No Collaboration

The opening shots of the war for the soul of the Republican Party have been fired. . . by the moderates. Not two days after the election, McCain aides are viciously attacking Sarah Palin in a move that seems to me very preconceived, as if this was their contingency plan all along if they lost. Regardless of the validity of their claims (I am skeptical) these attacks have nothing to do with Palin's shopping habits or her intelligence. These attacks are coming this quickly because she's a right wing conservative. The moderates are panicked. They need a scape goat other than McCain in order to keep their grip on the party going into Obama's administration. Palin is an up and coming conservative star ripe for the targeting. If the moderates can succeed in painting the election as a referendum on Palin, they can deflect blame for the plight of the Republican Party.

This is where 2012 starts for us. Conservatives have to win back this party. We cannot let the moderates create a narrative that destroys Sarah Palin and whitewashes their own complicity in our ignoble defeat. If the moderates succeed in reaffirming their grip on the GOP, the consequences would be devastating. Already Democrats are conspiring with Republican moderates to have McCain lead the "opposition" in the Senate. This is what I mean when I say McCain should be nowhere near party leadership in the Senate. This ugliness serves to remind me why I never liked John McCain and why it pained me so much to vote for him. He is no conservative and no friend to conservatives. He is self serving and will destroy party unity to serve his own ends (see the gang of 14). This new found congeniality between McCain and Democrats is telling:

"Before resting from the grueling presidential race, John McCain began discussing with senior aides what role he will play in the Senate now that he has promised to work with the man who defeated him for president."

Hmm. . . I wonder what he discussed with his senior aides?

"The attacks on Ms Palin are set to intensify, with McCain aides keen to dish the dirt on their boss's running mate. One aide estimated Ms Palin had spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $US150,000. . . Another aide offered the "Wasilla hillbillies" comparison and said the truth would eventually come out."

This is the real, nasty, John McCain. The one who has hated conservatives at least since the 2000 campaign This is the John McCain that I didn't know if I could vote for. This is the John McCain we're now getting. Let me say it one more time: NO. WHERE. NEAR. PARTY. LEADERSHIP. McCain's quasi-liberalism is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Our opposition will be difficult enough without our party leadership openly colluding with liberal Democrats. Remember, "cooperating" with liberals never means that they make concessions. It means you adopt their liberal position or else you are a bitter partisan. Ann Coulter's definition of stare decisis is a perfect description of the liberal attitude toward negotiating with conservatives: "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable." This is what a McCain/moderate leadership means for us. We don't persuade or oppose them, we concede and abdicate in the hopes of getting part of the credit for whatever Pelosi/Reid/Obama do. In short, "me too" liberalism.

This of course is the opposite of what we need. We must be opposition in the fullest sense of the word. No "bipartisanship" or cooperation. Are we conservatives or not? The whites could have avoided many conflicts with the Bolsheviks if they had acted in a "spirit of bipartisanship", but they still would have all ended up living under communism. We must fight them, tooth and nail, and it starts now with the defense of Sarah Palin and unapologetic conservatism.

No Collaboration!

What If The Moose Was Uppity?

"If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention. Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through."

So says esteemed Florida Democrat Alcee Hastings. Now, I'll admit, I'm not much of a hunter, and I've never stripped a moose. I do however, know many hunters who I suppose could be described as "gun toting" and who certainly have stripped a deer at least. Contrary to Congressman Hastings' fears, I've never known any of them to harm a black person or a Jew, unless their descriptions of their hunting trips are completely eronious. I'm not sure how moose come into this, but I'm assuming that Congressman Hastings sees gun ownership as some sort of precursor to a racially motivated crime. I can assure the good Congressman that at least here in Missouri, there are many black men who tote guns and go hunting. And they, like their white counterparts, rarely if ever go on pogroms when they return.

Perhaps if Congressman Hastings is truly concerned about violent gun crimes, he should turn his attention elsewhere. It is a common misconception that most gun violence is motivated by the Alaskan moose hunting culture. In reality, most gun crimes are commited by blacks against other blacks in intercity urban areas. Many would be surprised that Sarah Palin and her moose feud have little if any significance to this problem. I would argue that much of this violence can be attributed to a violent ganster culture that has become a fixture of the urban black community. Perhaps Congressman Hastings believes Barry Obama can "organize" these communities into more productive pass time activities like say, moose hunting? (I kid, I kid)

In Florida, I would assume that aligators are responsible for the deaths of more blacks and Jews than Alaskan moose hunters. Regaldless Congressman, your fears, while honest mistakes, are batshit crazy. I think Governor Palin has bigger worries than organizing the next kristallnacht.

