Sunday, July 19, 2009

Ron Paul on Sarah Palin: She's a "Country Club Republican"

Palin from the Nelson Rockefeller wing of the GOP?

From Eric Dondero:

Texas Congressman Ron Paul is being featured at this morning. The article is titled, "Republicans embrace Ron Paul on domestic policy." Toward the middle he takes a couple swipes at Sarah Palin, a potential rival for the GOP Presidential nomination for 2012.

From Politico:

As for soon-to-be departing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Paul dismisses her supporters as "more establishment, conventional Country-Club type of Republicans.”

"I wonder whether she's energizing the 15-20 year olds," Paul muses. "That would be a question I would have. Because she doesn't talk about the Federal Reserve and some of these issues. She doesn't talk too much about personal liberties, civil liberties, getting rid of drug laws, attacking the war on drugs, punishing people who torture."

Worse still, he adds, Palinites are partisans: “If Obama was the only one who was guilty, they would be on his case all the time, but there is a lot of partisanship and I am probably less partisan and therefore she is going to appeal to partisan Republicans better.”
Ironically, Palin - a strident Barry Goldwater/Ronald Reagan Republican -has been attacked at times for being too aligned with the the religious right wing of the conservative movement, and at other times labeled a "populist." But this may be the first time ever that someone has called her a moderate Northeastern style Lowell Weicker, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe, Nelson Rockefeller, "Country Club" Republican. And further, to label her supporters as "conventional," or "establishment"?

Note - For the record, there is no recorded instance of Sarah Palin ever being a member of a Country Club. In fact, in Alaska, there are numerous Hunting Clubs, Fishing Clubs, Swimming Clubs, and Boating Clubs, but only one single Country Club: Cottonwood Country Club in the Kenai. LR has not found any evidence to suggest that she, nor her husband Todd have ever been members of Cottonwood, nor any other country club in the Lower 48.

Read more:


"Ron Paul, Hypocrite"

Another Blog has linked to and commented on this story. From Right Guy:

Ron Paul accuses Sarah Palin supporters of being country club republicans. That's funny (and patently untrue) because Ron Paul and his wife Carol are Lifetime Members of the Lake Jackson Country Club. It is located on Highway 332 in between Lake Jackson and Brazoria.If anything, country club republicans despise her. Read more

Texas Palin supporter asks if Paul himself is a member of a local Country Club?

From Josh Painter, Red State & Texas for Sarah Palin:

Strange, we don't recall ever having been members of any country club, nor do any Palin supporters we know have such memberships. How out of touch with the people can Ron Paul be? In fact, most of the Palin backers we know are blue collar conservatives, not Rockerfeller elites. They are much more interested in the latest NASCAR standings than in who is currently leading the PGA.

As for the Palins themselves, it's unlikely that they belong to any country club. Golf is not their game. Sarah is a runner, and Todd is into snowmobiles, not golf carts. And with all that hunting and fishing they do, they have neither the time nor the inclination for the game of golf. Sarah and Todd both played basketball in their youth, and their kids are more familiar with the hockey stick than the nine iron. We have it on good authority that the Palin clan has been known to ski, however, Alaska being more of a place suited to the winter sports.

And if you were to check the membership rolls of the Lake Jackson Country Club here in Texas, I'd bet real money that you would find the names of Ron Paul and his wife Carol listed as lifetime members.

Paul was always a loose cannon. His loose lips tell us he's also a hypocrite.

Ron Paul disses Palin fans

Another GOP blog has linked to this story. GOP12 reprints the quote from Politico and then writes:

Among some of history's enduring mysteries are who shot JFK, the lost colony at Roanoke, and the outcome of a death match between Palinites and Paulites.

Ironically enough, Palin and Paul tied for third place in CPAC's 2009 straw poll.

Has Ron Paul Lost His Mind? Attacking Palin And Flirting With 9/11 Conspiracies

Another Blog has picked up this story. Blue Collar Philosophy blog:

I sort of flirted with liking Congressman Ron Paul, but recent comments by him have smothered that foolishness. We have Ron Paul calling Sarah Palin a "country club" Republican, which is nuts.

[Quote here from Politico]

And is if that was not absurd enough, Paul also seems to imply by his reaction to a question about 9/11, is that he thinks the government may be behind it.I hope Congressman Paul no longer seeks a higher office then the one he currently holds.

Washington State blog covers story

From Evergreen Conservative:

As if we needed evidence of Rep. Ron Paul’s extremist viewpoints, he goes out and proves it once and for all. Paul called Sarah Palin a ‘country-club Republican’, an absurd assertion. Sarah Palin has done far more than Ron Paul in invigorating and stimulating conservative grassroots.

This is just another example of an extremist dissing any position or person who isn’t 100% in lockstep with their beliefs, as I pointed out in my recent article. You may recall Gov. Palin being complimentary towards Rep. Paul during the 2008 primaries.

Hat tip to Blue Collar Philosophy who also has an extra video of Paul admitting to be a 9/11 truther, for more icing on the cake.


stefan said...

Nope, he did NOT say she is, he said many of her supporters are those type of country club Republicans, to which he refer to as more the establishment rich type of Republicans, those who are concerned with high taxes, but not so much with civil liberties and it is true that you did not see much ideas from her, nor really taking on the establishment GOP nationally (yes she did take on the establishment GOP in AK, but what happened after that during her reign?).

Funny that you now describe Palin as a religious right person, yet earlier you wrote she was attacked by the RR for being too liberatrian.. Well, has she taken steps to decriminalize medical marjuana, at least for sick people with pain from cancer???

Barry Goldwater was very outspoken about civil liberties, the constitution etc, like Paul, but not Palin so far.
Eric, if she does not really attack the Fed and endorsed TARP 1, then she either does not understand Keynesian economics and defend it implicitely or does not have the guts to attack the system and status quo. Can you imagine country club Republicans attacking the Fed??

I have read some Palin crtics from the left were satisfied with her governm\ing on certain points and mentioned some Republicans in AK called her a socialist even...

stefan said...

I may also note that Palin called Cheney and Crist and Giuliani to inform them of her decision to step down as governor, and they would be identified as country club Republicans. I have not heard that she has called or reached out to Goldwater Republicans, such as Paul.... So the logic is who you are can also be seen witht he people you identify with. I would have had no problem if she had called ALL of the above, both Rockefeller and Goldwater Republicans, but she has not. We will have to see what she does after next week, when she tweeted she would be less politically correct.
If she only criticizes Obama's taxes and not the Bush administration's contribution towards big govt, then she would not have much believability and consistency in beliefs, and it would be easier to paint her as a partisan hack by those who are hostile towards her.

Eric Dondero said...

