlining fundraisers. She can act as “kingmaker,” giving her blessing nor not to aspiring candidates. She’ll keep the GOP honest and keep out the corrupt Ted Stevens types and the RINO Olympia Showe types. Works for me.

    Comment by Tom the Redhunter — November 28, 2009 @ 9:19 pm - November 28, 2009

  9. I think that being a conservative, like Nelson and Snowe, et. al., means not blindly conforming to one’s party but looking at each issue individually and applying common sense values. I don’t think the religious right or the loony left, that is, the extremes of either party are helping. I’d rather see Sarah Palin use her obvious common sense to deal with each issue rather that simply morph into a caricature of some version of conservatism.

    My Adam Lambert comparison comes from the same desire–wouldn’t it have been great if he’d used his immense vocal talents to sing a song of deep, monogamous love–and then, in that context, kissed a guy on TV? What’s the point of simply playing to the Pride/bar/Advocate crowd? Why not surprise us all by connecting gay love with monogamy and values? Why not be the Kris Allen of the gay community?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — November 28, 2009 @ 9:19 pm - November 28, 2009

  10. Cus he’s Adam Lambert, not Chris Allen. Always was.

    And Olympia Snowe and Hillary are conservative???

    To quote Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 28, 2009 @ 10:34 pm - November 28, 2009

  11. Why not surprise us all by connecting gay love with monogamy and values? Why not be the Kris Allen of the gay community?

    Because in his business, nobody’s buying that. It’s all sex, all the time, no matter what your sexual orientation. He’d have to move into country music for monogamy to sell, and personally I’m not sure how well homosexual monogamy with a twang would sell. On the other hand, there might be a niche market for it.

    Comment by Amy K. — November 29, 2009 @ 12:16 am - November 29, 2009

  12. If, indeed, Sarah Palin is not anti-gay, you’d never know it from the treatment she is getting in the “progressive” media.

    And if she doesn’t view gays as an abomination, I would genuinely like to know it. I don’t like thinking ill of people unjustly, and I’ve been listening almost totally, of late, to the side that’s busy tarring her.

    Time, I think, for me to bleach Andrew Sullivan out of my brain. He, Rachel, Keith and the rest of that crowd are becoming unbearable.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 29, 2009 @ 12:16 am - November 29, 2009

  13. He should ask Big and Rich, they can sell anything.

    Comment by Amy K. — November 29, 2009 @ 12:18 am - November 29, 2009

  14. Ashpenaz, you seem to be saying that there’s something mainstream or even–dare I say it?– traditional about homosexuality. Well, there isn’t. While comdemning Adam Lambert you willfully forget that the gay rights movement is a product of the sexual liberationist ideology you appear to reject. The gay rights movement is NOT a product of conservatism.

    I find you to be a subversive. Someone who claims to be something while actually working to undermine or destroy it from within. Social liberals want social conservatism destroyed because they see it as a product of Judeo-Christian values, which they despise. You, too, seem to want social conservatism destroyed even while calling yourself a conservative. Apparently, you think conservatism should be reduced to nothing but a set of economic principles while abandoning the social/cultural aspect of it. Is that the only way you can be both gay and “conservative”?

    Yet, while evidencing discomfort with social conservativism when advocated by straights, you think that gays should ape the straight, socially conservative ideal: monogamous, faithful marriage. Apparently, you think that in this manner homosexuality can be made traditional; it can’t, because it isn’t. And where do you get the authority for your view? The Bible? I think not.

    You say, correctly, that the Bible doesn’t use the word “homosexual”, but then you draw the utterly erroneous conclusion that the Good Book is silent on the subject. Far from it. Just because the word “homosexual” isn’t in the Bible doesn’t mean that the behavior isn’t there; it’s just expressed in a different way. When God’s Word says don’t “lie with a man as with a woman”, it’s clear to all intellectually honest people what’s meant. But if you want to quibble over words, I’ll remind you that the word “monogamy” isn’t in the Bible, either. So what does that do for your fervent advocacy of that marital arrangement?

