Image 01 Image 03

The line runs rather directly from Sarah Palin hatred to Ann Romney hatred

The line runs rather directly from Sarah Palin hatred to Ann Romney hatred

A post at Bookroom Worm exploring the attacks on Ann Romney is getting a lot of attention:

This transcends Leftist feminist sensibilities and touches upon a core issue in statism — namely, who raises the children? ….

I am the counterweight to the state.  Therefore, I am dangerous.  I am subversive simply by existing.  My love for my children is a dominant force that works its way into their psyches and that trumps the state-run schools and the state complicit media world.  Some mothers, of course, are entirely in sync with schools and media.  They happily reinforce the statist message.  But those of us who don’t are a powerful anti-statist force and we must be challenged….

The Left’s problem with Ann Romney is that she represents the triumph of the individual.  No wonder they hate her so much.

That may be part of it.

I also look to a more basic reason, the same reason why they hated Sarah Palin so much:

Why do they hate her so much? She’s happy. Unhappy people can’t stand happy people.

As others have noted, Obama rallies are not happy events. Neither is the Obama campaign. There is an angry tone, a desire for revenge against those who supposedly have done the people wrong, a settling of old scores. While Obama preaches hope, the “subtext” of his campaign is anger and frustration. For all the times I have seen Obama on television, only once or twice have I seen him laugh.

The mainstream media is no better. Is there a single happy person at MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC (well maybe not ABC), CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, or elsewhere in the bastions of the elite media? Palin’s happiness simply is something that cannot be tolerated by the unhappy people who run traditional news organizations.

The line runs rather directly from Sarah Palin hatred to Ann Romney hatred.

Read this Judith Warner column from September 4, 2008, about her “adventure” attending a Palin rally:

No, it wasn’t funny, my morning with the hockey and the soccer moms, the homeschooling moms and the book club moms, the joyful moms who brought their children to see history in the making and spun them on the lawn, dancing, when music played. It was sobering. It was serious. It was an education.

“Palin Power” isn’t just about making hockey moms feel important. It’s not just about giving abortion rights opponents their due. It’s also, in obscure ways, about making yearnings come true — deep, inchoate desires about respect and service, hierarchy and family that have somehow been successfully projected onto the figure of this unlikely woman and have stuck.

Then read this Judith Warner column from April 13, 2012 (emphasis mine):

That the Democrats felt such a need to throw [Hilary] Rosen under a bus suggests to me that they, like the Romney campaign itself, are guilty both of knee-jerk cynicism in regards to female voters and of being out of touch. We all know, on the one hand, that there’s a certain portion of the population that feels not just left behind but generally dissed by what they identify as the evolution of attitudes and mores in our era: they’re the Sarah Palin constituency.

Finding happiness through a stubborn refusal to accept the state as master not as servant.

It’s a philosophy which once could have been described as liberal, but now is denigrated by people who consider themselves liberal.

I think there’s something to that.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Wul, yah…

Victim groups are supposed to stay VICTIMIZED and firmly on the plantation.

When people go dancing off like this, and ENJOY themselves being NOT victims…

Hell hath no fury as the Collectivist scorned.

The American people are optimists. They are attracted to optimism. Today they thirst for optimism.

Obama is no longer able to sustain the counterfeit optimism that got him elected.

Let us be happy warriors.

To the left, life is a series of struggles over the left identified bogeyman that oppresses and vexes a group of people-there is no individial, only the group, the State, masses, the struggle. If life is simply a series of struggles, who has time for happiness?

Sarah Palin focused on an individual’s rights that are given to us, not as a result of any class struggle or munificence of the State, but from the Creator–a Being and a concept the left denies the existence of. And that concept of the individual achieving on his own and for himself, is something the left has to snuff out, at any cost!

That is why they hate Sarah Palin!

    Ragspierre in reply to persecutor. | April 14, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    Well, and this…

    Think about all that Obama PRETENDED to want to do (i.e., reform, accountability, transparency, responsibility, etc.)

    Palin DID all that…often against her own party’s machine.

    Nobody hates the genuine article like a pretender (and his enablers).

    JoAnne in reply to persecutor. | April 14, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    I came of age during the women’s “liberation” movement. I embraced it entirely, read every book written about it, railed constantly about how I was oppressed…until I realized I was oppressing myself! I was so unhappy during those years. While there were inequities in those former years (such as being told as a 12 y/o that my dream of being a veterinarian could not happen as girls were not admitted to vet school), I found that there were more productive ways of addressing such things. I didn’t have to be a hater. Life has been much better since then!

“Unhappy people can’t stand happy people.” Not true. A more accurate descriptor would be unhappy people who need some form of validation/mutual admiration society in order to exist. They are incapable of living with their choices or doing anything that does not involve some form of consensus seeking. We typically call these people sheep. They are incapable of asking “what do I need to do to be happy / improve my life”. You can add insipid and vapid to their qualities as well.

I feel blessed to have been raised by a stay-at-home mom.

My mom taught me right from wrong. That’s the most important thing in life, and nobody can teach that like a full-time mother.

When our first-born was about three years old, my wife and I were at the park with her one day. At the time, we were thinking about putting her in day care so my wife could work.

A group of day-care children and the young, disinterested, somewhat bored caretakers supervising them showed up at the park.

As I watched the way they interacted with the kids, (or should I say often neglected the kids), I started having serious second thoughts.

My (Japanese) wife was keenly observing this show of American day care … and soon turned to me and said, “No way.”

