-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Yesterday in noting Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Rand Paul for the Republican nomination for Senate in Kentucky, I quoted the younger Dr. Paul’s comments about Palin. Here is what Palin had to say about Paul: “I’m proud to support great grassroots candidates like Dr. Paul. While there are issues we disagree on, he and I are both in agreement that it’s time to shake up the status quo in Washington and stand up for common sense ideas.”
Before the statement was issued by the Palin camp, Paul’s primary opponent Secretary of State Trey Grayson’s campaign questioned the authenticity of the endorsement. Grayson’s campaign manager initially dismissed a Paul announcement of the endorsement as “a release by a campaign that has demonstrated previously the ability to report things that are not true or half-truths.” Paul is currently leading Grayson in the polls.
View all comments (47) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/02/02/palin-for-paul
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
S.L. Toddard| 2.2.10 @ 12:40PM
Perhaps now that Palin no longer has to court voters for raving liberal lunatic John McCain she is re-embracing the populist conservatism and feisty localist spirit that marked her previous support of Pat Buchanan and Alaskan secession, in which case she has more patriotism and American good sense than I have given her credit for.
Dai Alanye | 2.2.10 @ 1:37PM
It takes an unusual turn of mind to praise someone for being a patriot as well as believing in secession. [Jeff Davis, American patriot!]
In any case, I believe Sarah has denied past support for either Alaskan secession or Buchanan's presidential run. Her support for a Paul, moreover, leads me to suspect her good sense, although we probably shouldn't make too much of it—it's only an endorsement.
S.L. Toddard| 2.2.10 @ 1:46PM
"It takes an unusual turn of mind to praise someone for being a patriot as well as believing in secession."
Of course. Because none of the founders believed in secession. That's why they never seceded from Great Britain.
Alan Brooks| 2.2.10 @ 2:58PM
Secession isn't quite the same as a decolonizing revolutionary thousands of miles from the 'Mother' country..
!861- '65 was a Civil War resulting from secession, but not a decolonizing war.
S.L. Toddard| 2.2.10 @ 3:03PM
It's exactly the same. Secession is simply the act of withdrawing from a political organization. The secession movements in VT and AK etc advocate political separation from a remote, abusive, out-of-control, imperialistic government - precisely as the Founders did (though with somewhat less provocation).
Alan Brooks| 2.2.10 @ 3:10PM
You are even crazier than I am, Raimando.
These people are right about me-- through you I see the wingnut mote in my own eye.
S.L. Toddard| 2.2.10 @ 3:14PM
You're calling me Raimondo? I am not following you at all, Mr. Brooks.
Alan Brooks| 2.2.10 @ 3:21PM
So be it: "you are crazier than I am, Toddard", okay?; but perhaps we both dislike(d) the Bush dynasty and have no intention of voting GOP. Can we agree on ANYTHING?
Guys, I would vote for Palin if she ran 3rd party. But she is beholden to the GOP-- they would treat her like Buchanan if she bolted them. Libertarians? they are Republicans in political drag.
Tammy| 2.2.10 @ 5:26PM
Glad to see you're finally admitting your insanity, Brooks; we all know that honest self-introspection is the first step toward good mental health.
Your acuity of mind is dead on, though--Toddard is quite crazy, too.
Alan Brooks| 2.2.10 @ 7:39PM
Only difference is Toddard would never admit he has toys in the attic as well.
And Palin is a little crazy for making such a big deal about Rahm saying "f------ retard."
Rahm saying it was silly;
She is being very petty by blowing it way way out of proportion. Now I am having second thoughts about her, she is trying too hard and too mean.
Tammy| 2.2.10 @ 8:27PM
Exactly. It takes guts to be honest about our personal frailties, and Toddard's are obvious to everyone here.
I'd think you'd be very offended by Rahm's vicious remarks--you're a little fragile upstairs, too, you know.
S.L. Toddard| 2.2.10 @ 3:08PM
Also, 61 - 65 was *not* a "civil war". Civil wars are fought by two factions seeking control of the same government. The south was not fighting for control of Washington - they were fighting the invading army of a neighboring state bent on their conquest.
Alan Brooks| 2.2.10 @ 3:15PM
"they were fighting the invading army of a neighboring state bent on their conquest."
But they had attempted to grab the Western lands in pursuit of slave-state expansion, which undermined their moral argument.
And they got what they deserved: God punished them.
To this day they are being punished for the sins of their "fathers." (great great grandfathers).