    Ashpenaz, just because a modern word isn’t used in the Bible doesn’t mean that the concept or behavior defined by that modern word isn’t in there. And it certainly doesn’t mean that God hasn’t spoken on the subject.

    As a social as well as fiscal conservative I greatly resent the effort to eradicate social convervatism from culture, politics, and even our very psyches. Social conservatives (socons) believe that America wasn’t made great by particular economic principles alone, but also by a Biblically-based social order that provided the moral character necessary for success. As de Tocqueville said, “America is great because America is GOOD.” (emphasis added) Ironically, that Biblically-based social order also provided much of the rationale for the free market economic principles that folks like you, Ashpenaz, think should be the only thing conservatism should be about.

    I have rambled, and I apologize. The post was about Sarah Palin and somehow the comments here lead me to a defense of social conservatism and a critique of the anti-socon “conservatives”. I hope I didn’t come across as too “backward” to you Ashpenaz and your fellow socially liberal, tightwad “conservatives”.

    I don’t believe that socially conservative principles are backward. I believe they are VITAL to the survival of our culture, too vital to be tossed aside for the sake of winning elections or being popular. In Sarah Palin I believe we socons have a golden opportunity to present our beliefs for what they truly are, not backward but a return to the founding moral, and not just economic, principles that made our nation great. That’s what conservatism is really about, and Sarah Palin knows it.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — November 29, 2009 @ 12:23 am - November 29, 2009

  15. Lori, now that I’ve finished Palin’s book, I am considering a number of blog posts on that good woman. I have flagged a few passages where she addresses gay issues and identifies her lesbian friend (without using the “l” word). I will blog on that, possibly as soon as this weekend.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 29, 2009 @ 12:30 am - November 29, 2009

  16. Palin’s best friend is gay. She extended rights to same sex couples in Alaska.

    She doesn’t agree with the term “marriage” being applied to gay couples.

    I’m fine with that as long as partners are given a civil union, if the want it, that has all of the legal protections of marriage in a court of law, in a hospital, and in a home.

    Gay is relationships….not sex. The sex should be secondary and we make a big mistake if we make it the primary issue.

    Comment by Libby — November 29, 2009 @ 5:36 am - November 29, 2009

  17. Cahuenga

    Isn’t that a Hank Williams song?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 29, 2009 @ 6:18 am - November 29, 2009

  18. I think that being a conservative, like Nelson and Snowe, et. al., means not blindly conforming to one’s party but looking at each issue individually and applying common sense values.

    Applying common sense values like endorsing Chairman Obama and participating in the “Gang of 14”?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 29, 2009 @ 6:37 am - November 29, 2009

  19. First let’s not forget that Snow voted FOR the Tarp.

    However, Dan, I agree that while Sarah Palin is an excellent spokesperson for us, she can’t be the 2012 candidate, P or VP.

    Has anyone heard that they served collard greens at the state dinner?
    I guess there isn’t arsenic in the garden afterall.

    Comment by PatriotMom — November 29, 2009 @ 6:55 am - November 29, 2009

  20. It would appear that, save Seane-Anna’s brilliant comments, being a gay patriot places gay ahead of being a patriot.

    I am always disappointed when I meet single issue voters, but I understand them. They have no concern for anyone or anything else over their issue. That is life at its most simple.

    When Sarah Palin trashes all gays on the planet, I will forgive the pity party comments. Meanwhile, I believe her primitive Bible thumping, knuckle dragging self has the same heart toward gays as Dick Cheney. If Trig had tested “gay” he would still be in her arms. (Please, I know there is no “gay” test, it is a point of fact about Palin, not science.)

    Meanwhile, the idea that Palin should be the warm up act for the eventual crowd pleasing real candidate is stunning. Who will it be? The Mormon, the county preacher, the other Bush, the Minority, the Mississippi Mud cat? It is a two year run for 2012 and within two months the players need to be seriously practicing the hat toss.