Such a simple moment of clarity … my wife really wanted to work … but in that instant she realized nobody was going to come close to her in terms of raising our daughter. It’s a science and an art and takes serious devotion … something a day-care worker just can’t match.

She’s been a stay-at-home mom ever since.

“For all the times I have seen Obama on television, only once or twice have I seen him laugh.”

When Obama does laugh, it is either AT somebody (in anger), and is likely scripted. Do we really think Obama’s aides would let him go off TOTUS. They need to control what gets out as much as possible in a calamitous election year.

StrangernFiction | April 14, 2012 at 12:54 pm
    Ragspierre in reply to StrangernFiction. | April 14, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    Like Luger…

    Timeago, Mr. Hatch. Thank you for what good things you did. Now, fade away…

      StrangernFiction in reply to Ragspierre. | April 14, 2012 at 1:53 pm

      Given that Hatch represents one of thee reddest states (+30 to R’s in the last 5 presidential elections is tops) and has a lifetime NTU rating (72) only 5 points higher than Murkowski, I wouldn’t thank him for a thing.

        Ragspierre in reply to StrangernFiction. | April 14, 2012 at 2:00 pm

        Hatch has done…at times…yeoman’s work in fighting the Collective.

        It never hurts to give credit where credit is due.

          StrangernFiction in reply to Ragspierre. | April 14, 2012 at 3:16 pm

          I know, I know, I have a nasty habit of looking at the big picture and not wanting to give any credit to those who despise me.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to StrangernFiction. | April 14, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    As this is a Sarahpalin thread -may I note that Sarah forcefully intervened to defend Hatch from a fake T Party usurp threat.

    Forget his namrre ( House Rep from Utah wearing T Party hat ) . Of course he was no such thing but a Mormon convert & who soon outed himself as a Romney plant.

    Orin Hatch publicly thanked Sarah Palin .

    It helps to read stuff Southern rather than spew out your anti palin stuff on blogs . Easy to spot you.

“Why do they hate her so much? She’s happy. Unhappy people can’t stand happy people.”

Makes me think of a great line a friend of mine used to always tell his bratty younger brother:

“You hate yourself and you blame it on me.”

    Even Richard Nixon got something right once in a while.

    “Always remember others may hate you but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.”

It’s just not women either. The Left reviled Reagan because he was a “happy warrior”; in fact they continue to revile Reagan, despite trying to compare the pretender Obama to Ronaldus Maximus.

    GrumpyOne in reply to McCoy2k. | April 14, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    Any comparison of Obama to Reagan is pure folly with the possible exception that both communicate/communicated quite well.

    With that said, any other comparison claimed by Obama is merely a reflection that he is a legend in his own mind.

    As best as I can remember, Reagan never lied to us while Obama lies on a daily basis…

      Left Coast Red in reply to GrumpyOne. | April 14, 2012 at 3:53 pm

      Obama is a Great Obfuscator, Reagan was a Great Communicator. Obama inspires hateful envy; in hindsight, his 2008 candidacy was a fraud. Reagan inspired optimism and appreciation of the opportunity for all Americans. He was the genuine article, whether you agreed with him or not, and Americans knew it.

      Romney has a historic opportunity before him. I pray he seizes it fully. He must stick to his game-plan, exude the positive, and not get sucked into Obama’s negativity. I believe Americans want to believe in America again.

SoCA Conservative Mom | April 14, 2012 at 1:11 pm

It’s more than hate, it’s envy. They hate that someone else has what they don’t have… and they want everyone to have it, except you.

Thank you LukeHandCool . My new tag line is now “you hate yourself and blame it on Conservatives”. I hope you don’t mind

    LukeHandCool in reply to arnonerik. | April 14, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    Spread it far and wide, arnonerik, my friend!

    He also had a great term for cranky, unhappy people trying to spread their unhappiness to others … “Funhead.”

    “You’re such a funhead,” was his biggest putdown.

    Leftists are funheads.

Ayn Rand nailed it.
When good is made bad and bad is good.
Wish I could remember the exact quote from “Atlas Shrugged”

One rather obvious difference between Sarah and Ann is that the GOPe rallied to the defense of Ann, but joined in the hatefest on Palin.

Dems don’t have a monopoly on this despicable conduct–far from it.

    GrumpyOne in reply to Karl Rogue. | April 14, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    I think that Palin’s biggest detractor (to me) is her failure to finish her term as Alaska’s governor.

    To be elected to a high position of responsibility will never be a cakewalk but that is not an excuse to run away from that responsibility.

    I surely cannot speak for her motivation for doing so but it could account for some of the continuing criticism.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to GrumpyOne. | April 14, 2012 at 2:28 pm

      The later 13,000 emails included the correspondence on this decision fully backing the $600,000 debt she incurred.

      One Alaskan committee official on this mater on hearing the rumours of her resignation even wrote to her asking her advice on how to reform the statute to prevent this situation in future. !

      Therefore the PDS was fully developed before this. Note that Alaskans turned against her also led by jealous Alaskan politicians D & R .

      Now today everyone is strangely silent on Alaska & who is Scott Parnell? Except for Retie 05 criticizing him as a substitute Palin target -he & Alaska are back to the tundra.

      Tamminator in reply to GrumpyOne. | April 14, 2012 at 3:16 pm

      Oh, for God’s sake, GrumpyOne, read her book “Going Rogue” and you’ll understand that she quit to save her State millions of dollars in frivolous lawsuits. They were spending all of their time fighting the cases instead of running the Government.

      Just read the damn book, and you’ll understand.

      Sarah wasn’t a quitter, she sacrificed herself to save her State millions.