Cheney, Crist and Guiliani all good Republicans. Cheney had one of the most hardcore libertarian voting records when he served as a Congressman in the 1970s and 80s. Crist? Has met with the Republican Liberty Caucus in his office at the Capitol, and decided to switch his stance on a critical bill backing Taxpayer Bill of Rights, all because of the RLC!

Giuliani? Called an "Ayn Rand extremist government slasher" by the NY Times in 1999.

I think you need to try again.

If you don't like Cheney, Crist and Giuliani, you clearly don't belong on this Blog.

Eric - The Management

Eric Dondero said...

Oh, and Stefan, how about addressing the fundamental point of the article: Which is his classification of Palin and her supporters as "Country Club Republicans."


I can vouch for Steve Maloney, Adam Brickley, I believe for Carlose Echevarria, Palin's top supporters in the country, when I say, I don't believe any of them are members of a Country Club.

(I will check on that to make sure.)

How about Ron Paul? Has he ever been a member of a Country Club?

stefan said...

Eric, once again, you have not read through the article and jumped to conclusions. You are the loose cannon. Pauls spoke of many of Palin's supporters being 'country club type Republicans", NOT Palin herself!!

How many times do I have to repeat this? 2 times, 5 times, 10 times??

Apropo Crist: so funny, just a few posts ago you posted on how disillusioned you have become about Crist and that RLC cannot support him anymore. Crist also enthusiastically supported not only TARP 1, but also TARP 2 and he appeared together on stage with your president!!! and you still keep calling him a libertarian Republican. Big LOL

Newsflash: Goldwater and Miltron friedman would have voted already AGAINST TARP 1, not to even mention TARP 2.

If you cannot portray a basic libertarian position in terms of economics, then you do not even not know what libertarian mainstream means, you also do NOT deserve to have a blog with the name libertarian!

Then again, to some of us it became clear already a long time ago that you are only selectively "libertarian", not consistently.

Eric Dondero said...

No, I do not call Charlie Crist a "libertarian Republican." I would however, call him a Republican, that libertarians could be comfortable with supporting.

Yes, I'm dissapointed in him. But he has an open ear to the Florida GOP's libertarian wing. And that's more than you can say for a great many other Senators, perhaps all of them save DeMint, Coburn, Cornyn, Thune and a tiny handful of others.

Here's something you should know: Pete Wilson was a much better US Senator than he was a Governor of California. When Wilson was in the US Senate in the 1980s, he was considered to be the "most libertarian leaning."

I'm hopeful Crist might make a similar transation, from being a moderate squishy Governor, to a more partisan GOP, hardline libertarian US Senator.

Ran said...

You may wish to review Rudy's stance on 2A... He is a backer of draconian anti-gun laws. Heh. I lived in his "Randian" NYC for eight years.

Eric Dondero said...

Ran, no offense, but that's misinformation pushed by his opponents during the '08 primary. That has since been debunked a million times over. Plus! Rudy came out VERY STRONGLY! in favor of the Dresser decision out of DC late last year.

Eric Dondero said...

Ran, and those who diss Rudy must address that quote from the NY Times. Getting a Rudy critic to even respond to that quote is like pulling teeth.

Again, in 1999, the NY Times said of Mayor Giuliani:

"He's not even a Republican... he's more of an extremist Ayn Randian government slasher."

And people have the audacity to say that Rudy isn't libertarian-leaning after the NY Times identified him as an EXTREMIST AYN RANDIAN GOVERNMENT SLASHER!!!

Anonymous said...

Paul is referring to the those who support Palin's future within the political climate. For example: Rockerfeller claimed support of Mitt early on during the 2008 primaries. With that said it's easy to notice the actions of those who obtain elite support. Like Paul suggests from prior interviews Mitt never attacked the core issues and now he states the same regarding Palin. When Palin is hanging out with the likes of Rudy and Kristol then it's a sure sign she has abandoned her Soccer mom roots and is ready for a make over but this time dressed up, and made up as a neocon.

Having voted Republican ever since I was in my early 20's with the exception of this past election whom I voted for Chuck Baldwin from the Constitution Party. I find it rather funny that one of the post claims that Cheney was a good republican. Cheney, claimed at the end of last year to support the actions of dressing up American soldiers, order them to an Iranian boat then order them to fire upon a US Warship. In my book that isn't being a good republican nor even being a good American.

Further, if one claims the press value of Rudy as a solid GOP member then you need to take the time and
understand and read an essay, op-ed and papers regarding the term Neo-conservative. Rudy, could not even state the clear position of the founders wishes during the Dearborn, MI primary debate and neither could Mike Huckabee. Mitt's reply was the worse and claimed he would consult his "LAWYERS" before going to war. Paul, was the only person who stated the founders vision. Rudy, is also horrible regarding gun rights. A good republican? I think not!

Shouldn't the test of a real candidate and only choice for our nation will they support the founders vision, and if so they why not put the man in office?

What's wrong with seeking a declaration of war which provides clear objectives before going to war? The founders understood the value of a plan and Paul would have made sure this occurred but other weak minded GOP members would not obey an oath to office. Now, Obama continues the same madness with over 5000 us solders dead and over a million of the people of Iraq and most are women and children. Remember, it was"W" who lied before the people and later stated clearly that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Sadly, when Palin came on the scene I saw her as a breath of fresh air. A women who seemed to be a loving and kind Mother. Palin, appeared to be liked by the people of her state and at one time I know for a fact she supported true limited government positions. But during interviews it was clear she was not ready to be the VP of the US. It was also clear to me she lacked the wisdom to lead our nation. Now, it appears she is trying to model her future after the same group of republicans who helped lead our nation to ruin.

Eric Dondero said...

Firstly, Rockefeller has been dead for 20 years now. I fail to get the reference to him supporting Romney?

Secondly, looks like you, along with every other Paulist critic of Giuliani has yet again, failed to address this quote from the NY Times, in 1999:

Mayor Giuliani, "is not even a Republican... he's an extremist government slasher Ayn Randian."

Thirdly, though I believe Sarah may have met Giuliani on an occasion or two, I'm not aware that she's ever met Bill Kristol, let alone subscribing to his views on domestic matters. Perhaps on foreign policy there's agreement. But on domestic issues, Palin's a much bigger government slasher than Kristol.

And Kristol leans libertarian on foreign policy, being a good ally in the fight against Islamo-Fascism, though he comes about it from a more Judeo-Christian perspective, where we libertarians oppose Islamo-Fascism for the threat it poses to our civil liberties, through Sharia.

stefan said...

Eric, the Palin supporters - with a few exceptions like yourself - are strongly pro-life and would condemn Giuliani strongly. Ann Coulter - strong Palin supporter - has said earlier this year in a Newsmax interview that Palin need to first learn a bit more history etc. and that 2012 may not be a good time for her to run, but rather later, say in 2016 or 2020.

