This is the 11th of my series of Sarah Palin clips from CPAC 2014 & commentary upon them:

Day 1: The Crowd
Day 2: The Entrance
Day 3: Dr. Seuss
Day 4: Why Sarah Feels Good
Day 5: Playing Prevent
Day 6: Sinking Ships
Day 7: Flexibility Pens & Putin
Day 8: Anticipation
Day 9: Don’t blow it
Day 10: 2010 Again

I remember when Sarah Palin was picked to be the GOP nominee for VP the leftist web site The Reclusive Leftist was absolutely delighted at her nomination.

Violet was one of the few leftists and liberals who were absolutely appalled at the sexism at the sexism directed at Governor Palin and even after Barack Obama was safely elected she still was having none of it.

One reason I’ve written as many posts as I have about Palin is because I’m so baffled by the reaction to her..

…the first answer you’ll get if you ask feminists why they hate Sarah Palin is that “it’s because she ____” — and then fill in the blank with the lie of choice: made rape victims pay for their own kits, is against contraception or sex ed, believes in abstinence-only, thinks the dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, doesn’t believe in global warming, doesn’t believe in evolution, is stupid and can’t read, etc., etc., etc., etc.

But none of those things is true. None of them.

Violet took the time to find out what Sarah Palin actually said and did, and while they disagree on abortion she found most of the stuff said about her were BS and made that case to other however…

But after you’ve had a few of these myth-dispelling conversations, you start to realize that it doesn’t matter. These people don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate. That’s why they keep reaching and reaching for something else, until they finally get to “she winked on TV!”

She should not have been surprised as the Obama types where just as hard on Feminists asking questions about irregularities in the 2008 Democrat primary.

Ironically the movie “we will not be silenced” was never made, apparently they WERE silenced.

That willingness to be played is exactly what Sarah Palin is addressing here:

As a pro-life, pro-marriage, Roman Catholic I don’t expect many feminists to take my word, but I invite women to watch that clip from Sarah Palin and consider the question she asks: which party acts as if the totality of your being is your reproductive organs?

It’s not the party of Marilinda Garica.


Olimometer 2.52

It’s Thursday and the tip jar sits at $128 for the week.

Only 9 $25 tip jar hits necessary to make the weekly goal and give us a good jump into the final week of the month.

Let us know we’re doing the job, please consider hitting DaTipJar below.


With 61 more $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year.

I would ask that you do subscribe by hitting the button below.  If your finances allow it, consider choosing Hat level or better.  A subscription comes not only with exclusive commentary, but on a weekly basis you will have the opportunity to get direct access to me by phone to provide feedback or suggestions to make sure this site is worthy of your financial support and patronage.


Max Bialystock: The two cardinal rules of producing. One: Never put your own money in the show.

Leo Bloom: And two?

Max Bialystock:  Never put your own money in the show!

The Producers 2005

In both versions of The Producers and in the Broadway play. Max Bialystock raises money for his plays by diving into “little old lady land”

This came to mind when I saw this story at Politico:

Amid speculation that Hillary Clinton might make a run for the presidency in 2016, her husband is taking another swing at shrinking her lingering 2008 campaign debt, which totals $73,000 as of Sept. 30.

In an email to supporters Wednesday, Bill Clinton offered a chance to spend a day with him if donors chipped in to drive down his wife’s campaign debt before Dec. 6.

That Hillary might still have campaign debt 4 years after the race was not a big surprise, as the article says it was as high as 25 Million at one point, but what really struck me was the figure that is left after four years.


Now for me and you $73,000 is a lot of money.  If I had $73,000 more that I do now it would have a dramatic effect on my life and prospects, but Bill Clinton?

That thought seems to be a general theme in comments at Politico this one is typical:

$73,000??? Honestly, doesn’t Bill earn something like $100,000/speech. Maybe he could sign up for one more gig and pay the bill himself – or possibly Hillary could earn a few shekels now that she’s retiring.