      Of course, all of the ridiculous lawsuits were later thrown out.

        Milwaukee in reply to Tamminator. | April 14, 2012 at 3:49 pm

        The basketball parlance that Sarah used was ‘sometimes you have to pass the ball’. She was sacrificing herself for the good of Alaska. Damn, that woman is special.

        If we knew that the cost of a Sarah Presidency would be her marriage, I would encourage her to save her marriage, and we’ll figure out something without her. But with deep regret.

      huskers-for-palin in reply to GrumpyOne. | April 14, 2012 at 3:17 pm

      I think that Palin’s biggest detractor (to me) is her failure to finish her term as Alaska’s governor.

      Sal Alinsky much? The ones trying to get her out of the governorship are the same ones complaining that she left.

      600k in legal bills, constant assault, media hit pieces, going after legal defense fund, FOIA after FOIA and not a finger of help except from her closest associates and supporters. Ever after she left, the Giffords shooting only seal the deal as far as the GOPe was concerned.

      Has she stayed, the detractors would be complaining of all of her ethics complaints, massive legal bills, and the inability to pass further legislation (not to mention the constant sniping and utter BS).

      No 2010, no tea party advocate, no focal point to aspire too. The GOPe and DNCe, much like Reagan, wanted her out.
      Walla!!! Presto!!! It’s Mitt’s turn!!!

      Milhouse in reply to GrumpyOne. | April 15, 2012 at 10:59 pm

      Being elected to a job is not a contract of indenture; there is no obligation to serve out ones term. If it were otherwise, then how could she run for Vice President? And how could McCain, 0bama, or Biden run? How could Kerry, GWB, Algore, Clinton, Quayle, Dukakis, or pretty much any candidate run? How could most of the cabinet have resigned their previous elected positions in order to take up their current appointed ones? The whole premise is nonsense.

MomInLatteland | April 14, 2012 at 2:00 pm

Like Ann Romney and LukeHandCool’s wife, I have been a SAHM since my first child was born 22 years ago. The thought of someone else raising my children was anathema to me. NO ONE ever cares about your child as much as you do and NO ONE is able to share your values like you will. I was the school volunteer and room mom, the Scout leader and the Rainbow Girls adviser. Our house was the one where the kids came and the parents knew that their children would be well chaperoned. Now ages 22 and 19, I can see the fruits of my decision: upstanding citizens with moral compasses pointed in the right direction. Neither ever did drugs, had early sexual relationship or rebelled. They had parents who supported them but expected personal responsibility for their actions. In the end, I wonder why all parents don’t want or expect the same for their children.

    LukeHandCool in reply to MomInLatteland. | April 14, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    Right on, MomInLatteland!

    We live in a sea of leftism where most of the mothers at our kids’ schools are very successful career professionals. That’s their choice and that’s fine. But it means their children are being raised by nannies.

    A few are good, but most are mediocre. I’ve seen them in action (again, often at the park). So many of these kids grow up brats.

    So, I always find it funny when the parents ask us what our secret is … why our kids are comparatively well-behaved and well-adjusted and popular. I feel like telling them, “It’s because my wife stays at home and raises them traditionally.” Or saying, “Unbeknownst to just about everybody, we’re the conservative family in this neighborhood. Draw from that whatever conclusions you like.”

    The funniest was the day of our two youngest childrens’ elementary school Halloween carnival. My wife signed up as a volunteer for both of the booths in our kids’ classes. The times overlapped, so she told our oldest daughter, a senior in high school at the time, to work one of the booths.

    After it was over, two of the (lefty professional) moms who worked in the booth with our daughter, ran up to my wife. My wife acted out the exchange in hilarious fashion when she got home and told me the story. It was like this:

    “H-H-How … Oh my God … you never see high school girls that poised and polite and funny these days … Oh my God … she’s so sweet … H-H-How did you … What’s your secret? She’s so poised … she’s such a charming young lady …”

    Only in a sea of leftism would parents find this surprising. Because our teenage daughter didn’t have the bithcy, snarky attitude, the foul mouth, and all the other traits so common with today’s teenagers, she was like an alien from outer space to these women.

    Tough love … there’s nothing better. Lots of love … but zero tolerance for bad behavior. Teaching your kids the important values … including to think for themselves and to see through the PC B.S. and dysfunction of so much of today’s pop culture.

    Maybe lefties will come around. They sometimes reinvent the wheel after they’ve destroyed it.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to LukeHandCool. | April 14, 2012 at 3:20 pm

      To Luke specifically & only to Luke……

      Why is it you on this blog talking about her & not her?

      Are you holding her in Luke’s Private Internment Camp & will she get reparations?

        LukeHandCool in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | April 14, 2012 at 4:00 pm

        I never appreciated America so much as when I lived overseas. I looked at America with fresh eyes.

        I love getting my wife’s take on America. It’s the view of America from someone who grew up in a foreign country.

        Not any old someone. But someone whose judgement I trust. The same traits of hers I fell for … a great sense of humor … lots of commonsense … rejects political correctness … are the reason I trust her judgement and want to get her fresh take on things I often take for granted. She is not interested in politics, but she is a natural conservative.

        We are all products of our environment to varying degrees. Some of us more than others.

        So, even I, someone who considers himself a complete free-thinking individualist not prone to being affected by intellectual fads, can still have his breath taken away when he witnesses his wife’s seemingly brutal rejection of political correctness.