If Giuliani was such a Randian, why did he laugh constantly about Paul, not only on foreign policy (where Ayn Rand would indeed have supported Giuliani 100%), but with regard to domestic policy, where Rand is much closer to Paul than Giuliani? Giuliani only spoke about lower taxes about. Has he mentioned which domestic departments he would cut to ensure lower spending, saving and smaller govt? I don't think so....

Let us be practical and specific, on which issues will Palin slash the govt? Which departments will she get rid of??? Can you name just one????

Kristol is an absolute neocon on foreign policy, not libertarian. Have you ever heard himself describing or being described as a libertarian on foreign policy (and a social-democrat on domestic policy)???? No sireee!!!!!

The sooner you get a grip on a libertarian foreign policy AND the reality of the enormous deficit, the better. Wayne Root has mentioned on live video he was a neocon on foreign policy, but he was persuaded by Paul's foreign policy.

Please tell me what Palin's foreign policy is??? Declaring war against Iran (whether or not they have WMD)? attacking Russia - leading to WW3 - if Georgia would be a Nato member, even though the Georgian govt. first atatcked South Assetia???

Tom Mullen said...

Palin is a Rockerfeller Republican. She believes that the US has "international responsibilities" including invading other countries and maintaining bases around the world, and she believes in socialist wealth redistribution, as long as a Republican believes its necessary.

In fact, she goes beyond even the Rockerfeller Republicans. As governor, she put a windfall tax on oil companies operating in Alaska and redistributed their profits to Alaskan citizens. She says that the oil in the ground under Alaska belongs to “the people of Alaska,” instead of to those who risk and spend their own capital to drill for it. When Hugo Chavez did that, it was socialism. When a Republican governor did it, it was “standing up to big oil.”

I just wrote something that I don't think that you will like, but I wish you would at least DISPASSTIONATELY consider. It is here:

Thank you, by the way, for writing this blog and doing SOMETHING to try to help save our republic. If everyone cared as much as you, we would all be in much better shape.

stefan said...

Funny how Eric failed Romney's and Frum's dissing and implied criticism of Palin, while Paul is mever attacking a person, only his/her positions (or lack thereof).

If I am not mistaken Eric has declared that he is for Romney, if Palin would not declare for 2012 within a week after her surprised decision to resign. Now he has changed his tunes so many times in the past.

Greg said...

Everytime I hear Palin speak, she speaks of the constitution. She once said that before she signed anything into law she would read the Alaska Constitution to determine if the law was constitutional. She vetoed laws that she herself supported, simply because upon reading the constituition she decided the law was unconstitutional.

I can assure you, the overwhelming majority of the 11,000+ people who donated small amounts to SarahPAC, are not country club republicans. I'd be willing to bet that a disproportionate number of donors are those who are donating to and participating in politics for the very first time. I've been voting since 1972, but she is the very first candidate I've ever contributed to.

Anonymous said...

"She says that the oil in the ground under Alaska belongs to “the people of Alaska,"

Clearly stated in Alaska's Constitution.

Ron Paul is a fruitcake made by Woodrow Wilson's grandmother.

Question remains, when will the fruitcake realize the world now has things such as airplanes and surface-to-surface missles?

I find most Libertarians unattractive because their incessant obsession with porn makes them horrid at sex; poor things don't even know just how bad their obsession has made them in bed.


Eric Dondero said...

Hey Stefan, if Palin is "much closer to Paul," on foreign policy as you claim, than why is it that he's bashing her today, in the Nation's Number One on-line Beltway political magazine?

What an ass he is. The only quote Palin had of Ron Paul was from a couple years ago, where she was very positive, and said, "he's a very interesting guy..."

You'd think Paul would have been a gentleman and returned that compliment.

Eric Dondero said...

Umm, Tom Mullen, the foreign policy views you describe are entirely LIBERTARIAN!!!

That's spelled L-I-B-E-R-T-A-R-I-A-N.

We Libertarians FULLY SUPPORT A STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE, particularly in fighting against Islamo-Fascism, which is entirely ANTI-LIBERTARIAN!

Perhaps you should learn more about our libertarian movement, before you start spouting off your non-sensical bullshit.

Eric Dondero said...

To clarify Stefan, I will always support Sarah, first and foremost. I'm just not sure she made the right decision to resign as Governor. But she knows better the lay of the land than I do. So, I trust her judgement.

If she runs, I'm on board in a mili-second.

But I think at this point, we have to consider Romney the main realistic candidate for the GOP for President, and I fully support him, and would be greately enthusiastic about his candidacy. He's not quite Sarah, but damned sure close enough.

Eric Dondero said...

Plus, Romney's from Massachusetts. And I personally feel the GOP needs some SERIOUS! outreach in that State. Romney running could bring that about.

Nancy Drew said...

For a website that has a hard on for the bogus Obama citizenship stuff to criticise Ron Paul for flirting with 9/11 Troofers has to be the big laugh of the day.

I guess it takes one to know one.

stefan said...

hesEric, once again, Paul was not attacking Palin in person, more her lack of positions. He did say he like her, when the video with her liking of Paul was expressed, and that they should meet, so he did return the favor, also to a Weekly Standard interviewer during the time of the RNC convention last year. He just said he is worried about Kristol's & Co's influence on her, with regard to foreign policy especially.

You should also take into account that there was no verbatim account of all the questions and everything that has been asked and answered. You noticed the interviewer asked him specifically about all the possible candidates, e.g. Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Crist, Barbour and of all those Palin would be the closest to Paul, so that is why he elaborated on it. Of course not all
Palin;s supporters are "country club" Republicans. "Country club" Republicans is in any case a metaphor, meaning the Old Boy Network. The issue is you can campaign against them, like Gingrich also, but once in office you can become part of them, like Gingrich, Bush etc.

Why have you and others not refuted Paul's claim that Palin does not speak out against the drug war, about civil liberties etc? That is because it is the truth and you cannot refute that, therefore you IGNORE that. Have you heard or read Palin calling for an audit of the Fed, e.g. the central issue the article and current discussion in DC is about or rather should be about?? How much has Palin, you, RTG etc. criticized Bush's spending habits DURING his term in office? I have not read that, it is easy to criticize when he is almost out of office and when he is out of office, and we have not even heard that criticism in the GOP yet, only certain politicians. I wonder who the real hypocrites are???

As to Palin running in 2012, I just do not see it in the work, not for a politician that has not served her full term in office. You have to work your way up. Reagan delivered his famous speech in 1964
and considered running in 1968, yet it was not till 1976 that he run for primary and not until 1980 that he won the primary and presidency. The same with Thatcher and Angela Merkel, with regard to women. They first served in office and worked their way through the ranks for many years.