That is the big difference between Bill Clinton and the fictional Max Bialystock.  Max was wearing a cardboard belt and needed to dive into little old lady land to do anything.  Bill Clinton turned his political career into a vast fortune. He could pay this debt off with no effort, his welcoming ladies young and old into presidential kneepad land is likely purely recreational. This fact obscures an overriding truth about the Bill Clinton way.

Yes it’s true Bill Clinton can retire this debt himself if he chooses to, but why would he choose to? As long as there are democrat donors willing to spend their money why would he ever think about paying this himself?

This not only makes him the perfect patron saint for the Democrat party but would make him an excellent Hollywood or Broadway producer.

Today on Morning Joe Nicole Wallace was sitting in with Joe Scarborough & company (sans Mika) and the subject of President Obama’s statement concerning the “private sector is doing fine”.

Plenty of people have hit the president on this but there was an interesting twist on the subject today beginning with the opening.

The Show started with John McCain’s “The fundamentals of the economy are sound” statement with the Obama commercial that followed. Then then showed the president’s gaffe and Romney’s ad that followed. Joe, Nichole Wallace Steve Rattner and Mark Halperin started discussing it and comparing it to the McCain situation

As then talked about the mistake Joe Scarborough said something that someone like myself would not find incredible, but to people on MSNBC would have been a shock.

Scarborough noted that John McCain and Sarah Palin were riding high until that gaffe. He made the point that the public after that point got the idea McCain had no idea what to do about the economy and he never recovered. Everyone at the table agreed.

While I would suggest the “suspension” of the campaign was more important, this was a watershed moment for MSNBC.

Even with Nichole Wallace at the table (who I will refrain from tweaking further as she is expecting) nobody a the table interrupted to say anything like: Well that gaffe was bad but the real problem with the campaign was Sarah Palin

Nope, not a peep, not a sound, suddenly the actual reality of the situation was put before MSNBC viewers.

Now if Palin had been the nominee I’m sure it would have played differently but for at least one morning MSNBC and its viewer heard something that they hadn’t heard before: that John McCain’s defeat was not due to Sarah Palin, but was due to his own mistakes.

It’s a start.

Exit question: If Mika was on set would they have hit Palin?

Update: Delayed reaction instalanche as I was away from my pc for a bit, thanks Glenn, don’t forget to check out my advice to the Romney Campaign invoking Braxton Bragg and my advice to the Kimberlin & Co crowd invoking Robert Stacy McCain.

Do you remember this?

Let me be clear, I said you can call the dogs and light the fire and leave the house. I think it sounds over.

Now let me be clear here, if Obama goes in this race with a 5- point lead and losing this election, the consequences are — bull, man. I mean I don’t think that’s going to happen, but I think David it’s a point to bring up.

But you stop and contemplate this country if Obama goes in and he has a consistent five point lead and loses the election, it would be very, very, very dramatic out there.

That’s Carvelle October of 2008
when some on the left suggested riots and bloodshed if Obama lost, I wonder if they will try to play that card again next year?

Update: Apparently Bloomberg is playing it now.

During the campaign for Atlanta William Tecumseh Sherman Faced Joseph Johnston inferior force over the highly defensible terrain of Northern Georgia.

Sherman used his advantage of a larger force to turn and flank Johnston out of position after position as he slowly proceeded closer and closer to his objective of Atlanta, but Sherman was worried that due to the repeated flanking moves he might be imbuing his troops with a hesitation to assault prepared works.

So at Kennesaw Mountain when the Confederates prepared their positions, rather than flanking they Sherman assaulted them directly. The resulting repulses cause General Thomas to remark “One or two more such assaults will use up this Army.”

Sherman then resumed his flanking maneuvers that pushed Johnston back until the Confederates foolishly replaced him with John Bell Hood, but more significantly as pointed out in Ken Burns series The Civil War: “Sherman never admitted he made a mistake, but never repeated it.”