        I then realize I have been affected by my environment to some degree. To feel a tad squeamish, just a tad … seeing a woman do that so summarily, albeit in a feminine way, makes me realize I have been affected. I’ve been conditioned ever so slightly to feel a twinge of guilt in that maybe it’s bad form to dismiss this nonsense so summarily without a second or two of hesitation. Because I trust her judgement so, things dawn on me which might not have otherwise.

        It’s great having a fresh set of eyes around. My wife loves America. The main thing about America that bugs her are the lefties … she can’t understand how they believe the nonsense they do. But again, even I fall prey a bit at times.

        She sometimes calls me, “Dreamy Daddy” because I’m still nowhere near the born, natural realist she is.

        I was whining one day about some supposed trivial dysfunction I thought I sensed one day in our family dynamics (so important, I can’t remember what it was) when she flat out said,

        “You’ve been watching too much Disney.”

        Anyway, what was your question, again?

      Left Coast Red in reply to LukeHandCool. | April 14, 2012 at 4:08 pm

      Or saying, “Unbeknownst to just about everybody, we’re the conservative family in this neighborhood. Draw from that whatever conclusions you like.”

      The Left’s ‘greatest’ accomplishment: forcing the functional Family underground, while celebrating the dysfunctional.

        LukeHandCool in reply to Left Coast Red. | April 14, 2012 at 4:37 pm

        Yeah, Left Coast Red,

        Breitbart lived nearby and I heard him say one day that living on the Westside of LA, being a doting dad with four children (a family size almost unheard of here these days), bringing them up traditionally, he felt that he must have appeared to the neighbors as some kind of hyper-evangelical looney tune.

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to LukeHandCool. | April 14, 2012 at 6:55 pm

          Ok so now she is a SAHM widow without a job & 4 very young kids.

          Gonna need a lot of help .

          Demonstrates what I have been saying -it is a very risky situation for women & families. (not to mention Andrew ).

          LukeHandCool in reply to LukeHandCool. | April 14, 2012 at 7:14 pm

          I would imagine Andrew had life insurance and, the community is stepping up to help. The kids have wonderful grandparents, too.

          Posted at Instapundit:


          Breitbart Children’s Trust

          149 S. Barrington Ave, #735

          Los Angeles, CA 90049.

          I asked Dana Loesch why there’s no PayPal and she replied that PayPal won’t let a trust set up an account. Bummer. But checks still work.

          SoCA Conservative Mom in reply to LukeHandCool. | April 14, 2012 at 8:27 pm

          This reply is intended for BannedBTG… equating SAHM with a lack of skills necessary for employment is insulting. Many of us are former professionals. It wasn’t until my husband retired from the military and quadrupled his pay that he started earning more than I did.

          LukeHandCool in reply to LukeHandCool. | April 14, 2012 at 8:41 pm

          Just to make sure what I related about what I heard Andrew say on the radio isn’t taken the wrong way … it was in no way a dig at evangelicals … it was a dig at the way Westside LA people see evangelicals.

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to LukeHandCool. | April 14, 2012 at 11:03 pm

          To Socal. Quadrupled his pay from the military. Mein Gott what did they pay him & why so low?

          But that also demonstrates why military wives (& soon to be gay boyfriends ) ought keep working.

          Maintaining professional skills & contacts is very important. Each year you are SAHMing someone else is equalling yours & more skills.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to MomInLatteland. | April 14, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    If you have daughters -do you think they should continue this practice ? It may have worked for you but what have you prepared your daughters for?

    If you have only sons & you expect them to continue this practice -please ensure they will be very high income earners & never lose their jobs.

    Why do you educate girls at all ? Why would anyone give them a job ? Why do they go to college ?

    Statistics are that worldwide girls are outnumbering boys at college /universities for he first time in history. This in 50 years !

      MomInLatteland in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | April 14, 2012 at 6:24 pm

      Banned, your liberal colors are showing. I reject your premise that choosing to be a SAHM somehow relegates a woman back to the dark ages. I did the corporate thing for 10 years and discovered there’s nothing magical and wonderful in that world. Most the women I know can’t wait to retire from their jobs and tell me they would love to “not have to work.” What they really mean is that they go to an outside job for 8-10 hours a day and then come home and have to do all the jobs the SAHM does too: cooking, dishes, laundry. By the time they roll into bed at midnight, they are exhausted. Ain’t liberation grand?

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to MomInLatteland. | April 14, 2012 at 7:01 pm

        Yes it is. The only way we are going to beat the mass of Muslims with their high breeding rates is to capitalize on our women . Their women are nothing.

        Smart western gals will have to tackle Muslim men .Sure -like my daughter -they can tain to kill them -but mostly through education & thus cmmerce .

        They will come for your daughters & enslave them.

        All hands to the stockades.

        Toujours L’attack.

      LukeHandCool in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | April 14, 2012 at 7:02 pm

      “If you have only sons & you expect them to continue this practice -please ensure they will be very high income earners & never lose their jobs.”

      —Not necessarily. We are a one-income family living in an extremely expensive area in a townhouse. I’ve told my wife and children that if they want a big house and a big yard, we can have it, but we’ll have to move somewhere cheaper. I can’t afford a $3 million-plus house. They like living here near the beach and all that comes with that. So, we’ve made our choice and can’t moan about it.

      “Why do you educate girls at all?”

      —So they can make their own choices.

      Also, just to be clear on the definition of SAHM, after our kids were in school all day, my wife worked a couple of jobs as a travel agent on occasion during the hours the kids were in school. So, it’s not like she’s chained herself to the house.

      “Statistics are that worldwide girls are outnumbering boys at college /universities for he first time in history.”

      —I always wanted to attend an all-girls school.