A Hick Response

I was contemplating commenting on this bizarre anti-Palin rant by some weirdly vindictive Canadian (well, that's not fair to Canadians, whom I can only hope aren't frothing at the mouth with this much anti-American hatred) that's been making the rounds on the blogosphere, but LILEKS has already dismantled it so thoroughly, that there's not much more to say, but a few comments:

LILEKS: "You know, at some point the contempt the author has for the hicks has to be answered in the same terms. People don’t vote for Republicans on social issues to give themselves 'self-esteem' because of their 'broken existence,' and it’s the usual stupid reductive economic-uber-alles groupthink that makes her say such stupid things. If they had better jobs, they’d support abortion, redefining marriage, and firearms restrictions! The question of 'what’s the matter with Kansas' was posed by someone who couldn’t figure out why Kansas folk weren’t asking 'What’s the matter with us?' It’s the same bitter-guns-&-God-clinger notion that dogs another candidate, and it’s contemptuous – I mean, for heaven’s sake, who the hell is she to say the people of Kansas have a 'broken existence'? It almost sounds as if she is proudly overlettered, suspicious of the non-urban, and frankly disbelieving of the 'domestic.'

It pains me, but here is the quote by Heather Mallick that LILEKS is commenting on:

"The conventioneers are nothing like the rich men who run the party, and that's the mystery of the hick vote. They'd be much better served by the Democrats. I know Thomas Frank answered this in What's the Matter with Kansas?; I know that red states vote Republican on social issues to give themselves the only self-esteem available to their broken, economically abused existence."

This is possibly my biggest problem with the intellectual left. They see lower class GOP voters as simpletons who have been bamboozled into voting Republican by GOP slight of hand with social issues like abortion and gay marriage. "You idiot, don't you know the Democrats will give you stuff for free?! If only you weren't such a homophobe, Democrats would own this country! That's the only possible reason poor, white trash, midwesterners could possibly have for not voting Democrat when we offer them so many handouts." Nothing pisses me off more than this "What's the Matter With Kansas?" line of reasoning. Did it ever occur to you that "hick midwesterners" don't vote for the party of entitlments because they have more pride than that? Maybe they don't vote for "enlightened liberals" not because they've been fooled by James Dobson into voting against their economic interests, but because they don't think its right to steal from their rich neighbor just because he's better off? Maybe they'd rather earn what they have with their ability and effort than have some Washington elite take pity on them and "graciously bestow" upon them that which is not theirs to give in the first place? Maybe they understand that in America everyone is responsible for themselves and they don't hate their neighbors for achieving more success?

How does it feel, Miss Mallick, to know that these hick Republicans you so despise are the backbone of the a country far greater than your own? How does it feel to know that you rise every morning to write your silly little column under the blanket of protection provided by young men from Kansas, not enlightened elitists from the upper west side? How does it feel to know that the opinions of a CBC hack are as inconsiquential to them as a folk music mocumentary? How does it make you feel to know that these hicks you have such contempt for wouldn't deign to spit on you with their chewing tobbacco?

I try to keep this blog relatively clean, Miss Mallick, but fuck you. You're far to stupid and ignorant to ever realize how much more integrity a poor Republican has than yourself. And if you ever manage to stop marveling at your nuanced enlightenment, you may realize how insignificant you are to them.

Did Obama Ever Vet Himself?

Sorry about the light blogging as of late (especially at this critical juncture in the campaign), but work's been crazy and its College Football season, enough said.

Now some observations:

Sarah Palin is an out of the park home run for the McCain administration. He's simultaneously energized a lethargic (and frankly hostile) base and tricked the media into exposing its own biases. Take this slightly hysterical Politico piece today:

"On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.
We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.
We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?"

Would it be slightly uncouth of me to ask why the politico has never issued a sarcastic apology for asking these same questions to Barry Obama, who is a mere plurality away from the presidency? Oh, they never asked him those questions? No apology needed then, I suppose. I do wonder though, where are the pundits questioning whether or not Barry's children will take a back seat if he is elected? I mean, he'll be busy negotiating "spheres of influence" for China and North Korea in Asia, and say, the Pacific coast. Will his daughters suffer while Michelle tours the globe as Obama's "Labor Ambassador", imploring the workers of the world to "unite"? That's a full time job, ask Lenin.

Its almost as if the media is the sordid pit of chauvenistic sexism that they've always claimed the GOP was. (only if we're talking about conservative women, mind you. Liberal women are bravely shattering the glass/marble/plaster ceiling) In any case, at least I'll have to be a little less drunk to vote for McCain. Thank you Governer Palin.