The criticism that was made against Obama was that he was too inexperienced a politician. He has been state senator, and senator for a short time, but by 2012 he can say he has executive experience for 4 years and then he would have much more political experience than Palin as she dropped out prematurely. So that is not an argument she or her campaign can make in terms of experience, and experience and insight/wisdom is going to be very important.

Have you heard what Root and recently also Glenn Beck had to say about Romneycare??? Enough said.
You want to win MA as well by appealing as Democrat lite? Sorry, ain't gonna happen. The DNC will attack Romney as a flip-flopper, just as Kerry was attacked in the 2004 campaign by Bush and he will also be portrayed as an elitist and rich guy who is estranged form the common working middle class man and the one who approved TARP 1. Face it, for these and other reasons the GOP cannot win with Romney as nominee. I think we just have to be realistic...

stefan said...

Nancy: You know Eric also spreading the conspiracy theory that Soros is supporting Paul and
So funny. He is no stranger to conspiracy nuttiness. I am still waiting for him to claim Paul is actually a closet communist, or being supported by them... (hey Eric, would that not be a good way to get the majority in red MA?? :-)).

Dan Sheill said...

Stefan, to even say that many of her supporters are Country Club Republicans is ridiculous. I agree with Dondero that of those wine sippers that I've come across in the party, most of them have contempt for her because of her lack of education, and preumably, her exposure to the more "cultured" insight. I don't like her because she's a quitter and has less experience to be President than Obama (which is really saying something).

In 1996, Palin chaired the Alaska campaign for GOP primary contender Pat Buchanan. That's not exactly the establishment, although I'm sure she working as we speak to coopt the establishment and win the nomination. I do think that Palin's primary support comes from the grassroots, but I agree with Ron Paul that this support is made up of base voters and that she has little cross-over appeal.

But here is a perfect example of where Ron Paul Kool-Aid drinking supporters can show their hypocrisy. As much as they like to challenge the establishment and search for the truth (e.g. 911), these people suddenly become unwilling to challenge their own leader, who like the rest of us is a mere mortal. For example, I didn't see Ron Paul calling out Don Young, who was as crooked as they come. Ron even sent a letter to his supporters urging them to vote for Young over Parnell in the Congressional primary despite the corruption allegations. So thanks to Ron Paul we end up nominating Don Young and having him lose to a Democrat who is one more vote for Speaker Pelosi.

I don't see Ron Paul ala Barry Goldwater calling out his fellow political ally Don Young as "the world's biggest liar" like Goldwater did of Nixon during Watergate. That's principle!

Gary said...

Palin is a Ronald Reagan Liberal Republican. Reagan grew goverment spending by about 43% plus plunging us deep into dept. Ronald Reagan for all his "talk" was a Liberal who grew government.

Palin has done nothing to make me think she is any different than any traditional Republican. Conservatives always think government is the answer . . . they simply want to control that government.

Dan Sheill said...

I'll agree with Gary on that.

Eric Dondero said...

Bull-fucking-Shit! Stefan. Ain't no goddamned way I'm gonna let you get away with that dickwad of a comment from you.


You cannot explain it away as some esoteric attack on her views. Paul clearly went after he, cause he sees her as a threat to his fundraising base, and activist network.

I know this guy like the back of my hand. I know how he thinks. I know how he strategizes. This was a deliberate and probably planned attack on Sarah Palin from Paul.

He sees his influence waning, and her's expanding. He sees his coffers drying up, and her's now - at nearly $1 million as recently reported for Sarah Pac.

Eric Dondero said...

Holy Shit Dan Sheil. You brillant son-of-a-bitch. I didn't even think of that.

You're right. Paul sent that letter of support for his old friend Don Young in the primary up in Alaska, against Palin's Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell.

Paul is vulnerable on the pork to the district charge. And Young is Mr. Pork himself.

Perhaps this is a pre-empt against Palin, to get her to back away from any thoughts of challenging Young in the primary for that House seat?

Eric Dondero said...

Hey Gary, (and Dan)?

If Palin is such a "big government Ronald Reagan style" Republican, than why is it that she was brutally savaged a few months back from Liberals in her State, and most especially the Anchorage Daily News, for not accepting all of the Stimulus money for the State?

Can't have it both ways. Can't call her a "Liberal," and then not acknowledge that Liberals absolutely hate her, precisely because she's so much of a limited government Republican.

It's one or the other.

Gary said...

I am still waiting to see ANY Republican President eliminate a cabinet department . . . Department of Education for example. It never happens. Conservatives grow the government.

stefan said...

Gary spot on spot on, you hit the nail on the head. i cannot improve on it, so nothing to add.
These "conservatives" keep on saying they are for limited govt. but cannot bring themselves about to suggest eliminating or at least drastically reduce even one department that is unconstitutional in the first place, yet they want to get the last money out of child care (which is a drop in any case)and think they are "fiscally conservative" if they say that.

stefan said...

Dan: next time get your facts straight! Paul did NOT endorse Don Young, I did not see his name on the Liberty PAC list of candidates that Paul supported, like Michele Bachman and Scott Garrett, the same Garret that criticized Young strongly. The truth is that Don Young wanted an endorsement from Paul, but instead Paul gave him a nice letter pointing out to issues they agree with, like getting rid of the IRS (Young is a "fair taxer, therefore he endorsed Huckabee).
Paul has also not a tradition of endorsing a Republican vs. an incumbent Republican (it is another issue if it is two or more Republicans vs. and incumbent Democrat, where he could endorse, like with Lonegan). He held strict to this tradition, also not endorsing Ron Paul Republicans in 2008 that run against incumebent Republicans. This is his background of consistency. Of course he would consider Sean Parnell as closer to his own position (if in case he knew anything about him) and in any case good for Parnell to not have won the primary, as he will be governor from the end of next week, the position which he would much rather have.

Don Young WON his race against the Democratic opponent, not lost! I am not surprised you make such a mistake, as like Eric you guys never check facts, you just come with a negative bias against Paul, only to be proven wrong.

ccoffer said...

Country Club Republicans.....another meaningless cliche used by lobotomized sheep as though there were something wrong about joining a country club. Are "bowling alley" republicans or "titty bar" republicans to be distinguished from those who play golf? How so, and for fuck's sake, why?

What brainless, nonsensical bullshit.

stefan said...

Eric, what has a positive letter on joint positions to Young, but NO endorsement in 2008 has anything to do with Paul supposedly trying to avoid Palin for going for Young's seat in 2010???? Geez, read you comment again and think what an utter STUPID and illogical statement you have made.

I am also NOT going to let you get away with any suggestion that Paul would be a 911 "inside job" conspiracy theorist in any way. Paul has stated various times he does NOT believe in that, nor does he believe that Iraq was bombed because of the WMD conspiracy, a conspiracy that you and Sean Hannity continue to believe in after it has already been debunked and the Bush administration themselves distanced them from it.