    Karl Rogue in reply to MomInLatteland. | April 14, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    You sound like a great Mom, and your kids are lucky. No one should denigrate your choice. But you get that not all Moms can afford to stay home, right? Lots of Moms, like my own, and my wife, have to go to work to pay the bills, help in the family business, etc.

    Like many things, its great if you can afford it.

      MomInLatteland in reply to Karl Rogue. | April 14, 2012 at 6:18 pm

      Oh, I did forget to mention that we had been married for 10 years before having our first child and both of us worked full time during that period? We bought our first fixer upper house less than a year after we were married by selling one of the cars, getting a loan from my parents (which we paid back), packing lunches everyday and forgoing dinners out and vacations. We lived on basics and without frills for a long time, always working towards that next step. We are not rich – we live in a middle class neighborhood – and drive older cars. We rarely go out to eat or to the movies. The point is that everyone makes hundreds of little choices along the way. We value our children and our family more than we ever valued expensive cars, fancy dinners out or high end clothes and furniture. The kids I see who are either emotionally messed up or are doing drugs, often seem to come from homes where their care was turned over to someone else and Mom and Dad turned out to be little more than “arm chair parents.” Just like an arm chair quarterback, it is easy to yell across the room and think you know how to win the game. It is something very different to get up out of the chair and take action to affect the outcome.

      SoCA Conservative Mom in reply to Karl Rogue. | April 14, 2012 at 8:36 pm

      …its great if you can afford it.

      It’s a massive change in lifestyle. We gave up a lot of material things, vacations, cars, eating out all the time, Starbucks, hobbies, etc. in order for me to stay home. We live in Southern CA, it’s expensive, living on one income isn’t easy, but it is possible.

        I don’t doubt it
        Is your point that if you can do it, everyone can?
        You do acknowledge that some mothers have to work, right?

          SoCA Conservative Mom in reply to Karl Rogue. | April 14, 2012 at 9:59 pm

          My point was that it is possible, but may require giving up something in return… opportunity cost.

          Yes, I acknowledge that some moms have to work to provide for their families. I do happen to believe more women could stay home and raise their children than currently do, but choose to work outside the home for different reasons, including earning more money which their family doesn’t rely on to make ends meet. There are also dads that stay at home to raise their children and other families have parents that work different shifts so that one parent is always home. We shouldn’t be denigrating anyone’s choice or making assumptions about their capabilities based on their decision to stay home and raise children.

DINORightMarie | April 14, 2012 at 2:00 pm

Yes, they will try to Palinize her. I hope and pray the Republican elitists will stand by HER, unlike Sarah Palin. Thankfully, Gov. Palin is strong, and didn’t need those elites to “protect” her. Ann Romney appears as strong – but if they really want her to be First Lady, they will speak up for her………..if.

By going after Ann Romney, the Dems were probably figuring on exploiting Mitt’s abysmal support among women by demonizing the only glowing aspect of his being elected. It backfired. She would be one of the very best first ladies ever.

She is not a politically ambitious woman latching on to a womanizing power-monger. Nor is she a dressed-up barbie doll. There is nothing phony about her. She can handle herself very well under pressure because she is very smart, confident and authentic. It was a big mistake to bring her into play. America loves women like Ann Romney. Too bad she comes attached to a big government liberal.

We have the same problen with Ann Romney that we had with Sarah Palin. We can’t just elect them, we have to elect what’sis’name as well….

People should really stop to ponder what it means to be stricken with cancer at a young age like Ann was. All of the money in the world can’t protect you from cancer. Suddenly, mortality becomes real and your priorities change. The value of non-monetary things rise to the top. Time begins to matter like never before and making the best use of it begins your life’s mission. Few people decide to use it to make more money or ruin other people’s lives. Most people want to be remembered for the right reasons.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Pasadena Phil. | April 14, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    Well she seems to have survived it -whatever the cancer was, It was not fatal .

    In time unpleasant cancer (or any medical ) experience fades -except for the industry of keeping people victims forever.

    I think any higher states of being discovered whilst under existential threat soon disappear when we get better. Otherwise almost everyone would be the saints you describe.

      “I think any higher states of being discovered whilst under existential threat soon disappear when we get better.”

      Maybe but I doubt it. I have known several women who died of breast cancer and it changes the entire family and lots of friends. Ann had another cancer but I doubt she feels permanently “cured”. There is always the fear that it will reappear the same way it appeared the first time and have to go through it again.

      Nothing focuses the mind like the sight of the hangman’s noose.

      Not that I agree in any part with your cancer comment…

      but you seem to have forgotten the MS Ann strives with every day.

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Ragspierre. | April 15, 2012 at 2:41 am

        So she won’t be doing push ups with Ellen ?

        Do you want me to contribute for an electric wheelchair or send her a disabled catalogue?

        FGS -she is alright. Not dead.

      ain’t necessarily so. It attacked my sister at a young age, left her alone for a couple decades, and then roared back and took her in her 40s. You are never free of the specter, really.

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Karl Rogue. | April 14, 2012 at 3:34 pm

        ‘it’ = MS or cancer ?

        Also got to expect some medical probs in 64 years of living.

        But she has made it & all her sons have avoided being cut down in battle . Perhaps some folk in far off lands told them off or were mean to them on doorsteps but 100% survival in the family.

        My sympathies for the mothers of 19 year olds killed in Iraq ?Afghan /Viet. Even Sybrina Martin.

        Ann Romney has not had to suffer the biggest blow to a mother.

        Get a grip. You are being worked over.

