Is calling Carly “Carly” sexist or something else?

Back in April, there was a bit of debate about how sexist it is to call Hillary “Hillary” rather than, as is the usual case in politics, by her last name. I thought the whole thing was ridiculous . . . more perpetually outraged loons looking for something to be outraged about. Luckily, it quickly died away.

But now I’m seeing the same thing come up in discussion of Carly Fiorina.  Why does the right insist on adopting the language and culture of the far left?  Are we so steeped in this faux feminist madness that we don’t even realize how we are beginning to sound just like leftists?  Trump, for example, has lately been hammering how the rich need to “pay their fair share” in his latest impression of failed president and well-known socialist Obama, and Jeb! . . . well, almost everything he says is straight of the regressive playbook.

Then we start it up about the one female Republican candidate for president, trying to out left the left in shrieks of faux feminist faux outrage.  This is not to say that Carly doesn’t face actual sexism from both the left and the right.  On the left, we expect it because we know their only interest is in division; they aren’t “for” women, blacks, or anything else, and we know this because leftist feminists are among the first to attack conservative women, leftist blacks are the first to attack conservative black people, and on and on.  They could care less about women, minorities, or anything, really, but increasing government power and ensuring that the middle class in America disappears into the third world hell hole they envision for our nation’s future.

And on the right, she is faced with questions like that from what’s-his-face on the Fox Sunday show when he asked if she was really running for VP.  That, my friends, is sexist.  However, Carly’s campaign is centered, as is Hillary’s, on her first name.  They both have invited us to think of them by their first name and for the same reason.  They “get” that this is a sign of positive feeling . . . well, for the most part.  Clearly, it is not working for Hillary.

This strategy, I think, is because of Sarah.  They want to draw on the feelings that we have for Sarah, and that’s actually pretty smart.  Sarah is almost always “Sarah” to me because there’s really only the one, and we all saw what happened to her, that “Palinization” that makes her a figure not only of respect but of a type of kinship that I feel toward her as a conservative first and as a conservative woman second.  When I use her last name, it’s usually as a show of a different kind of respect as “Governor Palin,” but mostly, she’s “Sarah” to me: one of us, mama grizzly extraordinaire, conservative warrior.

This doesn’t work for Hillary, at least not for conservatives because when you say “Clinton,” you mean and evoke Bill Clinton, not his shrill, nasty, corrupt, paranoid, and evil wife.  No amount of selling herself as “one of us” or as anything other than the lunatic leftist Alinskyite that she is will change that.  She’s “Hillary” not because she’s one of us but because she’s isn’t her husband.

Likewise, calling Jeb! anything other than Jeb! doesn’t work: “Bush” means President George W. Bush to me, or maybe, in some specific cases, their father, so that leaves Jeb as Jeb!.  The exclamation point is just for fun; his stupid logo makes it amusing to me.  The same rule, sans exclamation point, applies to Rand because “Paul” means Ron, not Rand.

Marco Rubio, whom I cannot abide after his Gang of Ocho shenanigans as Chuck Schumer’s butt monkey and pet Republican, is always a sneer in my brain, whether I call him “Marco” or “Rubio,” it’s always with a mentally curved lip and a kind of mental spit.

Then there are the titled pols or would be pols: Dr. Carson, Governor Walker, President Bush (meaning W.), Colonel West, et al.  This, I think, is more about respect for me than much else.  Using only their last name would work, but for some reason, their title works better.

Then there are those whom I think of as both first and last name.  Ted Cruz, for example, is always “Ted Cruz” in my brain, though when I write about him, I often will use only his last name.  I can’t really explain it, but considering that he is currently–barring some horrible revelation of secret progressive leanings–my favorite for the GOP nomination, it may be that I am already mentally preparing for him to have a title other than “Senator” before his name.

I hope that the people on the right who are attempting to defend Carly by whining that she is being called “Carly” will . . . just stop it.  There’s no there there.

Curt Schilling, ESPN, and Sarah

ESPN has done it again!  Remember when they pulled Hank Williams Jr.’s theme song from its Monday Night Football broadcast for making the following off-the-cuff comment on “Fox and Friends”?