The lady's question was a loaded one, and she did NOT describe what she understands under "the truth" about 911. Among the 911 movement there is in any case DIFFERENT explanations and beliefs, from those that believe that missiles hit the twin towers in a controlled demolition and that the video footage of the planes has been added to those that believe that the planes did hit the twin towers, but that there were also "nitrigate (sp?)" found, as a Danish scientist newly discovered and about building 7 to those that thinking there should be an additional investigation held to answer questions and issues with which the 911 report has not dealt with. Commissioner Lee Hamilton has said himself they had only a very limited amount of money (4 million vs 100 million for the Clinton issue) and the commission was only started after a lot of pressure, by McCain and some Democrats.

Allahpundit has also been attacked on this false presumption on hotair, yet here you cite BS blogs nobody has even heard of.

Eric, excuse me for saying this, but you are really beginning to sound like a kook and nutjob and you have some kind of psychiological obsession with Paul. Go see a psychiatrist, the sooner the better.

ALL the Republicans has supported Paul's HR 1207, yet the people you cite want to describe this as "extreme" ...maybe as Palin did not had the guts yet to express her support for HR 1207. Palin is thus far more a follower than a leader, a leader leads and make "controversial" non-PC statements that really shows understanding of the political and economic problems, and not some cult-figure built around "sex-appeal".

ccoffer said...

"Conservatives grow the government."

Which is a dumb fuck way of saying government tends to grow regardless of one or two different individuals being at the head of it.

"Gary spot on spot on, you hit the nail on the head. i cannot improve on it, so nothing to add. "

Nothing? Then you are either fundamentally dishonest or dumber than a wet sack of dogshit.

What Reagan did was win the Cold War. The blatherings of dumbass children notwithstanding, Congress spends money. Do either of you fucking retard/liars want to make the shit stupid case for how Brakabama would still be empowered to systematically destroy the US economy if republicans were in control of both houses of congress?

You people are fucking pathetic.

stefan said...

Chuck, OK I'm a CCC "club Republican", a "chuck coffer club" Republican, but if you say this is bullhit, who am I to disagree?
Ha ha:-)

(This is obviously the first time you have heard of the term country is a metapher for establishment Republicans, those that are content witht he status quo, as long as the president is a Republican in name, those that do not really want to see real change, change like in hard/honest money, full audit and regulation of the Fed, real civil liberties, those that do not object to FISA, those that say and think Americans lives are more important than the innocent people that are being killed in Iraq, Aghanistan etc. and do not give a damn about innocent Iranians losing their lives by an attack on Iran).

ccoffer said...

By the way, in case either of you two retarded liars forgot, that whole republican control of congress thing ended 9 fucking years ago. Remember? Back when we had full employment, a roaring economy, rising living standards? Any of that stuff ring a bell for either of you drooling dipshits?


stefan said...

Chuck: oh, so you want to say if McCain had won, he would have announced no extra bailout, no bailout of the homeowners and big banks especially...and where would the money to "bomb bomb bomb Iran" have came from"? Would it have increased the deficit, yes or no? know placing the US in another war.
Continue dreaming about a fiscally conservative govt. with John - 100 years in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran - McCain.

ccoffer said...

"those that do not really want to see real change, "

We're seeing "real change" now you fucking moron. The country is being destroyed while dumbass liars like you claim it doesn't matter who wins elections if its anoyone other than a card carrying member of the dope-smoker/ coke-sniffer/butt-fucker/surrender at all costs libertarian party.

Your desperate ignorance of the obvious for the sake of your devotion to this stupid fucking lie is contributing to the destruction of the greatest achievement in the history of the human race...the United States of America.

Fuck you.

stefan said...

The GOP had the majority in congress till the 2006 elections... and lost in 2006 and in 2008 because of the Iraq war AND the consequence of the 3 trillion USD war, apart from the domestic expansion of govt.

Chuck, I think you should also see a psychiatrist....if it will help... you may want to see a "sexy" psychiatrist, but you desperately need one in any case!

ccoffer said...

John McCain isn't the republican party, dumbass. Buy a fucking almanac sometime and flip to the part about how US government works, you thumb-sucking twit.

stefan said...

Nope Chuck, I am talking about a GOP that actually sticks to it platform and promises! Newsflash: The RNC platform last year was against ANY bailout, you know like the bailout McCain-Palin approved.

Chuck Coffer = epic fail again.

ccoffer said...

"The GOP had the majority in congress till the 2006 elections."

Another stupid fucking lie. Does the name Jim Jeffords ring a bell, you fucking half-wit?

Try Googling it, shitforbrains.

stefan said...

SFB degree magna cum laude: do you know the difference between congress and senate?

stefan said...

Chuck: tell me, is it your computer & internet that is so fucked up, or yourself, or both???

Here you go:

stefan said...

With Jim Jeffords's switch in 2001 to Independent changed the senate relationship from 50:50 to 49-50-1 with Jeffords caucusing with the D. His successor was socialist Bernie Sanders, so how on earth would a "chuck coffer" Republican have had any chance to win? Jeffords voted against the Iraq war, as did Sanders when he was in congress.

Anyway, you can still fillibuster with 41 plus and if Cheney had not been so secretive and dubious, a lot more could have been achieved in terms of conservative policy.

And who said" deficits don't matter"? Not a Democrat, but Chuck and Eric's Dick Cheney!! The same Cheney Palin called to inform about her resignation of the governorship and Cheney is a gold playing Halliburton "golf club" Republican! She has NOT called Palin.

Oh Eric, by the way, already before Halliburton, Cheney sold US interests OUT by acting as a consultant to a Japanese company vs an American company for the manufacturing technology of PC and TFT monitors years ago. I know very well as my friend, who fought in Nam, worked for the Apple, the CIA etc, had a lot of his money invested in the US company, only to losses it all with Cheney's involvement and lobbying.

SO do not you fucking tell me Cheney is a "libertarian republican", he is a TRAITOR of US business interests!! And where is Halliburton now listed, in Dubai, not the US!!!

ccoffer said...

You are a liar. At this point I don't even think you're a real person. Just somebody's sock puppet.

Go to Democrat Underground where you belong, you leftist twit.

Halliburton? Really? Holy shit.

stefan said...

DO you know the difference between corporatism and true capitalism?
Have you yourself benefited from Halliburton?

Why would I be a leftist? Obama gives even more private military contracts away now, so in your definition he must be more "rightwing" than Bush!

BTW: Goldman Sachs, who profited the most from the bailout, has a whole HISTORY of supporting Democrats more than Republicans, to a relation of 4:1.

Republicans, if they want to win, should represent the interests of the true capitalists and job creators, those of farmers and SME businesspeople, you know the ones that got "no bailout", and include the car dealerships also and are being taxed more now, not only 3 % more corporate tax, also inflation tax etc. etc.