          Left Coast Red in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | April 14, 2012 at 4:16 pm

          You hate yourself, and blame conservatives.

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | April 14, 2012 at 4:29 pm

          I am absolutely fabulous.

          And not banned yet.

          Just a matter of time

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | April 14, 2012 at 11:17 pm

          To karl….just a matter of time till we are all dead. Nobody here likes what I have to say but you will remember it.

          BTW Obama peeps read this blog & something I said turned up exactly on his trip to Canberra when he visited Campbell High School . (which incidentally i know quite well & got feedback ).

          Direct quotes about Americans kids testing in Science. & maths & ny words .

          hehe.I am proud of my Guardian banning.

          Prof is perfectly able to ban me -then i will appear as “BBTG&LI” on other blogs.

          I have a lot of fun & plenty of spare time .

    huskers-for-palin in reply to Pasadena Phil. | April 14, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    To be fair, take a look at the Romney’s in their early years. I bet you they did live high off the hog after college. Mitt had to build his firm and Ann has to raise 5 children with her medial problems.

    The MSM conveniently misses that….sound familiar?

Ihate to say it but IMO Ann Romney will get the backip Palin never got. Those who objected to the treatment Palin was subjected to will support Ann because we don’t want to see another Conservative woman crapped on.

The GOP who didn’t support Palin will still stand behind Ann because in their minds she’s the right kind of Republican woman – unlike Palin.

I’m not knocking Ann by any means but people need to remember that the GOP insiders were horrified at the idea that someone as “common” as Palin would be seen as a representative of the GOP. In their minds Ann is a classy lady – suitable FLOTUS – and Palin was trailer trash overstepping her place. And I personally will never forget that is what the GOP thinks of the base.

    JayDick in reply to katiejane. | April 14, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    Plus, Ann has an outstanding ally in her husband. He is smart, rich, and can be very coldly efficient in combating his opponents/enemies. Don’t let the kindly, easy-going facade fool you. I wouldn’t want this guy as an enemy. Obama and the Dems will learn soon enough.

      Karl Rogue in reply to JayDick. | April 14, 2012 at 3:19 pm many conservatives have also learned.

      Ann is fine, her spouse I can do without, thanks

        hrh40 in reply to Karl Rogue. | April 14, 2012 at 7:42 pm

        Palin has already learned what a deceitful, dirty player Romney is.

        Nope, Obama will never know.

        Romney will never play as dirty against Obama. He reserves that for Republicans.

        He’s not going to set his hair on fire, don’tcha know? Obama’s well-intentioned, he’s just in over his head, at least that’s the word in the Romney camp.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to JayDick. | April 14, 2012 at 10:04 pm

      Ruthless in both business and politics. Expert at getting those billions of taxpayer dollars…draining pension funds, sucking the life, health and value out of a corporation and a product, then flipping it for huge profits.

    Karl Rogue in reply to katiejane. | April 14, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    well said indeed

BannedbytheGuardian | April 14, 2012 at 2:51 pm

I like Sarah Palin & I consider her to be an attractive person. (Todd is gorgeous ).

She has rare political instincts & has some sound ideas on America.

However America has rejected what she has to offer & the Indianola speech further alarmed the GOP Central.

I simply don’t consider Ann Romney an equal . BYW Boys -when a lady has only 3 letters in her name try & get it right -thereis no e .

II do not know what a hockey mom or soccer mom is . I have professional sports coaching experience & never met one. All the parents I met were complete people -not parcelled off into categories.

    huskers-for-palin in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | April 14, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    However America has rejected what she has to offer & the Indianola speech further alarmed the GOP Central.

    Really? Who says? Pumped up hit-polls after numerous hit pieces? And what are they accepting? The same old, same old? Well, they get what they deserve. They have to right to bitch now. NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER.

    I was at Indianola and Palin basically said FU to crony capitalism and hit the nail squarely on the head on what the problem is. It’s not just the progressives but the GOPe who are just as bad. Her speach was a declaration of war (along with the Tea Party). No longer should the base be taken for granted.

    Since 1989, the GOPe vowed that Reagan was a fluke never to repated again. Since then, we’ve had Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43 and McCain. Palin nearly saved 2008 until Goldman Sachs went bust (8 points down to 4 points up). The status quo is so invested in its little fiefdoms that they will go to great lengths to protect its turf. If Palin had decided to “play ball” with the beltway, could you imagine the cover and protection? She would of been their perfect “face” to their little clique. But NOOOOOOOO, she had be their fly to the ointment. She actually believed what she was saying. Soooooo, no soup for her.

    As to CPAC 2012, she was the main attraction and that just boiled the GOPe. If looks could kill.

    The 2012 primaries were set up for Rommey. The dates got moved up, proportional delegates for the early “red” states, yet winner-take-all for the blue states, stealing a delegate vote from Santorum and so on and so forth. The GOPe wanted Romney so much that they tailored made the primaries just for him. The rest of the field was just a distraction and window dressing.

    Since then, as Breitbart put it, the “narrative” has been set. If the MSM medial complex (including Hollywood) can do this to Palin, and gets away with it, then your person is next (and twice as hard). Don’t come crying for help or shouting “foul”. Don’t come taking the base for granted believing we’ll bail your sorry ass out. Many of us are on to your scam.

    And to further stick a thumb in their eye, Palin has rented space near the GOP convention. This is gonna be fun.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to huskers-for-palin. | April 14, 2012 at 3:54 pm

      I agree Huskers .

      She tried . She put up an enormous fight . I share your sadness.

      There is not one person in America as good as Sarah .

