“The momma bird builds the nest…”
Via last week’s Brit Blog Round up at Redemption Blues. He picks up on a piece at Harry’s Place, which notes Ms Palin’s involvement in Pat Buchanan’s 1996 campaign. He also comes up with a stunning quotation (given the GOP’s sudden conversion to feminist discourse) from an article written by Buchanan way back in 1983:
“Rail as they will against ‘discrimination,’ women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism…The momma bird builds the nest. So it was, so it ever shall be. Ronald Reagan is not responsible for this; God is”.
Adds: Apparently it was all made up. This from that Pajama’s Media blog:
No, she was never a Pat Buchanan supporter; even when Buchanan claims she was, she was on the board of Steve Forbes’ campaign in Alaska. Yes, Palin was a Steve Forbes supporter in 2000.
Looks like nearly every Democrat Talking Point re Palin’s history has turned up dud!
Pat Buchanan ‘gushing‘ over the Obama speech …
A few days ago, Mike said: Okay, last of the US posts for a bit.
Yo ho, he’s well and truly hooked. Palin must be the game-changer, the genuine article!
The momma bird builds the nest. So it was, so it ever shall be. Ronald Reagan is not responsible for this; God is”
Gosh, three untruths in two sentences. But it is Pat Buchanan after all so we must make allowances.
I could not resist it. Or this: http://tinyurl.com/5f4nuk which poses the problem of a Presidential candidate refusing to answer legitimate questions even to a blogger.
So how soon before she has her own topic heading?
It’s a pathetic sight (not really – it’s a lot of fun!) to see US liberals squirming in their own bile and thrashing around for breath. They have no idea what to do. They just cannot believe that the certain victory they had expected is so quickly slipping from their grasp. Looks like they are going to have to wait for, at least, four more years!
complete (but still growing) list of Palin rumors: good, bad, and fishy:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/separating-palin-fact-from-palin-fiction/
Mick,
you shouldn’t be reprinting week-old rumours – Palin supported Steve Forbes in 1996.
Palin was most likely a flash in the convention pan. Despite her loud mouth she’ll be on the ropes without a speech writer if asked anything of substance. Although a lot of american voters may actually be happy with blah blah responses.
6countyprod :”It’s a pathetic sight (not really – it’s a lot of fun!) to see US liberals squirming in their own bile and thrashing around for breath.” I mean maybe it would be, but its a lot more fun watching the GOP candidate in his most splendid liberal suit, trying to bash Bush harder than Obama is. Its very hard to believe he choose Palin on merit – he was just trying to trump the democrats. He most likely was looking for the gay, black, female republican in a wheechair with “a narrative” to add to his ticket regardless of capability. He found Palin (and maybe would have prferred Condi only she’s contaminated at the minute).
Well at least she won’t be a Cheney of a VP.
That women do not rise to the top of many organisations in the same proportions as men due to different average genes is a perfectly rational hypothesis. The fact that it is considered unacceptable to say by some is simply an indictment of those people’s rational faculties and their willingness to put moral prerogatives above reason, evidence and open mindedness. Such people are the equivalent of young earth creationists really. The latter produce evolutionary pseudoscience to smokescreen what we evolved FROM, the former produce evolutionary pseudoscience to smokescreen what we evolved TO, but evolution is their common enemy. Two groups of people who produce “is”s from “oughts” all over the show. Same when they presume that all races are equally endowed on average in all mental faculties or when they presume that the fact that the sons of binmen earn less than the sons of GPs has absolutely nothing to do with different average genes.
This is not to say that it is actually true though – that’s another matter, but it would be a remarkable coincidence if it was true and men and women were on average absolutely and completely equally endowed on average for every vocation, including whatever set of professions are considered the “top” this generation.
Any evidence for your personal jusification of discrimination on the basis of gender, colour and family background Herring?
Here I would appreciate evidence that excludes social influences on what people become.
By the way – you’re talking out your arse if you seriously propose that doctors kids are geneticall superior to binmen’s kids. How would you explain binmen’s kids who become doctors? Ohhh don’t bother answering
Hi Circles,
It’s been a long time! Been back to BF lately?
Obama’s arrogance in rejecting Hilary as his running mate appears to be his undoing. He thought he could do it all by himself. How naïve!
He and his advisors will rue the day they insulted so many women. Republicans have clearly demonstrated that they have more respect for women than do Democrats.
This article is potent:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/a_feminists_argument_for_mccai.html
Greetings to your wife.
Republicans have clearly demonstrated that they have more respect for women than do Democrats.
Huh?????
Big Maggie,
Read the article and you will get the drift!
“I mean maybe it would be, but its a lot more fun watching the GOP candidate in his most splendid liberal suit, trying to bash Bush harder than Obama is.”
You know this election is starting to look like UK 1992. I does require chutzpah to abandon your dear leader while still holding to his/her policies.
Of course the US is not the UK. I guess ‘Back to basics’ and the cones hot-line would have been taken seriously State side.
Hi 6CP – haven’t been to BF since february but am still in the region – you? Rainy season coming along well this year – too well for some, as i heard news of floods this morning.
Anyway, to the point – I’m not sure who has insulted women more to be honest. Obama in not choosing Clinton as a running mate or McCain in choosing Palin. Nobody can honestly believe McCain would have searched for a woman VP candidate had it not been for the 2 democratic candiates. Indeed had Clinton won, McCain most likely would have searched desperately for a non-white running mate, and tried to pin racial discrimination on the democrats.
Palin is a desperately cynical choice made by the standard aging white male candidate aimed precisely at trying to trump the democrats. He may be a republican but even McCain should know that you can fool some of the people all the time etc. etc.
Nice to see those liberals squirm in their rightous indignation
Circles,
We’re back in NI. Not sure if or when we will be going back.
McCain is what they call a RINO (Republican in name only), Palin seems more of a ‘true’ Republican, at least in the social, security and economic aspects. Mac is a ‘leftwing’ conservative, Palin is much more to the right. If elected, it will be very interesting to see how they work together on issues.