Gary said...

****"What Reagan did was win the Cold War. . . . Congress spends money."****

#1 - Congress may spend the money but all Presidents have the veto. A President with balls can veto spending and force reductions, but no Republican President WANTS to really reduce government.

#2 - Reagan won the Cold War? I have doubts. The "fall" of the Soviet Empire may have a lot more to do with Gorbachev being a reformer type. If he had sent the tanks into Eastern Europe to put down revolt then the spirit of rebellion might not have snowballed out of his control.

We Americans have massive egos. Many things happen on their own around the world without our input.

stefan said...

"At this point I don't even think you're a real person".

BINGO Got me! I am simply a PC robot programmed to respond to your nonsense, no real person here...

The most brilliant discovery in your life Chuck...think of it, you can really make it now!

Well, if Eric "discovers" I am actually a "communist" and "Al Qaeda supporter" (well they fought each other), then maybe he can also receive his award...or maybe he should say I am a robot, no real human person as well.

stefan said...

Gary: true, the main reason communism failed was because of the internal inconsistencies, like Leslek Kolakowski - who died just a few days era, discovered decades ago and was expelled from the Polish Communist Party.
The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises already predicted in the late 1910's or early 1920's that the system would fail.
The communist empire overexpanded and the disaster in Afghanistan also had something to do with its end. Gorbaschow knew the system was at its end, it could not continue like that. They spent about all their money on weapons, and the security state is expensive.

I would say that Reagan's diplomacy did had a smaller role to play in persuading the breakup of the USSR, perhaps faster than would have been the case. If the USSR had gained control of resource-rich Southern Africa, controlling 90% of the worlds gold and other minerals, they would or could have lasted a bit longer...but it is NOT only Reagan or Americans that had a hand in that also.

After the cold war, any excuse for big govt. evaporated...yet this was not what we saw under Bush 1, who expanded govt and raised interest rates, contrary to what he promised.

ccoffer said...

"We Americans have massive egos. "

Speak for yourself, shitbag.

What I have is massive appreciation for what was built by hundreds of millions of Americans over hundreds of years as I see it being torn down by a filthy little buck-toothed communist chipmunk. Meanwhile dipshits like you dump exclusively upon republicans and have dick shit to say about the people who are ten times worse.

Fuck you.

Dan Sheill said...

Chuck, I'll gladly carry the banner for the titty-bar Republicans!

Eric Dondero said...

Umm, Stefan, on Ron Paul and 9/11 Trutherism, there's a new video out. I take it you haven't seen it. It's up on But it's also linked at one of the Updates we posted, from the Blue Collar Philosophy guy.

It's quite a wing-dinger. Paul comes closest as he's ever come to outright endorsing the Truther movement. Some say, he is coming out with an endorsment. You have to judge for yourself.

Watch the video.

C.C. said...

I'll give RuPaul the benefit of the doubt here that he wasn't attacking Sarah and just her supporters but as far as I'm concerned he's an ACLU-worshipping Americans-for-truth moonbat that just happens to be a pro-life fiscal conservative (or so he claims).

The difference between him and McCain is at least Juan doesn't make any pretense about hiding his secret love for the Democrat party.

Gary said...

We have gone from: "I have but one life to give for my Country"


"Speak for yourself, shitbag."

8th grade locker room language has no value in the areana of ideas on or off the internet.

Ran said...

Eric... Under Rudy I had to get permission to come to One New York Plaza to get a form... a form to request permission... to purchase a 22 long gun. Hell, I was a volunteer for the Big Apple Friends of the NRA. Figured I should, you know, go shooting once in a while.

Under Rudy... I was told that I could no longer get a CCL. End of sentence. I could make the arrangement to get the application. I could go get the application, pay the fees, get the FBI check... and that IF I dared to request, after 120 days, where the application was, exactly, it "would mysteriously get lost" in NYC paperwork. Of course, after 120 days, the FBI check would need to be re-done...

Then Bloomie came in, and that's when we decided to get the FUCK out of NYC and move to a civilized part of the country.

Sorry, Eric, but I'd be happy to acquaint you with some very competent NYC attorney and cop friends familiar with Rudy's "Randian" views on civilian self defense.

Rudy is a complete piece of work on 2A and his reputation is well earned.

Ran said...

And yes, I was there in NYC Upper West Side when those inhuman bots destroyed over three thousand of my neighbors.

That's why the pic. I'm still fucking pissed-off to this day. That's why I don't suffer morons. CFWOT. That's why I'll give Rudy a lot of credit, but only where it's due.

Just in case there were any doubts.

Rae said...

The Stupid Party strikes again.

I have no idea what his definition of "Country Club Republicans" are, but I suspect they're your typical Bush voter. (I will say this for Bush...he was quite successful at bastardizing conservatism completely.)

Besides, Paul's point had more to do with attracting "young people" to the party, as he explained in the next paragraph, and later in the article.

You know, rather than be oh so offended, one could look at it as good advice for Palin or any other Republican who is looking to attract new voters to them and the party. (I swear, these Palinistas are as bad as the Obamadrones.)

The point is, the Old White Guy Party is dying off. Paul was the only candidate who attracted new GOP registrations in '08, and he actually attracted people under 40!

But hey, we get it. Unless you support perpetual war(s), the Big Tent® has no place for you.

Paul comes closest as he's ever come to outright endorsing the Truther movement.

Oh he does not, Eric. He thinks the investigation should be re-opened because it was incomplete, since all it did was cover the government's inept ass. The info on fucking Muslims training on how to fly planes but not fucking land them was there, the CIA reported it numerous times, and it was ignored.

The govt' is inept, and 9/11 is an excellent example of that. Some "strong national defense" we've got going on, huh?

YouTube - Ron Paul: Doesn't Accept 9/11 Investigation

Interviewer: So your position (then we’ll get off this and onto something else) your position then would be that as far as you’re concerned the official story from 9/11 . .. and this is not about the government covering up their mistakes. . . this is about the suggestions from these people who you were talking to in this video that 9/11 was orchestrated by the government: You do not support that theory?

Ron Paul: Absolutely Not!

Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Ron Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that.

Reason: So what did you mean when you told Student Scholars you'd be open to a new 9/11 investigation?

Ron Paul: Well, I think the more we know about what we went on is good. But I don't think there's any evidence of [an inside job] and I don't believe that. The blame goes to bad policy. And a lot of times bad policy is well-motivated.

Fuck the GOP, and fuck every single so-called conservative who has so dishonestly twisted Paul's words, and so relentlessly attacks him for having the unmitigated gall to disgaree with the GOP's new interest in foreign entanglements, preemptive wars and nation-building (which is historically the Democrat Party's territory).