      There is only so much she could do in a land of )sorry _ decreasing intelligence.

The Left especially hates happy women with children who aren’t obligated to them…who didn’t need the Left’s sticks and carrots to get up everyday, work hard, raise their kids, educate themselves and make their own decisions.

Not obligated to the Left, that is.

I would like to think even a second stringer establishment GOP guy like Romney can beat Obama.

I don’t know why anybody should work so hard to understand this. These women are Republicans. It really is that simple, and that corrupt.

That deep-troated roar of disapproval you hear is the American voters, among them voters who normally vote for Democrats, telling the the Democratic Party to knock it off.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | April 14, 2012 at 3:28 pm

I noticed a very long time ago that liberals seem to always be unhappy. In fact, I think I coined the phrase, “liberals are only happy when they are unhappy”. I say I think I coined it because maybe I read it once and subconsciously tucked it away without realizing it. Not sure.

Anyway…I have a theory WHY they always seem so unhappy:

The essence of liberalism is the belief that society is unjust. They believe they can use the force of government to create a “perfect” society. Because there is no such thing as a perfect society they set themselves up for heartache. They’re striving to reach an unattainable goal. A fantasy.

Conservatives, on the other hand, through pragmatic personal experience and examining human history, understand that people are imperfect. Conservatives don’t like bigotry, prejudice, poverty or other ugly aspects of human nature any more than liberals do. So we’re willing to try things to reduce them and make a BETTER society, but deep down we understand and accept that no matter how many laws and regulations are passed, or how many social welfare programs are created, perfection is unattainable. We accept there will always be some degree of inequality, poverty, bias, prejudice and other imperfections. It’s part of being human.

I guess what it boils down to is that conservatives live in reality and are willing to accept “good enough”. But liberals have this utopian fantasy of perfection that demands more and more government involvement in our lives to try to achieve the impossible goal of a perfectly just society (which, ironically, as we’ve seen in totalitarian societies leads to widespread misery for everybody except the highest elites).

I’m reminded of a President Reagan anecdote. In one of his meetings with Gorbachev, he asked Gorby, “hypothetically, if you give me a list of the top 10 things you want from us, and we complied and did everything on the list, what would you do”? Gorbachev allegedly replied, “I’d give you a new list with 10 more items”.

That’s the problem with liberalism. Like Gorbachev, liberals are never satisfied with “good enough” and keep pushing for perfection. And because “perfection” is irrational and unattainable, they are destined to be perpetually unhappy.

Just my philosophical $0.02.

    The essence of liberalism is the belief that society is unjust.

    I disagree.

    The society they strive to create is a most unjust society. However, it is, in their view, a “justifiably” unjust society-

    They believe they can use the force of government to create a “perfect” society.

    Let me fix that:

    They believe they can use force to create a “perfect” society.

    My $.02

The ultra-feminists I’ve observed seem to hate their own biology. They resent social pressure to take up difficult and roles of childbearing and child nurturing, and envied men who had more money and prestige. This envy shows up at hatred of the ‘patriarchy’, in which men are viewed as the enemy and blamed for all women’s ills, and traditional masculine values of courtesy and respect are reinterpreted as condescension and oppression. It also shows up as women neuter themselves in order to become just like men in order to claim male privileges, and demand that men become more like women.

Their hatred of Sarah Palin and Ann Romney comes from the same source. The women who are secure in their own femininity and take pride and satisfaction in their irreplaceable contributions to the future of society by bearing and training children are a constant reminder that the wealth and privilege the ultrafeminists gain as a tradeoff do not satisfy their souls. The traditional woman becomes an enemy who must be destroyed.

    n.n in reply to Confutus. | April 14, 2012 at 4:57 pm

    It’s not only traditional, but it is also natural. They seem incapable of identifying reasonable compromises between nature’s order and their egos. It is an enduring irony that these are individuals who claim to accept evolutionary principles and comprehend evolutionary fitness. Perhaps they define fitness with a paradox. Anyway, I’m beginning to think that their embrace of the natural order is not only for show, but intended to marginalize and denigrate their principal competing interests.

And I defend all conservative women under attack.

Wonder if any of these venomous’itis asinini’tum, dare I type “people”, EVER came down on the mommy’s, they way they have and do, others.

How ’bout grandmas, aunts, <OK, this one I can understand, to a degree. I mean, you know sometimes, it’s JESUS H. Christ, JILL, what in the hell did know the rest>


Contemporary liberalism refers to a desire for instant gratification without consequence. This is most commonly observed in physical promiscuity, but it naturally extends to both material and ego desires as well. It is liberal in that they want freedom. It is regressive and reactionary in that they want fulfillment without responsibility for their behavior. This, incidentally, is why they are capable of rationalizing elective abortion of human life to serve their base needs. Their perspective of reality exhibits progressive misalignment with both the natural and enlightened (i.e. conscious and individual dignity) orders, especially when pursuit of their selfish needs is impinged. It is from this that their faith and the ideology which realizes it can be described as selective.

Great piece. Followed by drivel from commentators. Are we still debating the Democrat/Soros talking point about Sarah the quitter?

Jeeze you’d think they’d notice she hasn’t quit, far from it.

Every time she or any mention of her occurs in any media a firestorm erupts. Hot Air has what could be considered a perpetual motion thread constituted by just mentioning Sarah Palin every other day with each post petering out just as a new Palin post arrives.

Meanwhile, if you want some of the most intelligent and concise information on US energy police read this and ruminate on what might have been, or which might somdeday be.