Obama and Boehner played side by side that day against Vice President Joe Biden and Republican Ohio Governor John Kasich at the height of the congressional budget debate.

Asked what he did not like about the friendly bipartisan golf match, Williams replied, “Come on! It’d be like Hitler playing golf with (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu.”

“They’re the enemy! Obama! And Biden!” he added.

Williams was quick to respond to the move with his song “Keep the Change.”

I so love that song!

Now they’ve suspended former major league baseball pitcher, Curt Schilling, for posting the following tweet (since deleted):

curt-schilling-tweet[h/t SooperMexican]

The Washington Post reports:

Curt Schilling, the former major league pitcher who is now an ESPN analyst, posted a tweet Tuesday in which he shared a meme that compares Muslim extremists to Nazis.

. . . . ESPN, in a statement emailed to The Post, said: “Curt’s tweet was completely unacceptable, and in no way represents our company’s perspective. We made that point very strongly to Curt and have removed him from his current Little League assignment pending further consideration.”

Sarah Palin is incensed by ESPN’s treatment of Schilling and has posted a response on Facebook:

ESPN IS A JOURNALISTIC EMBARRASSMENT

ESPN – what happened to you? Your intolerant PC police are running amok and making a joke out of you!

. . . . By denying the accuracy of Schilling’s tweet, ESPN shows its weakness as it buys into the propaganda of ISIS and other terror organizations, helping mislead the public about the very real threat of terrorism. It shows once again that ESPN would rather concentrate on liberal global politics instead of report well on our beloved sports.

From those of us who used to LOVE the network (to the point of addiction, some would confess!), I say to ESPN – you are awful in this. Stick to sports.

She also responded on her show, On Point with Sarah Palin. Watch:

Palin and her guest make the point that this type of action has a chilling effect on anyone who might make statements that are deemed unacceptable not only by ESPN but by other media and even private or political interests.  Of course, that’s the goal of these moves: go along with our agenda or we’ll ruin you.

Schilling has tweeted the following in response to his suspension:

Pure class.  But a shame he has to say that stating his true thoughts is a bad decision.  I guess in Obama’s America it is . . . if you have the “wrong” thoughts.

Vietor’s Attempt to Mock Trump for Praising Mercedes-Benz in Alabama Backfires

Former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor is back in the news. You may remember his bizarre “dude, that was two years ago!” exchange about Benghazi with Bret Baier.

Watch:

Having moved up from a press van driver for Obama to National Security Spokesman, one might imagine that Vietor would be sympathetic to the plight of the American worker or at least understand how much auto manufacturing matters to a great many American workers, including those in Alabama.

Maybe he does, but it wouldn’t seem so given his response to Trump’s speech in Alabama yesterday in which Trump praised Mercedes-Benz. Vietor, apparently eager to undermine Trump, tweeted:

The responses on Twitter show that while Vietor may not know how important Mercedes manufacturing is to Alabama and its workers, the Twitterverse does.

DUDE! Mercedes has plant in Alabama.NEXT! @TVietor08: “Who has a Mercedes Benz? Anybody? A lot of people” – Donald Trump man of the people” — SeldenGADawgs (@SeldenGADawgs) August 22, 2015

@TVietor08 Looking down your nose at people who make cars, have success in life and can afford nice things are we?

Twitchy has more.

To that last point by David Adams, Mercedes-Benz is the largest private sector employer in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. According to the Tuscaloosa Chamber of Commerce website:

Tuscaloosa remains the company’s only factory in the United States. From a 1.1 million square foot facility built in 1995, it will soon expand to 6.4 million square feet with a capacity of producing 350,000 cars per year. Over 8,000 people go to work on the MBUSI site every day and the local automotive supplier base continues to expand.

Presumably, Vietor is supporting Hillary for president, and if anyone’s a woman of the people, it is she. Granted, she hasn’t driven a car since 1996, and I’m not sure how often Trump drives, but he at least knows where Mercedes-Benz is located and whom it employs: the people.