Paul's not perfect, but he's a hell of a lot better than most of the RINO beltway hacks that are shoved down our throats by The Stupid Party, which I have no doubt they will do again come '12.

This country is fucked.

Ran said...

...Sorry, off topic.

I do want to endorse Paul and his brand, but can't. So very much there to admire. I do not see foreign policy the way they do. It's dangerously naive, in my view.

Eric Dondero said...

For those who say that Sarah Palin doesn't attract younger voters, you need to take a look at Adam Brickley. He's the guy that started Draft Sarah Palin for VP 2008. He's 22. And a college student at Univ. of Colorado. He started the group, which turned into a nationwide movement, out of his dorm room, on a shoestring budget.

Eric Dondero said...

Hey Gary, it's not 8th grader locker room language. It's called Military language.

Perhaps that's something you don't know anything about? Perhaps you never served?

For those of us who did serve, we get to talk whatever mother-fucking way we wish.

And I would thank you, for thanking me for my service.

Rae said...

That was quite the fit I pitched there.

I will say this though. Paul was stupid, and so is she.

Gary said...


The last 30 years has seen our culture has degenerate. It no longer respected to be a classy gentleman like say a Cary Grant or a Walter Cronkite. Now it is "cool" to drop the F-Bomb 5 times in each sentence, to tell someone to shove it or suck it.

No. I don't think so. A person should always strive to be the best they can be . . . not take the easy way and sink to the lowest crude and uneducated level. Maybe I am a faded echo of an ancient past, but I would hope being a gentleman still counts in the world.

Truth said...

Ron Paul is a 9/11 Truther and a kook, a very dishonest kook at that

akai1sora said...

"Hey Gary, it's not 8th grader locker room language. It's called Military language."
Yeah Eric, I remember my military service, there was always some foul-mouth empty headed enlisted man who constantly babbled obscenities. Also why should anyone thanks us for serving our government or are you still under delusions of grandeur that citizens owe you something?

ccoffer said...

"8th grade locker room language has no value in the areana of ideas on or off the internet."

Changing the subject does nothing to bolster your retarded lies, asshole.

These scumbag demonrats have just spent more money than every previous government combined. Your idiotic response?
"Conservatives grow government."

You are a useless, worthless piece of shit who wants nothing good for this country.

Fuck you

stefan said...

CC: As far as I know the ACLU is strongly pro-choice, while Paul and Barr and David Keene of the ACU - all people that worked with the ACLU on common issues on civil liberties - are all strongly pro-life. So it is just plain stupid to say Paul is a pro-ACLU guy.

Eric, I watched the youtube clip already the same day it was released and I see no evidence that he supports the 911 insider job issue, but he does support the trurth about 911, so do you not support the truth about 911? Have you read my responses above about this allegation or the comments on hotair? Don't think so... You are a conspiracy nut and kook.

Paul has the dominance among 15-20 year olds, among those of them that did not vote for Obama. They will be voters in 2012. As to the donor--conspiracy, tell me where 15-20 years olds are big donors to a candidate? As far as I know they have NO money to donate, but are the most enthusiastic supporters.

Reagan won with the majority of young voters, so they are crucial. If you think they will be inspired by a candidate that calls for more war than Obama, then you are batshit crazy and estranged from reality...

stefan said...

you sure knows how to persuade people that do not agree with you and sure know how to be a gentleman! I am sure Gary feels so persuaded by your superior arguments, you never go for ad hominem attacks.... always a word or two one can learn from you from your rich vocabulary.

(sarcasm has its place in political discourse).

Kn@ppster said...

I wouldn't call Sarah Palin or her admirers "country club Republicans." Precisely the opposite, in fact.

The bulk of Palin's supporters seem to be regular people -- Dondero sometimes refers to them as "blue collar Republicans" or "NASCAR Republicans." Palin's appeal to them seems to be that she's a "regular people" too ... she hunts, she fishes, she's a hockey mom, etc.

The real Palin, of course is a thoroughly big-government "progressive populist" who for whatever reason found it convenient to affiliate with the GOP. She's basically Jim Hightower with boobs.

stefan said...

The whole politico article deals with
the issue of auditing the Fed, a bill for which Paul could get only about 18 co-sponsors for in the early 1980's when he first introduced it, and then subsequently every year, but for this year ALL Republican congressmen and almost 90 Democratic congressmen/women co-sponsored it.

Yet Eric, nidpits and blow up a side-remark and kind critique and spin it as if it was/is a full blown critique of Palin.

I like it how Eric advances libertarian causes and have dealt with HR 1207 and related critiques of the Fed. He has not produced one single article on this, yet this issue deals with the most basic economic issue. The TARP money looks small in comparison to the amount of money the Fed created out of thin air.

stefan said...

Poor Sarah, she should have registered her own name also when she opened the AKgovSarahPalin account with twitter, as she won't be able to use that after a week and this one is clearly not registered by her.

Not sure whether she can sue to get control over it?

Knapp: on the issue of drug decriminalization Palin is not exactly progressive...

stefan said...

Rae: if you read closely then you will notice Daniel Libit used the word "dismiss" as in dismiss Palin supporters, NOT Paul.

And he wrote about establishment type of Republicans that are partisan, that would have never demonstrated against Bush's growth of govt, the inflation tax or the Bush-Paulson bailout (which Palin herself supported, being on the McCain-Palin) ticket.

Eric's heading is also entirely misleading and inaccurate. Interesting also that he and others does not deal with concrete platform and ideas. If you say you are for limited govt, you have to say which govt. programs you will put on a diet. The Palinistas deal with personality, not concrete programs. They try to describe her as a Reagan Republican, yet neither she nor her followers (perhaps a few exceptions) have come out
openly for the abolishment of the Dept. of Education, that Reagan had in his 1980 and 1984 platform.

Yet when Paul has it in his platform in 2008, he is being described as an "extremist" as a kook, anarchist etc.
I read Paul's comments rather as a positive critique and an encouragement for Palin to also speak about civil liberties, audit of the Fed etc. Before she can do it, she has to really understand the issues also, and in all kindness I have reason to believe she is neither has an understanding of basic monetary theory, just like
she does not have foreign policy details. In all fairness, very few congressmen or governors ever deal with foreign policy, governors sign trade agreements and meet with politicians in other countries yes, but they do not really deal with policy.

Anonymous said...

that Truther video of Paul is something else, what a dirtbag and nut

Gary said...

****Your idiotic response?
"Conservatives grow government."
You are a useless, worthless piece of shit who wants nothing good for this country. Fuck you.****

My, my, my. How far down has sunk the classic English language of Shakespeare, Jane Austin, T.S. Eliot and Winston Churchill. Hang thy Plebian head in shame.

Sorry to burst your fantsy bubble, but Conservatives grow government, and spending. Facts are facts.

Rae said...