    I am not interested in any moderate, Democrat lite politician. The woods are full of smooth talkers who will promise to make miracles happen while playing inside the beltway business as usual.

    We are either ready to risk a revolution or we are not. I would far rather follow a “warts and all” Palin than throw myself at the feet of a messianic Obama or throw it all away on a “my turn” professional politician.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 29, 2009 @ 10:03 am - November 29, 2009

  21. 1. Palin supported TARP. The McCain-Palin campaigned was suspended so that McCain could go back to Washington and “manage” the crisis — by holding a photo op.

    2. Leviticus 20:13 says that men who have sex with each other are committing abominations and that they should both put to death. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, we are also told that eating ham is an abomination, as is dining on lobster, shrimp, clams, eel, squid and octopus. Other abominations: having your fortune told, burning incense and — my personal favorite abomination — women wearing pants.

    Jesus only mentions one abomination: the love of money.

    As sins go, abominations are bad, but what is much much worse is adultery, which is mentioned twice in the Ten Commandments — the only Old Testament laws that weren’t rescinded by Jesus by his New Covenant (which means all the abominations, including Leviticus 20:13, have been null and void since Jesus’ death 1,978 years ago).

    Adultery is specifically forbidden with its own Commandment and referenced in another Commandment that says men must not covet their neighbor’ wife. (Men are also forbidden in the same commandment from coveting their neighbors’ asses, but this is not a gay reference.)

    It has become our practice these days in the United States to base our laws regarding gay civil rights on Old Testament edicts, but you’ll notice that you never hear the Bible thumpers calling for rescinding the rights of heterosexual adulterers — making it illegal for them to marry again and adopt kids, or making it legal for them to be fired or evicted for no other reason than their status as sinners.

    What’s ironic about this is that adultery is the real threat to so-called “traditional” marriage. (In the Old Testament the “traditional” practice was polygamy — even Father Abraham had more than one wife.) Adultery causes broken homes and single-parent households, which are hotbeds for poverty and social disorder.

    3. But Mr. Blatt, it’s conservative so-called principles that are the problem — that are the “package.” When presidents have put these principles into practice it has more often than not led to disaster — see the administrations of Coolidge, Hoover and Bush II, for example. Conversely, Nixon did not hew to conservative principles but created massive new government agencies, including the EPA, and instituted price controls. Reagan raised taxes every year of his presidency and blew an enormous hole in the debt.

    In the laboratory of the states, the states that are ruled under the jackboot of so-called conservatism are among the poorest: Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina and Idaho.

    It just doesn’t work. It is a Ayn Randian fantasy. The true objective of the Republican Party — based on what they have done when they have power, not on their patriotic and “power to the individuals” jingoism — is to cede control of the government to mega-corporation.

    Conservative corporatism is the cancer that is destroying this country. If Tea Baggers had a lick of sense, they’d be up in arms about that, instead of the mass delusion they’ve been fed by Hannity, Beck et al that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim socialist fascist and the rest.

    My point is this. Attack politics is easy, and it’s all the Republicans have right now. That’s been their campaign since January — astroturfing the Tea Baggers is a key element — to drive down the president’s poll numbers.

    But at some point, a Republican leader — Pawlenty? Romney? Palin? — is going to have to stand before the American people — normal Americans, not just the right wing media echo chamber — and say with a straight face: Give Republicans control of the government because we are competent at running the economy and defense.

    At that moment, the GOP attack campaign will come to an end because Republicans will abruptly find themselves on defense, forced to explain to independent voters why and how they won’t drive the country to the edge of ruin again this time.

    George Bush, Dick Cheney, Mitch McConnnell and John Boehner did not just ruin the Republican brand in 2008, they destroyed it for a generation at least. There won’t be a “Republican renewal” until some GOP candidate has the cojones to stand up and repudiate what the Republicans did during their six years of absolute control of the government — because until that happens, every GOP candidate is going to be forced to defend what Bush et al did over and over during the campaign season.