One might debate the psychology of that fact, but as far as the Union cause was concerned it was irrelevant. Sherman defeated Hood, Cut through Georgia like a hot knife through butter and wreaked such havoc in South Carolina that Jefferson Davis found himself compelled to re-appoint Joseph Johnston to the post he relieved him of. Of course by that time it made very little difference.

And so we come to Stacy McCain and Ann Althouse.

Stacy considers Althouse’s statement that her vote for Obama was “rational”: “An insult to those of us who were never fooled by Obama.” The Virginian considers suggests “intellectual pride makes you stupid” and Althouse laughs at the idea that voting Bob Barr is a rational decision.

One can debate endlessly if a third party vote is a “waste” or a lack of decision or not (I think it depends on the situation) and one can decide if Ann Althouse was a “rube” for voting Obama over McCain. (I think she was wrong but lots of people get things wrong). One might consider her defense of that vote silly (It may well be) others might consider it an insult (I think not) but when it comes down to it I think it isn’t relevant.

There are millions of people who voted for Barack Obama that after two and a half years are not only disinclined to do so again but will be happy to make the arguments to others why they should not either.

For myself I’d worry less and less about the “I told you so’s” as long as they are in the right direction.

On the second day at Gettysburg J.E.B. Stewart arrived at the Southern HQ after one of his rides. His absence was a factor in Lee’s eventual defeat so when he arrived and announced that he had captured wagons for Lee, he received a rebuke, but once that was done, Lee let it go and they fought on.

My advice to all concerned, let it go and lets fight on together.

At least according to Dan Riehl at Riehl world view who recalls an old Sullivan Post per election concerning Barack Obama:

On October 27, 2008, Andrew Sullivan posted: The Top Ten Reasons Conservatives Should Vote For Obama. Given all this playing out today, I thought I’d go back and have a look.

It’s high comedy but let me explain something. It’s my opinion Sullivan’s turn on Bush had everything to do with Bush’s position on Gay Marriage, it was after that point where Sullivan really started changing his tune and it was the (likely correct) belief that Obama was paying lip service to actual marriage during the campaign that made the difference in the other direction.

But as Glenn Reynolds points out the rubes are self identifying, but never fear. As soon a there is an actual Republican challenger to Obama all of our friends on the left who are beating their breasts today will support him, Mendoza line or no.

Update: Stacy Links and comments seem to agree with my Sullivan assessment, Oh and BTW the Mendoza line is a baseball term referring to hitting .200.

The “official” story as to why Biden was chosen for VP was that Michelle Obama didn’t want Hillery Clinton on the ticket and thanks to John McCain’s implosion (despite Sarah Palin’s best efforts) it turns out she wasn’t needed.

Now the talk is again of putting Clinton on the ticket in 2012 and Glenn Reynolds gives three reasons against. Can anyone explain why #3 would have been any less valid in 2008.

3. If Hillary is going to be one heartbeat away from the Oval Office, would you want that to be your heartbeat?

I got no answer to that one.

…at the reclusive leftist back in 2008 when she posted each part of the film from youtube and wrote the following:

The pattern is the same, from Washington to Texas, from Iowa to Nevada, from Maine to Minnesota: Obama workers arrive early at each caucus place and take control of the premises and the process. Hillary supporters are intimidated, told their names aren’t registered, even physically barred from the site. Busloads of mysterious strangers arrive and cast votes for Obama. Sign-in sheets disappear; voter tallies are falsified. Over and over and over again, the pattern is the same.

How did this happen? Simple. The Obama campaign spent the entire year prior to the election planning the whole thing out. They saw an opportunity to game the system and they took it. At “Camp Obama” training centers, Obama campaign officials schooled volunteers in the fine art of stealing caucuses. And I have to hand it to them: they did a great job. When Obama points to his campaign as evidence of his executive experience, I’m inclined to agree. He’s definitely proven himself to be an executive-level criminal.