Rae: if you read closely then you will notice Daniel Libit used the word "dismiss" as in dismiss Palin supporters, NOT Paul.

I know, I noticed that too. The press is very good at baiting the R factions, turning them against one another. Just look at all the fools who swallowed it, hook line and sinker.

I agree with everything you said, but Paul needs to speak more carefully, and not be such a gadfly all the time. Alas, old dogs...

The real Palin, of course is a thoroughly big-government "progressive populist" who for whatever reason found it convenient to affiliate with the GOP. She's basically Jim Hightower with boobs.

Yup. This broad is not the "conservative" savior, and nowhere near a libertarian, Eric. There's a reason why she hitched her wagon to McCain, and Bill Kristol loves her so.

And might I add, the fact that she championed and signed into law ethics reform with no safeguards to prevent abuse, and which she claims was her reason for resigning, speaks volumes about her judgment and common sense.

Hoisted by her own petard!

stefan said...

Rae: Yup, Paul could have formulated it differently, also like with the 'cross" remark about Huckabee's add about his Christmas add. That was a bit an off the cuff remark that was a bit unfortunate. Paul is very far from a loose cannon, but need to guard about how the presse may distort words out of context. I think he acknowledged this as a mistake and an overhasty reply. Nobody is perfect, and Paul would be the first to acknowledge that.

Note that not one of the Palinistas tried to seek constructive discussion and none of them deny the fact that Palin talks a lot less about individual freedom, concrete issues like auditing the Fed etc. If she wants to lead, then she must show it, by coming up with concrete proposals and not fluffy statements or tweets. The questions is, do people want to rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic (with a Romney etc.) or do they really realize what should be done, that surgery is needed on the sick patient to survive and no fooling around on the surface alone.

Oh, and to those that come with guilty with association statements about Paul and 911 troofers, get lost. The lady that asked the question did NOT identify herself as beloning to any 911 truth and the question was about the truth about 911, a very lloaded question. It is like do you still hit your wife, if you answer no, then it came mean that you hit your wife in the past and and if you answer yes, then it means you have hit your wife and is still hitting her. Who is not for the truth about 911? It is a complicated issue that cannot be answered iin a few sentences really, let alone in one. And as I noted even the 911 troofers are not in agreement. The many theories about it is about the same as the many theories about the reason for attacking Iraq...

C.C. said...

First of all Stefan

"CC: As far as I know the ACLU is strongly pro-choice, while Paul and Barr and David Keene of the ACU - all people that worked with the ACLU on common issues on civil liberties - are all strongly pro-life. So it is just plain stupid to say Paul is a pro-ACLU guy."

And that means what? Oh the ACLU is pro-choice, while Paul and Barr are pro-life, therefore, Paul is not pro-ACLU BASED ON JUST THAT. That's Bent logic, c'mon now!

"Paul has the dominance among 15-20 year olds, among those of them that did not vote for Obama. They will be voters in 2012."

Woohoo! Three extra votes for Willard in 2012! I'm sure a right-wing version of the Michael Moore slacker army will be what puts the GOP back on top.............

"And he wrote about establishment type of Republicans that are partisan, that would have never demonstrated against Bush's growth of govt, the inflation tax or the Bush-Paulson bailout (which Palin herself supported, being on the McCain-Palin) ticket."

She knew the risks of running with an outed liberal, but you would have to be as naive as you make her out to be if you truly belive she has the same positions on those in July 2009 as she did in Sept/Oct 2008. Simple as day, you take the positions of the campaign, whether you support them or not.

And now Knappy,

"The real Palin, of course is a thoroughly big-government
"progressive populist" who for whatever reason found it convenient to affiliate with the GOP. She's basically Jim Hightower with boobs."

Yet in your "proof" last week of her elitism all you could offer was that her father (who btw worked at Hanford--real white-collar place) was a professor.

So Jim Hightower's an elitist too? Granted, I WOULD believe that.

Hey Chuck I think you meant for KNAPPY to go back to DU and have fun...........

Kn@ppster said...


You write:

"Yet in your 'proof' last week of her elitism all you could offer was that her father (who btw worked at Hanford--real white-collar place) was a professor."

I have never accused Palin of "elitism," nor attempted to "prove" any such accusation. I merely pointed out the error of calling her background "blue collar" -- an error which was, and remains, an error.

If lying about what I said is the best you can do, you should probably give up your major league aspirations and go back to tee-ball.

C.C. said...

Of course the point continues to be your lack of proof (well, solid proof anyway) about her background.

I mean I'm sure you'll be trying to tie the fact she went to school in a city called Coeur D'Alene, Idaho as such.

stefan said...

CC: She should disavow her then form McCain and his positions. If it is only about personalities int eh campaign and no substantive disagreement between them, consider her as belonging to the same camp as McCain or Romney. She has proven her independence in AK before and during her AK gov. race, but has not proven yet her independence to take on the good old boy network also in DC among the "established" Republicans.

You want to call me a Paullock, yet you support a "bulldog with lipstick" that demonstrates her selfdescription by resigning from office??? Get real.

C.C. said...

Um, when did I call you a Paullock? Fraud maybe, but not a Paullock.

It is true she should separate herself from McCain yesterday, but she would have endorsed Hutchison (much closer to McCain) over Perry if she was this secret leftist.

And you're going to show your libertarian streak by once again going back to these stupid talking points about her "quitting". I suppose you think she should have done like Jesse Ventura and spent the last 18months of her term joyriding on taxpayer dole. Who was that doing games for the failed XFL again?

Get real? Back at ya, "Paullock".

Anonymous said...

Paul Vs. Palin: That is the Question. One supported the great rouge neo-con Mccain, and the other supported the constitution. Palin ran as Mccains V.P. for God's sake. That tell me everything I need to know about her. People say that, well, well, well, um, if you were asked to be a V.P. , um you would accept it. I then turn that around and say, so if Sara Palin was asked by Obama to be his running mate, you would be happy if she said yes? Ron on the other hand was asked by Mccain to support him for President last year after he dropped out, knowing full well it would mean a bigger stature in the RNC and possibly mean he could get more support for his bills he has wanted for years. HE SAD NO!!!!! You know why? Because he said he could never endorse someone who was against his beliefs, (beliefs being based on the Bible and the Constitution) and held his own rally against the RNC. I also find it funny that the posts seem to paint Ron as callin Palin a "country club" Republican(which by the way does not mean you belong to a country club, but hold the view of the great neo-cons like Bush that the Constitution is just a piece of paper) when in fact he said her supporters were.

If you guys like to be spoon fed your talking points from the great mind of Hannity or John Gibson, then go ahead.
Also Ron has never said that the government was behind 911, only that the Commision was a whitewash and needed further investigation. What if by the new investigation we found out Jong Ill in Korea was behind it? Would you want one then?