BannedbytheGuardian | April 14, 2012 at 6:35 pm

Ok I am off to feel eternal sympathy for that other cancer victim Debbie Wasserman -Schultz.

At least Ann’s hair has recovered. No such luck for Debs. I have seen nothing but ridicule for poor Debs coiffure from you evil peeps.

Then I am going to ponder the very American Pie drama of Polygamy son vs Polygamy grandson.

I think not in any other nation – Winning!

Mark Levin kinda hinted on what really is happening here. Obama is responsible for all this dirty personal attacks. He ran the same campaign against a gop for the Senate. His personalize and attack the family of his opponents. Which is why Palin’s family was gone after. He was successful against his gop senate opponent who dropped out and Palin, because she dropped out of the gop presidential race

N one can convince me that if Obama wanted all this trash talking to stop – it would stop at least on the national level. The man is the freaking leader of the Democratic party – if he can’t control his own surrogates he’s worse than we thought.

IMO this has Axlerod & company’s handprints all over it. Some pundits, talking head, radio/TV schill commits the flagrant foul and BO gets to look around big eyed and say “eh, eh, that wasn’t me, I didn’t say those nasty things.” But meanwhile the trash is out there being listened to by the oblivious Independents who believe whatever shiny cookie they see.

I meant if Bo wanted it to stop it would stop.

BannedbytheGuardian | April 14, 2012 at 7:19 pm

BTW -thanks Prof for taking up my Thatcher reference on the predecessor thread.

Margaret Thatcher changed the world all whilst being a wife mother & reformer.

Yes -you need a job & a title.

    SoCA Conservative Mom in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | April 14, 2012 at 11:09 pm

    She has also stated that she would never have gone into politics if she would have known what it did to her family. I’m not knocking her choice, I rather admire Thatcher, I’m just sayin’ she saw what having a career did to her children and perhaps didn’t like what she saw.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to SoCA Conservative Mom. | April 14, 2012 at 11:30 pm

      Margaret has had dementia for over 7 years maybe 10. Carol thatcher has been open -perhaps too open about the process. I heard about it some time go when at a Conservative Conference she spent hours folding napkins -maybe 2002.

      Mark thatcher became a Mercenary – Olivers Army & imprisoned /fined whatever.. Carol is attentive but a blubbermouth.

      Unless MY wrote it herself pre 2000 -you cannot be certain those are her words.

        SoCA Conservative Mom in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | April 15, 2012 at 12:11 am

        According to Lord Spicer, she said it in April 1995.

        SoCA Conservative Mom in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | April 15, 2012 at 12:14 am

        Question… banned from the Telegraph and Daily Mail as well? ():)

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to SoCA Conservative Mom. | April 15, 2012 at 2:33 am

          Not yet! But then again I am not registered.

          Sometimes it is just more fun to read the comments. Often I don’t even bother with the article. The Brits don’t surprise me – I got them down pat. They can be very funny sometimes but less 7 less.

          Thatcher has just so many people around her & speaking for her. They are scared she wiil say something . After all she was privy to some big info.

          They were massively turbulent times & The Falklands is still ongoing. The Belgrado is still a state secret.

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to SoCA Conservative Mom. | April 15, 2012 at 3:04 am

          Plus Lord Spicer is a LIAR & a cheat. He diddled the British Taxpayer of over !10,000 pounds & has to retire in shame.

          Perhaps sales of his “diary ‘will help the repayment. Particularly like that he charged the taxpayer 660 pounds for trimming the hedge around his helipad.

          Gotta warn you – I know Btit politics.

        Wouldnt use the term ‘mercenary’ to describe Mark. True, he may have financed (or helped), but he bailed on the team when South Africa raided the camp. As for those who were already in EG, “fined and imprisoned” isnt how i would describe what Teodoro is putting those guys through.

        I was operating shorebase in Bata when the mercenaries were arrested. We played hell getting our British workers through Malabo.

        DocWahala, hasnt thought a out ‘Dogs of War’ Equitorial Guinea in a while and is glad his seven years in Africa is over.

I concede Ann Romney is a Republican.

But I do not concede that she is conservative. She donated to Planned Parenthood. She supported her husband through his independent rejection of Reagan phase. His running to the left of Ted Kennedy phase. His running as a progressive republican phase. His governing as a Big Government mandate phase.

The reason the GOPE is defending her is because she and her husband are their people.

But somebody please point me to Ann Romney’s conservatism.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to hrh40. | April 14, 2012 at 9:53 pm

    Both sides could attack, mock, deride and criticize Ann Romney to smithereens, in the foulest way and I still could not vote for Romney. I know too much…about him, and his modus operandi and his chief endorsers. The Romneys are progressive politicals posing as whatever is necessary at the time/place to get elected.

    With his record, fluid positions and complete lack of veracity, it is shocking, scandalous that the pro-life and marriage groups have caved to endorse Romney.

huskers-for-palin | April 14, 2012 at 9:21 pm

Obama’s shenanigans are a gimmie, but there were other reasons for Palin not running for 2012, namely the GOPe and the fight between the conservative base and the GOP leadership who wants Mitt.

[…] William A. Jacobson makes the observation: The line runs rather directly from Sarah Palin hatred to Ann Romney hatred General News ADD COMMENTS You can leave a response, or trackback from your own […]

Cinderellastory | April 14, 2012 at 10:23 pm

Another Case of the “Wilding” of a Conservative woman by the Progressives. Robin of Berkeley describes the process in great detail. Rebecca Kleefisch is also a victim of Progressive “Wilding”.

[…] The line runs rather directly from Sarah Palin hatred to Ann Romney hatred […]