Who Can Define “Divisive”? Raise Your Hand
Okay, time for the mama bear to take some of the kids off to the woodshed. The only kids I’m interested in disciplining now are the conservative kids – forget about the liberals. They are a lost cause by definition anyway.
Conservatives should know better than to lend credence to anything the liberal, progressive media has to say, especially about one of their own, but more and more of them seem to be making that very big mistake. Just mention Sarah Palin in a group of (supposedly) conservatives, and see what happens. Okay, kids, I know most of you have been educated in the liberal brainwashing mills of higher education, right along with your liberal and progressive brethren, but I can’t cut you any slack here. This is far too important!
I would expect you to have a better than average command of the English language, though, if you are going to call yourselves conservatives. I’m finding out that this must not be so, however. In reading and listening to conservative media these days, I am finding a recurring theme. Whether the particular article (or hit piece) comes off as pro or con Sarah Palin, the reaction to it always carries the lament that goes something like this: “But she is just too divisive.” Divisive? Sarah Palin? Are you kidding me?
John McCain will go down in history for one thing, if nothing else. He was smart enough to choose her as his running mate in 2008! Far from being divisive, then, she went on to place more votes on conservative ballots for McCain than anything else he could have done to get them! That, boys and girls, is the opposite of divisive!
So why do we suppose that there are so many so-called conservatives in the know, who may pretend to like Palin for her popularity with the American people, her natural charisma, her ability to attract and please a crowd, and many other compliments they may heap upon her, but then follow that all up with, “but she is far too divisive, and therefore, unelectable” – why is that? Everything she has run for so far, except as second name on the top ticket, she WAS elected! And if McCain’s own campaign had not sabotaged her at every turn, she would have probably pulled THAT one out of the fire too!
Yep, some of you big mouth conservative brats have gotten too big for your britches and, perhaps, just need a sound thrashing in the wood shed. You are obviously reacting to Sarah Palin exactly like her political opponents want you to. They were the ones, after all, that coined the “Palin is divisive” line over two years ago!
Michelle Bachmann is a Balloon Head
Okay, folks, while breathlessly awaiting the SOTU, (cough, cough) which turned out to be a canned speech of gumbo from past Obama “great oratory” over the last two years – including from last year’s SOTU, another topic came up about another conservative woman, Michelle Bachmann, who is very much (dare I say it) in the crosshairs of talking heads today. Might have to include a few liberals in this trip to the woodshed, simply because your ignorance is threatening to clog your circulation and the thrashing might help! (Note to Chris Matthews - that may be where your leg tingles actually come from.) It’s either that, or go eat some hot peppers man – this is serious!
In trying to defend America’s founding in the concept of individual freedom, recently in a speech in Iowa, Michelle tried to give a crash course in how slavery came to an end here and why. Obviously it fell on ignorant ears as Chris Matthews rushed to point out that slavery didn’t end with the Founders – that indeed many of them owned slaves. That is quite a lot like trying to score a touchdown in a football game by running the ball down the field outside the bounds. It really doesn’t count because of the rules. Bachmann was talking about the setup for the end to slavery – you know, Chris, back when the “rule book” otherwise known as the Constitution was actually written.
In asking the question, (paraphrased) “Will freedom in America end with this generation?” Michelle was actually making a very valid point that went right over the heads of her detractors.
Even after our Founders had put in place the very documents that would lead to our successful self-rule, they knew and they warned that it would take patriotic diligence to keep this country free and snatch liberty from the jaws of despotism in future generations. The slavery issue was very much at the forefront of debate during the writing of the Constitution, and the assignment of three-fifths as the enumeration for slaves was actually instrumental in leading to the downfall of legal slavery in America. But don’t expect the force-fed, liberal education crowd to catch on to that. Their history was not learned THAT way. Here is the Matthews on-air rant if you are interested.
At one point in this clip, notice how Sal Russo, co-founder of Tea Party Express, tried to make the point that the end of slavery in America was not so finite as Matthews tried to suggest.
Anyway, while liberals are masters at changing the subject at hand, they will never be able to grasp the big picture of any issue, unless and until they cease to be liberals. Period. The subject at hand is the liberal’s insistence on government expansion to “fix” America’s problems. This country was NOT designed that way, but rather with consideration for the exact opposite philosophy. You tell me if we would have ever known as much freedom in this country if the Founders had failed to install the Constitution. If they had insisted on outlawing slavery at the time of the country’s founding, we would not BE a country now. It doesn’t take a lot of reading of actual history to come to that conclusion. The Founders, instead, trusted individual people – future generations – to right that wrong.
Liberals think such an idea is a misplaced trust I guess.
I am sure that the same “divisive” label has been leveled at Bachmann and any other conservative who dares try to define the importance of understanding limited government as key in self governance, and it is truly sad when Americans just don’t get that, but it is reprehensible when so-called conservatives refuse to embrace it. That is truly a woodshed moment!
Here is an afterthought in this whole discussion for you to chew on. Both Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann are bright, articulate, passionate women, who care about their children. People like that will always strike fear in the hearts of those who wish only for someone else to do their jobs for them – that of securing their children’s futures while making an easier life for themselves. Don’t tell me how empty headed and unelectable these women are, and don’t try to tell me that they are divisive. Common sense and political victory go hand-in-hand in a successful self-governing society. Otherwise, you end up with the overbearing government we have now – a continuing barrage of stuff rammed down our throats that we don’t want.
Before I am accused of a partisan rant here, let me just say that there are many politicians, who wear the R label behind their names, whom I would never support, even for the office of dogcatcher. There have been some in the past, who wore the D label, whom I greatly admired. Presently, though, none come to mind. The Democrat Party has been captured in total, and the Republican Party is currently under the same assault. It is bad enough that the field of good, conservative politicians is so sparse without the added threat of nefarious commentary coming dressed in sheep’s clothing.
The conservative view of limited government espoused in articulate language is anything but divisive or un-American. The courage required to take the national stage in defense of our heritage and warning of the danger of ignoring it needs to be admired and portrayed with optimism – not ridiculed and deemed empty headed or divisive – certainly not from an elitist, bunch of so-called insiders looking down their noses at those brave souls just because they happen to come from mainstream American families and communities.
Okay, kids, suck it up and get back to work. This woodshed is getting hot!