S.L. Toddard| 2.2.10 @ 3:20PM
That doesn't really hold any water. All the states that fought in the war had histories of slavery, ergo all deserved "punishment". And I'm not sure either of us is in any position to guess who God is and isn't punishing before death.
Alan Brooks| 2.2.10 @ 3:28PM
"ergo all deserved "punishment"
Sure, I never said we didn't. The North was punished too. You can't see justice? You are like spock the Vulcan, or Data from Star Trek II. You try to understand matters of faith through logical processes.
You will have to wait hundreds of years for that. Scientifically, economically, things can be changed very quickly, but bad ideas will be around for many ages. Point is?
You are hyper-logical.
Alan Brooks| 2.2.10 @ 3:39PM
"All the states that fought in the war had histories of slavery."
But not in the (far) Western lands. Not after 1865.
JohnD| 2.2.10 @ 3:57PM
Yeah, the South is being punished. Growing populations, growing economies, while the old New England Mills are long closed down, the Detroit union car companies are owned by the government while the non-union ones in Tennessee and Georgia thrive; many of the New York Banks have moved to Atlanta and North Carolina; The whole Insurance Industry left Hartford, CT and went to NC (and took their NHL franchise with them).
The Northeast and the Rust Belt are dead. The South and the Sun Belt are where the growth, money, and prosperity is, and where the children of the New Englanders move to in search of work.
Oh, and BTW, the South may have lost the Civil War, but we put a hell of a lot of Yankees in the ground doing it.
S.L. Toddard| 2.2.10 @ 5:13PM
I myself am a lifelong and proud New Englander who grew up in an ex-mill city, and what JohnD says is true in part, however skewed by understandable (and admirable) regional patriotism.
And again, the South did not lose a civil war - the South (after lawfully and peacefully seceding) lost their war for independence. The North, on the other hand, won their war of conquest, while Father Abraham surfed into everlasting glory on an ocean of American blood.
Tammy| 2.2.10 @ 5:31PM
Why does it not surprise me that you're from New England? Obnoxious, arrogant and overly sensitive--you fit the stereotype to a T.
S.L. Toddard| 2.2.10 @ 5:55PM
Well I got you there - everyone here thinks that as well, so you're more like a New Englander than I am!
Sucker.
Tammy| 2.2.10 @ 7:10PM
What??
Alan, is that you? You crazy old fox, you!
Alan Brooks| 2.2.10 @ 7:45PM
(No-- Tammy I wouldn't write something as stupid as that even on acid).
"The Northeast and the Rust Belt are dead."
John, this is hyperbole. Dead??
Tammy| 2.2.10 @ 8:30PM
lol. Sly old fox.
Red Phillips | 2.2.10 @ 4:43PM
Jefferson Davis was most certainly a patriot. He was seeking to preserve the political order of the Old Republic. Lincoln was a traitor who was trying to remake the original federated Republic into a central Leviathan state by force of arms. And our separation from England was most certainly an act of secession, and not revolution.
I don't think Palin is on record as supporting Alaskan independence, but her husband was once a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, and Palin addressed their convention by video. She has also addressed the Alaska LP.
Palin has denied officially supporting Buchanan in '96, but Buchanan recalls her supporting him. Who do you believe? Buchanan with his famous steel trap memory or a politically motivated denial by the McCain campaign? Palin supported Forbes in 2000.
S.L. Toddard| 2.2.10 @ 5:19PM
Folks here equate "patriotism" with docile fealty to Washington elites and a glorification of Big Government's wars. It is literally inconceivable to them that someone could be a Southern patriot, or a Mississippian patriot. Jeff Davis, who fought for the United States in the Mexican war, served the U.S. as Secretary of War and Mississippi as Senator, and answered the call to lead his beloved South while they fought off invasion and for independence - I wonder what patriotic acts Dai Alayne has to her credit, that she feels herself in a position to question Jeff Davis's patriotism.
Nick| 2.2.10 @ 5:44PM
Mr. Toddard,
Have read Paul Chesser's post about your beloved source The Lancet?
This is why it is wise to automatically question liberal sources
S.L. Toddard| 2.2.10 @ 5:54PM
Was this post from last year, or whenever we had that conversation? Wait - are you still fixated on when I quoted that source (in a list of quotes from numerous sources, all I believe directly from the wikipedia article), in that argument we had... A YEAR AGO? About Iraq?
Actually, I'm not sure how long ago it was. Did I quote the Lancet survey recently? Or is this really about that conversation? Because if it is, you are losing it. Attack Lancet all day, I don't care. I am invested no way in Lancet.
Weirdo.