    Right now, there’s no one out there with the credibility, much less the gonads, to say it and be believed.

    Comment by Caheunga — November 29, 2009 @ 10:30 am - November 29, 2009

  22. Sarah Palin is the best spokesperson the Republicans have now? You better re-think that.

    Comment by Kevin — November 29, 2009 @ 1:07 pm - November 29, 2009

  23. Cahuenga, are you trying to provoke laughter?

    If you think attack politics are all the GOP has, you’ve missed the last thirty years of American political history. And have ignored the various Democratic successes (and failures) of the past decade, particularly the treatment they accorded to the woman whose name appears in the title to this post.

    That you would use the term “tea bagger” to describe the tea party protests instantly discredits you. And to see them as “astroturf” misrepresents the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Americans who took to the streets to protest big government.

    GOP attack campaign? LOL, go look at the language of your comment, you’ve bought into the left-wing attack campaign on conservatives, calling our legitimate protests “astroturf” and sliming us with a sexual reference.

    Oh, and um, did you follow the link I provided in comment #7, it’ll answer your point about GOP being destroyed for a generation. Here it is again. Gallup has GOP leading on generic congressional ballot, something very rare in polling history, even in years when Republicans do well at the ballot box

    Since Gallup regularly began using the generic ballot to measure registered voters’ preferences for the House of Representatives in 1950, it has been rare for Republicans to have an advantage over Democrats

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 29, 2009 @ 1:19 pm - November 29, 2009

  24. The poll results are not surprising. Attack campaigns — including fabricated ones like the racially tinged Tea Bagger nonsense — work. But one day the GOP will have to stop attacking, voting no, etc. and start telling independent voters in an affirmative way what they would do, if elected, to fix the nation’s problems.

    At that point, Republicans will be forced off offense and onto defense because every problem we face today erupted into a crisis on their watch under Bush.

    Comment by Caheunga — November 29, 2009 @ 1:41 pm - November 29, 2009

  25. Um, Caheunga, if you read this blog, you’d know that I agree with you that the GOP needs to tell voters what they would do. And some, indeed, are already doing that, but not yet on a national scale, though from my sources, plans are underway to do just that. And anyway, that’s what this post is about (if you bothered to read it).

    As to your first paragraph, you do seem dedicated to provoking my laughter. Except in the feverish minds of the most rabid anti-conservatives like Janeane Garofalo, there is no evidence of any racial tinging at the tea party protests.

    And that you continue to use the sexual smear suggests you are anything but a dispassionate observer, but instead a narrow-minded partisan with strong prejudices against conservative ideas and activists. But, at least a source of amusement to this blogger.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 29, 2009 @ 2:01 pm - November 29, 2009

  26. Hmmmm, Cahuenga, I attended the Tea Party protest here in my home town and I’m Black, so how is the TP movement racially tinged? The only thing racially tinged is the warped paradigm of libtards like you who think all they need do to discredit a movement is to associate it with White people. Talk about racist.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — November 29, 2009 @ 2:52 pm - November 29, 2009

  27. My guess is that Palin will move to Montana or Idaho or somewhere like that and run for Senate. I think that would be her best move. After some time in the Senate, I think she’d probably make a great Presidential candidate. But she needs a bit more time.

    In my heart of hearts, I still want Hillary to be the first woman president. And she is a moderate/conservative, no matter how she’s been painted. I hope she and Palin do lunch sometime, the way they’ve mentioned.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — November 29, 2009 @ 3:31 pm - November 29, 2009

  28. We know the GOP plan: cut taxes, drive up spending, deregulate our corporate masters, war War WAR.

    Unfortunately, in the real world, normal Americans remember how that worked out last time. Yes, Americans have short memories but, come on, the Great Bush Recession started just 14 months ago.

    Apparently, they don’t show the plenitude of racist posters depicting the president from the rallies on Fox.