The Stupid Party Figures Out How to Maximize Trump’s Support

Just when you thought the GOP establishment couldn’t be any more condescending, elitist, and . . . well, repugnant, along comes George Will to prove you wrong.  Tin-eared, out-of-touch, and clearly suffering a memory lapse regarding the past two presidential and the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections, Will has penned a column that argues, in essence, that the GOP should “purge” the GOP not only of Trump but of his supporters, as well.

Will, writing at WaPo, explains:

When, however, Trump decided that his next acquisition would be not another casino but the Republican presidential nomination, he tactically and quickly underwent many conversions of convenience (concerning abortion, health care, funding Democrats, etc.). His makeover demonstrates that he is a counterfeit Republican and no conservative.

He is an affront to anyone devoted to the project William F. Buckley began six decades ago with the founding in 1955 of the National Review — making conservatism intellectually respectable and politically palatable. Buckley’s legacy is being betrayed by invertebrate conservatives now saying that although Trump “goes too far,” he has “tapped into something,” and therefore . . . .

Therefore what? This stance — if a semi-grovel can be dignified as a stance — is a recipe for deserved disaster. Remember, Henry Wallace and Strom Thurmond “tapped into” things.

We can argue about whether or not Trump is conservative (I have argued that he is not) and about Trump having tapped into something that is meaningful to a lot of people (this is clearly the case), but what is galling—and short-sighted—is Will putting out there, front and center, his cavalier attitude toward the people who support Trump.  This is the same attitude that may well keep Jeb! from winning the GOP nomination. Fingers crossed.

Unlike Ted Cruz who purposefully, and wisely, embraces Trump supporters, Will wonders who these star-struck hicks who would support such a clown could possibly be.  He just doesn’t get it.

Conservatives who flinch from forthrightly marginalizing Trump mistakenly fear alienating a substantial Republican cohort. But the assumption that today’s Trumpites are Republicans is unsubstantiated and implausible. Many are no doubt lightly attached to the political process, preferring entertainment to affiliation. They relish their candidate’s vituperation and share his aversion to facts. From what GOP faction might Trumpites come? The establishment? Social conservatives? Unlikely.

They certainly are not tea partyers, those earnest, issue-oriented, book-club organizing activists who are passionate about policy. Trump’s aversion to reality was displayed during the Cleveland debate when Chris Wallace asked him for “evidence” to support his claim that Mexico’s government is sending rapists and drug dealers to the United States. Trump, as usual, offered apoplexy as an argument.

What Will doesn’t seem to understand is that it doesn’t matter if Trump’s supporters are “Republican”; the ones on the right, conservatives, clearly intend to vote Republican . . . if there is a palatable nominee.  That nominee doesn’t have to be Trump, but it will have to be someone who is not, like Will and Jeb!, dismissive of and disdainful toward the conservative base.

Will concludes his piece calling for, and I’m not making this up, “excommunicating” Trump and his supporters from the GOP:

So, conservatives today should deal with Trump with the firmness Buckley dealt with the John Birch Society in 1962. The society was an extension of a loony businessman who said Dwight Eisenhower was “a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy.” In a 5,000-word National Review “excoriation” (Buckley’s word), he excommunicated the society from the conservative movement.

Peter Whener, writing at Commentary, agrees, quite enthusiastically, with Will:

Fortunately there are conservative commentators who are doing just that [“excommunicating” Trump and his supporters], including Bill Bennett, David Brooks, Mona Charen, Charles C.W. Cooke, Michael Gerson, Jonah Goldberg, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, Matt Lewis, Rich Lowry, Michael Medved, Paul Mirengoff, Dana Perino, John Podhoretz, Karl Rove, Jennifer Rubin, Kevin Williamson, regular contributors to this web site (among them Max Boot, Noah Rothman and Jonathan Tobin), editorial page writers for the Wall Street Journal and others.

These individuals, while differing on various matters, understand the difference between angry populism and conservatism. They don’t believe crudity is a conservative virtue. And they don’t want conservatism stained by an unprincipled interloper and cynical opportunist, which is what Mr. Trump is. (It’s been well documented that until a few years ago, Trump was a registered Democrat, a large financial contributor to leading liberal politicians, and held liberal positions on a wide range of issues.)