Nick| 2.2.10 @ 6:17PM
Mr. Toddard,
I don't remember when it was.
I just remember you defended The Lancet study that stated "one million Iraqi's" had been killed in OIF because it agreed with your assertion that "one million Iraqi's" had been killed.
I mentioned it only to list yet another one of your discredited liberal sources.
Tammy| 2.2.10 @ 7:17PM
Forget it, Nick; Toddard's a moving target--slimy creatures always are.
Nick| 2.2.10 @ 8:25PM
Tammy,
Oh, I know only too well how slippery Toddard is.
We once had an argument devolve into whether or not "compare" and "contrast" are synonymous, like the Thesaurus says they are, because he would not admit that he was wrong.
The more you pin him down, the more Toddard squirms, contorting himself into ridiculous positions.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.2.10 @ 2:06PM
Antle III, Texican VI here.
One thing for sure. Sarah speaks her mind without blinking.
According to our local comedian, she is for secession.
No she is not. Neither are we Texans. Neither we or the Alaskans want to freeze 200 million Americans in the dark...which they would if we closed the oil/gas valves.
Never doubt it though. We WILL shut the valves to preserve the constitution...
The Toddards and Bobs and Gregs here...will freeze and starve.
heh
S.L. Toddard| 2.2.10 @ 2:23PM
Heh. That's funny - Ken thinks the constitution would cease to exist if a state seceded from the union. Ken thinks you deserve to die if you still hold dear the idea that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to (the rights it was instituted to secure), it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government."
Thank God there weren't too many Kens around in 1776, and that our secessionist founders stomped the Kens until they fled across the Atlantic.
Alan Brooks| 2.2.10 @ 3:04PM
But no point in seceding. What would, say, Alaska do? Casinos, legalized drugs & prostitution, plus porn?
IMO we ARE now like ancient Rome.
Al Adab| 2.2.10 @ 3:48PM
Alaska could be a large presence on the world market for, among other things, its oil. The natural resources and future potentials of that state make it one of just a handful of potentially viable nations were it to seceed.
Hawaii could although the standard of living would decline imports being expensive as could Texas both with its history and its resources. You forget, without regulations from EPA, OSHA etc. free markets could prosper.
Alan Brooks| 2.2.10 @ 7:55PM
Petroleum isn't nearly enough. To be independent Alaska'd need EVERYTHING, including casinos, "medical" (it IS medicinal, but that is not why it is being legalized) marijuana everywhere; prostitution in some places & porn literally everywhere. Etc. A giant state like Alaska needs everything it can get.
Wish I'd never heard of libertarianism!
Alan Brooks| 2.2.10 @ 7:59PM
... Al Adab,
Alaska would have to deregulate everything.
EVERYTHING.
perhaps you are thinking of Switzerland?
Alan Brooks| 2.2.10 @ 3:06PM
"Thank God there weren't too many Kens around in 1776, and that our secessionist founders stomped the Kens until they fled across the Atlantic."
Thank God there weren't too many Justin Raimandos around or we'd be part of that third world cesspool, Mexico.
Alan Brooks| 2.2.10 @ 3:07PM
... if we aren't already.
S.L. Toddard| 2.2.10 @ 3:13PM
You mean because of the libertarian tendency to support open borders?
Alan, are you pro-life? Shouldn't pro-lifers in southern, red states support secession? What would you say about a self-professed "pro-life" advocate who values being subject to Washington over the lives of millions of the unborn?
Alan Brooks| 2.2.10 @ 3:46PM
All libertarianism disinterests me; it is wishful thinking.
We are stuck-- unless you want to go the Caymans,
But you might not get internet there.
So here is my snail-mail address: 1313 Mockingbird Lane.
Nick| 2.2.10 @ 3:49PM
Say hi to Herman, Lily, Eddie, and Marilyn for me, Grandpa!
Tammy| 2.2.10 @ 5:33PM
lol!! Detroit Nick or Virginia Nick?
Nick| 2.2.10 @ 5:47PM
Tammy,
Detroit Nick.
Glad I could bring a smile to your face.
Tammy| 2.2.10 @ 7:12PM
You always do. You crack me up.
Alan Brooks| 2.2.10 @ 7:49PM
Yeah someone called my family libtards.
'Tard means RETARD, you know, as in fricking retarded.
Tammy| 2.2.10 @ 8:35PM
Bet it was that damn Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel again, Alan.
Tell Sarah, she'll stick up for you.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.2.10 @ 2:33PM
Heh! Figure that one out folks...and get back to me.
...SL was finally truly funny.