    Legitimate movements usually coalesce around a single issue: war, abortion, civil rights. The visuals from Tea Bag events present a cacophony of issues — generally whatever anti-Obama preconceived narrative Fox is dishing out that week. The messaging is so wildly inconsistent — the protesters are angry about so many things — that the visuals from the rallies presented to the casual viewer read like racism: Mobs of angry rednecks castigating the black president.

    And it wasn’t us who showed up at tea bag events with tea bags stapled to our heads. If the frat boys at Freedomworks who cooked up all this fakery didn’t see a problem with the tea bag as an icon for their astroturf movement, Tea Baggers shouldn’t blame their betters for teasing them unmercifully. It is richly deserved.

    In any case, the Republican establishment is going to vaporize the Tea Baggers before 2012. They have to stop it in order to survive. Otherwise, the Tea Baggers will form an independent party, which will split the dwindling, aging conservative movement and kill the GOP.

    May it rest in peace.

    Comment by Caheunga — November 29, 2009 @ 3:37 pm - November 29, 2009

  29. Wow, Caheunga, you do need to vent your spleen. Wonder why it is that folks like you need to insult the tea party protesters while denying the sincerity of their motives.

    Wonder what’s behind your prejudice against conservatives and your hatred of Republicans. You do harbor a lot of animosity. And ignorance.

    Hope your venting here makes you feel better; it certainly does provide amusement to this blogger as he babysits his 1-year-old nephew who does seem to have greater control over his bowel movements than you do over your bile.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 29, 2009 @ 3:47 pm - November 29, 2009

  30. Cahengua, you can go back to your nick of Levi now.

    Gods, can you compress more talking points into one packet?

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 29, 2009 @ 6:46 pm - November 29, 2009

  31. We know the GOP plan: cut taxes

    Yay! Only a fascist Democrat could say that like allowing people to keep more of their own money is a bad thing.

    drive up spending

    NOPE! Wrong. sorry. Republicans did drive up spending briefly after 9/11 (Democrats wanted to spend MORE on everything by the way), but they had been DECREASING spending since 2003, and according to the CBO, were on track to have the deficit completely ELIMINATED by 2010.

    It wasnt until DEMOCRATS got into power that spending exploded.

    deregulate our corporate masters

    I dont have ANY corporate master, I dont know what youre talking about. No corporation has ANY power over me or you or anyone else. Only government can force you to do things against your will, not corporations, and YOU are the one who wants government to have more power over people, not us.

    war War WAR.

    Check your history books dummy, Democrats have gotten the United States into FAR more war than Republicans ever have.

    Why do you hate the truth so much? What did it ever do to you?

    Comment by American Elephant — November 29, 2009 @ 8:03 pm - November 29, 2009

  32. It seems some of the leftists in here missed the recent elections in NJ and VA where the obamaphile leftists were routed.
    As the man made global warming balloon floats away, cap and tax whithers, what will be the next crisis that the left has us focus on?
    Homeless, starving children, swine flu… to be some horrific crisis that needs govt intervention immediately.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 29, 2009 @ 8:14 pm - November 29, 2009

  33. In the laboratory of the states, the states that are ruled under the jackboot of so-called conservatism are among the poorest: Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina and Idaho.

    Last I looked, those states were managing quite nicely to balance their budgets.

    Not so for the “rich” states like California and New York, both under the literal jackboots of liberals and both staring at tens of BILLIONS of dollars in debt.

    Wonder why openly attacking businesses, imposing massive tax increases on “the rich”, and so forth produce such rotten results?

    Probably because businesses and corporations are the lifeblood of the country’s economy, and trying to drive them out and suppress them in favor of the welfare state is a recipe for complete economic collapse and disaster.

    You have tried to destroy corporations already, Cahuenga, and California and New York are basket-case examples of why it’s a dumb idea.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2009 @ 10:28 pm - November 29, 2009

  34. Just to add to what NDT said, all the states with the worst unemployment: Michigan, Delaware, California, etc are BLUE states, and all the states with the lowest unemployment are RED states.