Do I sound angry? I am. There’s something about elderly women being bullied and denied the chance to vote — for a woman for President! — that makes me a little hot under the collar. Whenever somebody talks about Obama as the progressive candidate, the democratic candidate, the agent of hope and change, it’s all I can do anymore to keep from puking.

My post was a year ago and referenced Violet’s posts from a year earlier. To give you some perspective the above post was from October 15, 2008, Ted Kennedy was still alive, Scott Brown was an unknown state senator, a Tea Party was what little girls had with friends, Charles Johnson was still sane, and this blog didn’t exist. It’s so long ago that I was gainfully employed working 40 hours a week at a job I loved!

I posted about this back in August 2009 saying explaining why he he can’t allowing anything to happen on the Gladney case:

As Violet actually read the incident reports and I didn’t I don’t know if the SEIU were Senator Obama’s foot soldiers in that campaign, but that would be my bet.

I wonder what would happen if they talked? After all presidents come and go but the Union will still be there.

She has several posts on the subject of the president’s primary tactics going back as far as September of 2008. In fact the declarations of objections is dated July 4th 2008.

The significance? These things were known by the left two years ago. There were some on the left who wanted to get it out, to shout it to the rafters and they were shut down. They understood what was coming and wanted to prevent it. Some like Lynette Long voted for Palin and were excoriated for it, others like Violet here voted for Cynthia McKinney (ugh).

Now Violet here and I violently disagree on Religion, Abortion, George Bush, the War, the Economy etc. By every measurable standard she is very far left, in her eyes by every measurable standard I am very far right but let me tell you something. She is honest and honorable. She saw this happening two years ago and unlike the media or most democrats she (like Hillbuzz) absolutely refused to go along with it because as she put it on August 28th 2008:

Who will be the first African-American to win the nomination of his or her party without cheating?

Because, you know, it’s not Obama.

And if you don’t have time to slog through the 500-page Caucus Analysis website, here’s another link to that 98-page book version. It’s horrifying stuff. As you listen to Opossum’s speech tonight, just think of all those busloads of people from Illinois arriving to pose as Iowa voters in the caucus…and all those thugs in Texas physically barring Hillary supporters from voting…and all those union fixers in Nevada dropping Hillary ballots in the toilets…

If you didn’t understand why the DOJ will not investigate the black panther stuff, you do now.

The Memeorandum thread is here, and a PJ media story as well. Two years too late.

Update: Hillbuzz explains what this meant:

until 2008, we were all lifelong, unquestioning, party loyal Democrats who never in our lives dreamed our party would be responsible for thuggery like this.

The best way we can describe the feeling we have when we think about the DNC is to remember what the human characters on the TV show “V” felt like when they saw the masks ripped off the “Visitors”, revealing them to be lizard people underneath. Even people who had been helping the Visitors, and trying to convince others that they were really here to “serve the human race” in the non-cook book sense were instantly transformed into Resistance fighters when they saw what really lurked behind those masks.

So it is for many lifelong Democrats out there, including such prominent names as Lynn Forester de Rothschild as well, who will never look at the DNC the same way again…not after its mask has been ripped off so spectacularly.

He elaborates further in a later post:

One of our greatest frustrations in life remains the fact that we were never able to get the Media and American public interested in the truth about Obama’s fraud and intimidation during the 2008 primaries, but we see clearly now that America just wasn’t ready to face the truth about Obama yet. They didn’t want to see who he really is, or what he did to get to where he is. They wanted to believe the myth Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann promoted heavily on MSNBC. Anyone who spoke the truth was attacked, maligned, and destroyed…like the contemptible little boy who had the audacity to tell the world the corpulent, over-indulged emperor had no clothes.

Well, it sure feels like Americans are more willing to listen to the naked truth about Obama now.

Now the MSM will ignore this as they did in 2008, but I don’t think the American voter will.

Update 2: Michelle Malkin connects dots: