Trump’s Stepford Wives: Palin, Carson, & Hannity

Endorsed Trump

Chris Christie’s conservative bona-fides fell away years and years ago, and O’Reilly’s just an ass, but the rest of them? WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU PEOPLE?

There’s been an Invasion of the Body Snatchers. A Stepford Wife transformation in Tea Party Land. There are humans among us who look normal (“normal” as in the same as they always were) but aren’t… Like really, REALLY aren’t.

We conservatives have experienced a kind of human earthquake. Fellow conservatives we thought were terra-firma conservatives have revealed themselves to be subject to liquefaction when nudged by a Trump on the richter scale. Think of it this way:

Having lived in San Francisco for five years, I can tell you one of the phrases you don’t want to hear, but is uttered too often for comfort is, “Did you feel that?” One of the most profound betrayals there is is an earthquake: when the earth itself betrays you. Where do you go? Aside from the superficial advice about doorways, you’re still, quite literally on earth. Terra-Not-So-Firma. You can’t FLOAT. You can’t all of a sudden DEFY GRAVITY. That’s why it’s so terrifying, on a primal, indeed cellular level. I’ve been through a big earthquake and I can tell you, it’s a transformative experience.  There’s your life before the earthquake and your life after. You don’t ever feel quite the same about the brown on our little blue dot on the Milky Way. You don’t ever trust it – the very ground beneath your feet – with the same confidence ever again.

Thus has been the great culling of conservatives lo these last months. People we thought were solid, bedrock conservatives, have given way.  Sarah Palin was one of the first, and the hardest. Many of us have spent years defending her. Until a few months ago, I can’t think of a single thing she ever said I disagreed with on the merits. Sure, you can mock her God-awful speaking voice, but the substance of what she said was true, in the truest sense of the word: she meant it, and it was consistent with the conservative principles she articulated, well, consistently! That’s the thing about principles: they don’t require a degree, or noble birth. They’re free. Accessible to all. If only you will claim them. And she did, bravely. There were millions of us who were horrified at how she was treated by the media (and even fellow conservatives) and came to her aid on blogs, social media, and comments sections, etc.

Then she endorsed Trump. To be stringently accurate, the first tremor was when she endorsed Newt in 2012, a progressive Republican. We hated it when she endorsed McCain for Senate in 2010 but we understood it. She was being loyal to the man who plucked her from obscurity and made her a household name, such as it was. But Trump…? What? Why? When she endorsed and campaigned for Cruz for Senate in 2012? With full-throated support, having clearly thought about it, and articulated her reasoning? She knows him. Knows him well. What happened to her?

Person after person after person has given way, so when I read this post at Red State, I thought I’d post it here as a kind of plea to her and all the victims of Trump liquefaction.  It’s addressed to Sean Hannity but is applicable widely. If you call yourself “conservative” or “Tea Party” please spend a few minutes with it take it on bravely and fairly and honestly.

We’re supposed to be better than this…

RED STATE: Dear Sean Hannity: Are You REALLY a Conservative?

Consider me your conscience. Your real conscience, not the one in which you are temporarily blinded by the campaign of one Donald J. Trump.

First of all, you claim you are a conservative. In fact, I don’t doubt that you are, and have been all of your life. In fact, you are a member of the Conservative Party, which means you are a practitioner of its tenets. You have professed you want a limited government, strong national defense, lower taxes, real spending cuts, and a return to American values through individuals, not mandated by government. That type of government can only be presided by a limited government executive. The last such chief executive was Ronald Reagan, and you have constantly wished for someone like that to run and win in the primaries.

You have also espoused a strong dislike for the GOP Establishment. You, just like I and every other conservative that I know, have been horrified to see the leadership of the GOP sell out to the Democrats. You are tired of special deals being given to some corporate cronies of both the left and the GOP establishment, and you want it to stop, starting from the top.

So during the current campaign, we have two candidates running in the GOP primary who are left with a chance at the nomination. One of those candidates has stood out, displaying the conservative tenets that you yourself have craved. A candidate who has stood up to the establishment, not just rhetorically but through his actions. He is running against a candidate who, by any objective manner, is more in line with Establishment cronyism, shows a preference for making deals rather than using his core convictions to guide his decisions in line with his ideology.

In short, you have a no-brainer decision. One that you, a conservative, should not hesitate to make. And certainly not one that you can show ambivilance.

So why in heavens name are you promoting Donald J. Trump, a candidate with no core beliefs, a candidate who espouses not just moderate positions, but positions from every point of the political spectrum? And how can you NOT promote Ted Cruz, a man who checks EVERY box that a constitutional conservative could want?

To be honest, I am flummoxed. I don’t know if it’s your personal association with Donald Trump, your feeling that if you support Cruz that you will suffer a loss of ratings, or other reasons. But one thing I do know: You are NOT true to your professed conservative beliefs if you actively promote Donald Trump over Ted Cruz.

How do you do this? First, you let Donald Trump set the agenda for your interaction with Ted Cruz. When you interview Trump, you defer to his agenda, you don’t hit him hard on many issues as you would other candidates, you don’t call him out on his many flip-flops, and you aren’t even concerned about his lack of decorum.

Do this. Picture Donald Trump as a liberal. You would be constantly reminding the voters how we cannot elect such a candidate who has absolutely no core beliefs. One who constantly demeans his opponents. One who is ABSOLUTELY AFRAID of debating with his primary opponent without the filter of at 7 other people on stage. Seriously, Sean. Step back out of the fog and seriously rate Trump not as an anti-establishment champion of the “little guy,” but as someone who cannot even converse in a manner without sounding like a repetitive macaw.

So why are you dissing Ted Cruz? He matches your positions, every single one of them, more than Donald Trump, based upon your historical conservative position. In addition, you usually don’t fall for the diversional trick of callers claiming to be an independent, then trashing the conservative position. Donald Trump callers have mastered this art. They argue by criticizing everything Cruz has done, without arguing substance, and you fall for it. Every time. But when Cruz supporters try to call you out, you come out with that tired, worn out reply: “Well, if you lose, will you support Trump over Hillary? You won’t? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?”

Finally, your ignorance of how the GOP convention with regard to the nomination of the party reprentative for president is disappointing. Very disappointing. You don’t understand that nominating a president is a process that is not just about the popular elections. Yes, popular elections are important, but just as important is knowing the rules of all 57 states and territories with regard to delegates. You listen to Trump’s claim that Cruz is stealing delegates that Trump “won,” which is an ABSOLUTE falsehood. All (well, most) delegates are bound to the delegate allotment on rules for the first round, and Donald Trump has all of them. What he doesn’t have is the subsequent round support of those delegates. And you don’t think it’s fair that Cruz is getting them to vote for him if Trump doesn’t have the majority on the first round.

Then let me ask you this: Why even HAVE a convention? Why even have delegates? Well, you ignore the obvious reason: That a plurality is NOT a majority. For instance, Cruz split the vote with Rubio, Carson, Bush, and Kasich, of which added with his votes constituted 65-70% of the entire vote. So why does someone with a large minority of votes get the nomination? In addition, some voters aren’t even Republican, yet their votes factor in the delegates. How can that even be FAIR? Finally, the delegates are the epitome of grass roots activists.

Now, Sean, I can see your confusion. Since Ronald Reagan, we’ve not had a primary where the Establishment candidate was not the runaway choice as the nominee starting from March 15. Therefore, the Establishment candidate usually got his delegates to be selected or voted on by the state conventions, and those delegates were on the rulemaking committee. In turn, those delegates usually worked with the National GOP leadership, which was establishment.

But make no mistake: The DELEGATES are the rulemakers. And Cruz has been working the hardest to EARN…NOT “steal”…those delegates, while Trump has been sitting on the sidelines. Again, this is the epitome of grass roots activism, and in fact results in a candidate that is more conducive to all the voters at convention time.

For you to be ignorant of this process, Sean, is inexcusable for a constitutional conservative. There is so much more, and I’m sure others will add to this list of observations.

I doubt you will be making any changes, but this letter will be here after the convention. Then, after the general election. It will be here for me to remind you of your own ignorance. At least until the FCC shuts RedState down.

One word of advice: Have a long, long talk with your friend Mark Levin. Listen to his reasons. You’ve had countless meetings and discussions with him before, but you and he are as far apart as Levin is with Bernie Sanders. Well, now I’m being rhetorical, but seriously: Play the audio of your show and compare it with Mark. The contrast is stunning.

Sean, please come back. Before it’s too late.

Sarah Palin FORGED Obama's Signature!

Obama allegedly signed the guest book at Westminster Abbey, today, 2008… but it’s 2011, right? So… Obviously it’s photoshopped or forged because Obama is the smartest President ever elected. Sarah Palin is the only politician stupid enough to get a date wrong! Obviously she’s responsible one way or another.  Right?



I'm SURE they would have done the same for George W. Bush…

From breitbart:

VIDEO:  “I refuse to accept the notion that the United States of America is not going to lead the world economically throughout the 20th Century.”

…but the AP article covering Vice President Joe Biden’s remarks does not reflect the error:
“I absolutely refuse to accept the notion that the United States of America is not going to lead the world economically throughout the 21st Century,” Biden said during remarks to supporters on the Delta campus.

Once again, we can thank Andrew Breitbart for uncovering the nakedly shameless bias infecting the mainstream media. Once again the once proud ASSOCIATED PRESS is “helping” a liberal they like.
Do you think they’d have been so “generous” with W.? Or Sarah Palin?????

Like Shooting Fish in a Barrel…

Roland S. Martin, a CNN (pointy) talking head, wrote the following piece on Sarah Palin that pretty well sums up what those who do not “get” her think about her.  I make no assertion here that Sarah is an Ivy League intellectual, but neither do I claim that an Ivy League institution has figured out a way to confer common sense on anyone yet…
His article is below and my comments are in red.  Link to the original site of the article is here.
Sarah Palin’s most ardent supporters in “real America” love to suggest that those of us who don’t buy into her silly shtick fail to grasp why they adore her, citing her realness, plain-spokenness and whatever else they can conjure up.
She has never been caught lying, in a multi-syllabic, nuanced, or SAT vocabulary word way.  Not in ANY WAY.  Plain-spoken?  Yeah.  That’s “code” for NOT A LIAR where I come from.
Obama’s list just off the top of my head, in no particular order:
1. Rev. Wright “I never heard” any hate speech in TWENTY YEARS OF SUNDAYS
2. Ayers: “A guy around the neighborhood” but LAUNCHED HIS SENATE CAMPAIGN IN HIS HOUSE
3. Not a lie, but under-reported: 57 States.
4. Not a lie, but under-reported: corpsman = corpse-man
5. Not a lie, but under-reported: elevated stage, podium with presidential seal and TELEPROMPTERS IN A SIXTH GRADE CLASSROOM. 
6. Close Guantanamo by 2010… Still waiting.
7. “Not one dime” tax increase promise over and over again.  “Agnostic” on the subject now.
8. “C-Span”
9. FIRST day in office signs a transparency and no lobbyist pledge.  He has nearly FORTY lobbyists working for him.  GOP LITERALLY locked out of health care meeting behind CLOSED AND LOCKED DOORS.
10. 8% unemployment max.  Reached 10% and still hovering.
Folks, nice try, but as a native Texan, I’ve seen many politicians and wannabes over the years that had charm, wit, charisma and a twinkle in their eye.
You want a media darling politician with substance? Try the late Gov. Ann Richards, a woman who could cut you deep but beam ear to ear with her motherly smile. But unlike Palin, she had a host of strong ideas in her head that actually made sense and appealed to a cross-section of folks.
LOVED Ann Richards style.  She WAS wonderful, you’re right. But, “unlike Palin, she had a host of strong ideas in her head that actually made sense and appealed to a cross-section of folks”
Palin’s WHOLE DEAL is that her ideas make sense and appeal to a cross-section of folks.  In fact, there’s been a lot of elitist sniffing that her ideas are SO simplistic and that’s why she appeals to all those simple, mouth breathing, knuckle dragging neanderthals out there in corn-fed America.  And if you actually listened to one of her speeches you would find VERY consistent, VERY solidly outlined ideas:  reducing the tax burden on employers, domestic drilling, and limited government, just to name a few.  Can’t have it both ways, S. 
Congressman Charlie Wilson, who died this week, was a smooth-talking Texan who loved to party hard, but when it came to politics, he knew how to get things done. The media loved him because he could sit with you and enjoy a beer over a barbecue, give a hilarious quote or two and explain foreign policy better than Henry Kissinger.
So why haven’t I cottoned up to Palin? Because she desires to portray herself as a straight-talking politician, but she is nothing more than a political celebrity willing to cash every check she can grab.
When did making money in America become sinister?  Did anyone ever question how much Bill Clinton or Geraldine Ferraro made for their media appearances?
What truly exposed her? The ridiculous way in which she reacted last week to two political heavyweights using the word “retarded.”
When it was reported that President Barack Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told a bunch of liberals that they were “retards” for threatening to run ads against fellow Democrats who weren’t jumping on the health care reform bandwagon, Palin demanded his resignation.
As the mother of a child with Down syndrome, Palin has often used her bully pulpit to demand respect for the mentally challenged. Nothing wrong with that. It is an issue that is close to her heart and she should be a fierce advocate.
Yet when one of her biggest supporters, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, also castigated liberals by calling them retards, Palin provided him cover — even trying to explain away his comments.
In an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, Palin said Limbaugh was using satire, while Emanuel was blasting those who disagree with him. But anyone who can read or listen could understand that Limbaugh did the same thing as Emanuel.
Emanuel and Limbaugh used retard to describe folks they disagree with, but only Emanuel was wrong? Yep, that’s how it is in Palin’s world. She was quick to pounce on someone she disagrees with politically, but not her patron saint, Limbaugh.
Sarah, if you were true to your cause, you would have demanded an on-air apology from Limbaugh and scolded him for using the word. Instead, you showed your true colors.
I have one word for you sir, SARCASM.  It’s getting tedious, really, how many times you lefties get caught being so humorless that it becomes a buttressing argument for you.  Limbaugh’s use of the word was in a bit using SARCASM.  He was not denigrating anyone.  Good grief.  If I say that Hitler was a vegetarian are you going to accuse me of being a Nazi sympathizer just because I make a statement with the word “Hitler” in it?
I haven’t bought into the fake “I’m a real American” persona you are trying to portray, Sarah. You slam the president for using teleprompters (In a sixth grade classroom & pronouncing corpsman “corpse-man 3x in one speech! HE’S THE COMMANDER-IN CHEIF FOR CHRISSAKES.), but write crib notes on your hand to remember basic beliefs that should be easy to regurgitate. (Dianne Feinstein did the same thing, breaking debate rules waaaay back in the dark ages in 1990) You decry the “lamestream” media, but you bask in its glory and have now joined its payroll as a Fox News contributor, even having them build a studio in your home (talk about media elite!). (She lives in ALASKA you dolt.  If she lived in the Hamptons you MIGHT have an argument.) You give a speech riddled with falsehoods (FINALLY- Some red meat.  WHAT FALSEHOODS?  NAME THEM.  FACT CHECK AND ARGUE THEM BASED ON FACTS!  If you are so sure that she is factually wrong, why did you BURY YOUR LEAD THEN and spend all this time on an ad hominem attack on her?  It’s all been style over substance in your article to this point.  WHAT IS SHE WRONG ABOUT?  LET’S HEAR IT WITH FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT) about the president and national security, and then try to shrug them off as the “lamestream” media attacking you.
You don’t fool me, even as your legion of fans considers you the second coming of President Ronald Reagan.
I don’t.  I just think she’s not a LIAR.
You quit on the people who elected you to become a political celebrity. 
Quitting the Governorship was so perplexing to all you pointy headed intellectuals because it was
a completely
unselfish decision based on what was best for the state (they were buried in an avalanche of lawsuits brought by one or two political foes, every one of which was adjudicated in Palin’s favor.  EVERY ONE.)  She did what was best for her state, though it meant she had to fall on a sword to do it.  It was ADMIRABLE and full of INTEGRITY and THAT’S why the elitists can’t understand it.  They’ve never seen anything like it.
You had the opportunity to show everyone that you’re willing to take on anyone who crosses the line against those mentally challenged, and you failed to do so.
I believe we’ve covered that.
Please, make as much money as you can. Paraphrasing comedian Martin Lawrence, ride this train until the wheels fall off. But please, cut the crap. You’re a crass politician with no true conviction. Your actions have shown that.
I believe we’ve covered that, too.
Roland S. Martin is a CNN contributor and a talk show host for WVON/AM in Chicago.