In that sense, this is a clarifying moment for conservatism. Those on the right who have become Trump defenders have, I think, made a serious error in judgment that is the result of a rather profound misunderstanding of conservatism (for more, see here). You can cherish and champion conservative principles, or you can support and praise Donald Trump. But you can’t do both.

Not being a fan of Trump, I can see the argument for not supporting him.  What I cannot see is the need to purge the GOP of anyone and everyone who does support him.  What will be left of the GOP if they start purging everyone with whom they disagree or those whom they feel are beneath them?

Writing at Townhall, Pat Buchanan sums it up perfectly:

For there is a plot afoot in The Washington Post Conservative Club to purge Trump from the Republican Party before the primaries begin.

“A political party has a right to … secure its borders,” asserts the Post’s George Will, “a duty to exclude interlopers.” Will wants The Donald “excommunicated” and locked out of all GOP debates until he kneels and takes a loyalty oath to the nominee.

“Marginalizing Trump” carries no risk of “alienating a substantial Republican cohort,” Will assures us, for these “Trumpites” are neither Republicans nor conservatives. Better off without such trash.

The Post’s Michael Gerson says “establishment Republicans” must “make clear that [Trump] has moved beyond the boundaries of serious and civil discourse.” He loathes the Trumpites as much as Will.

Trump’s followers are “xenophobic,” Gerson tells CNN. They have a “resentment of outsiders, of Mexico, of China, and immigrants. That’s more like a European right-wing party, a UKIP or a National Front in France. Republicans can’t incorporate that.”

But if the GOP has no room for Trump’s followers, it has no future. For there simply aren’t that many chamber-of-commerce and country-club Republicans.

Why Obama Wants To Be Impeached … And Why That Can’t Happen

I would love little more than seeing Obama impeached, tried for treason, and marched off the world stage in a snazzy orange jumpsuit.  Realistically, though, that’s not the best thing that can happen and could arguably be among the worst things Republicans do (this is barring anything downright insane like his anointing himself Grand Dear Leader Führer Fabulous).

As of now, since the mid-term GOP wave election, Obama has threatened executive action on both amnesty and net neutrality.  On the one hand, he’s a rabid ideologue who believes in both; however, he’s had six years to use his pen and his phone on these and other issues near and dear to his commie heart.  So why now and why the threat instead of the action?

A couple of reasons, and yes, they are political, and more than that, they are rooted in Obama’s Alinsky training and mindset.  Remember Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals Rule 9?  It goes like this:

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

And don’t forget, a key part of the Alinsky script was for unions to act so outrageously–threatening to “take over” steel plants, etc.–that when the besieged plant owner or manager responded, they overreacted.  This overreaction is what the Alinskiites seek; it’s what provides them cover and what moves public opinion in their favor.  That’s Rule 10:

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

What Obama is doing is pure Alinsky, and he will succeed if the GOP takes the bait and behaves badly / overreacts.

Now, to many of us, impeaching Obama is not an overreaction; indeed, if you’re like me, you believe it should have happened when Fast and Furious first came to light or when he let an American ambassador and three other Americans (two of whom were heroes) die in Benghazi.  Or any of a hundred other times this POS has shat on the Constitution of these United States.

But believe it or not, any attempt to impeach Obama at this stage will make him the martyr messiah he so longs to be.  The midterms do more than suggest that America is sick and tired of the division, the race-baiting, the identity politics; the Democrats are decimated for now and the foreseeable future (what do they have? Tired old Hillary, clinging to her–and Obama’s–regressive dystopic nightmare and to her husband’s faux centristm?  Radical lunatic Faucohauntus Warren?).  Democrats across the nation are now comfortable, finally, letting leak their deep disdain for and lack of respect for Obama.  We’ve succeeded in whittling away at his self-inflated superman, near-god mythos (well, maybe that wasn’t us so much as his own ineptitude and failures).

The best way to turn that around–to make people who are now (finally) seeing him clearly and those who are hurting because of his policies rally to his defense and side–is to now attempt impeachment.

It’s two more years, he’s impotent right now, let cooler heads prevail, and trust that Obama will be judged eventually and far more meaningfully than by any action available to Congress.