    And Americans are voting with their feet. People and businesses are fleeing the high taxation and regulation of liberal areas, running as fast as they can from blue states and fleeing TO red states. California, New York, the northeast, west, are ALL losing population, and the midwest and south are gaining. Only illegal immigrants are increasing their numbers in liberal areas, which is precisely why the criminals currently running the country specifically prohibited census workers from asking if people are legal citizens.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 29, 2009 @ 11:55 pm - November 29, 2009

  35. Unfortunately, in the real world, normal Americans remember how that worked out last time.

    Normal Americans remember how we had 52 consecutive months of jobs added and the highest income of treasury revenues ever. At least until the liberals took over the purse strings and their flaming shit bag of home loans for all exploded in our faces.

    In the laboratory of the states, the states that are ruled under the jackboot of so-called conservatism are among the poorest: Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina and Idaho.

    Interestingly, we saw the colossal failure of liberalism in Louisiana exposed by hurricane Katrina. Florida, Texas, Alabama and Mississippi all rolled up their sleeves and got to work rebuilding their states after hurricanes. The “leaders” of Louisiana blamed Bush and wallowed in the mud wailing for Uncle Sugar to save them. This was, of course, after they had secured their own housing.

    Perhaps you can explain how liberalism is panning out in the failed state of Michigan.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 30, 2009 @ 12:20 am - November 30, 2009

  36. And then liberals are SOOOOOOO compassionate that they’ll give Landrieu $300M to vote for their job killing, state killing, liberty killing, healthcare killing (etc.) ObamaCareless pork fest and to hell with all the other states devastated by hurricanes.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 30, 2009 @ 6:16 am - November 30, 2009

  37. Fox is busily and successfully rewriting the history of what happened under the GOP but your problems is that only about 1 percent of the country watch Fox. The other 99 percent of normal Americans remember that it was Bush and the GOP who crashed the economy and royally screwed up two wars.

    That’s the record every Republican who stands for national office will have to defend, especially in 2012.

    I’ll let the personal broadsides go in consideration of the source: Victims of Stockholm Syndrome who are desperate to belong to a straight white males’ club where not only will they never be welcomed, they are loathed.

    Comment by Caheunga — November 30, 2009 @ 9:22 am - November 30, 2009

  38. I’ll let the personal broadsides go in consideration of the source: Victims of Stockholm Syndrome who are desperate to belong to a straight white males’ club where not only will they never be welcomed, they are loathed.

    Which is a highly-convenient and typical sour-grapes argument from those who are too lazy and self-centered to take responsibility for their own failures. You can’t compete, so you attack and try to destroy those who can. Classic moocher behavior, based on jealousy and envy, and a delusional belief that the secret of life is not to improve yourself, but to tear everyone else down to your level.

    Plus, it’s highly amusing; given how obsessive and hateful they are towards “straight white males”, it’s a fine demonstration that so-called “tolerant” liberals are the biggest racists, sexists, and phobics around. Again, their jealousy and hatred of other peoples’ successes leads them to try to drag those people down into the muck in which liberals wallow.

    The other 99 percent of normal Americans remember that it was Bush and the GOP who crashed the economy and royally screwed up two wars.

    And again, amusement; liberals like Cahuenga already are acknowledging that their Barack Obama is a failure, a fool who has only succeeded in demonstrating his own incompetence and the effects of a lifetime based on racism, and thus have no choice but to basetheir entire 2010 and 2012 strategy on “blame Bush”.

    For Obama, this likely makes sense; after all, as a black man, he has always been able to blame “whitey” for all of his failures. But unfortunately, he’s already three-quarters of the way to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and by 2012, it’s not likely that the vast majority of the American electorate will take well to screaming tirades of “racist” and how they’re personally responsible for Obama’s failures.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 1, 2009 @ 2:56 am - December 1, 2009

  39. End italics.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 1, 2009 @ 2:56 am - December 1, 2009

  40. Dear Santa-Patriot,

    NDT wants an edit button for Christmas.


    Comment by The_Livewire — December 1, 2009 @ 6:50 am - December 1, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.