Michelle Obama on Palin / Obama "Agnostic" on Tax Hikes on Incomes less than 250k

First of all, I gotta give props to the First Lady for her handling of Larry King’s question to her the other night about Sarah Palin.  It was a perfect answer.  Very classy.  Very classy.  Which, naturally, leads me to believe she was prepped for it by someone who, atypically for the White House crew, offered some non-snarky advice.

I know.  The props to Mrs. Obama didn’t last long.  I never said they would.

Secondly, “he who shall not be named” (so named because the minute you mention his name, certain people’s capacity to breathe normally and listen without a jaundiced ear evaporates) is reporting this morning that Obama has had a “read my lips” moment.

Evidently, he has said he is, and I love this “artful” word, AGNOSTIC on the subject of tax hikes for those earning below 250k.  See the full article here.

Has he heard of YouTube?  Do I even have to link to the dozens and dozens of times on the campaign trail that he said “not one dime” or do we all remember it very, very clearly… It’s not like it was a one-off, you know?  Not like it was off-mic, off-the-record, off-the-friggin’-reservation!!!!!!

AAAAHHHHHHH!  They have to-have-to-have-to-have-to think we’re stupid.  There’s just no other explanation, is there?

If a conservative screams and there’s no progressive willing to hear them, does it still make a sound?