What do Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, and Ron Paul have in common?

The Three Horsemen

All we need is Death on a pale horse and we have the full quartet.

What do you mean you don’t know what they all have in common?

You didn’t know all three of them are never wrong, know everything about every subject, have a perfect plan, and all three can walk on water, turn water to wine and while still alive are already up for sainthood.

Right about now a good portion of people are saying something like, how dare you compare _______ to the other two.  But it kind of proves my point.

All three of them have followers who will defend them to their dying breath, without question without exception.  And this is a problem…especially conservatives and libertarians who are supposedly the ones who use their brains.  Now personally as a conservative, I and my fellow conservatives endlessly mock liberals for blindly following their leaders with the unquestioning lockstep goosestep of a Nuremberg march…but it doesn’t help when we have people on our own side who do the same.

For instance for some people on the right I can’t critique Sarah Palin without being called a RINO and a liberal.

For a disturbing portion of libertarians (or at least the vocal ones) Ron Paul is still in incapable of wrong.

There is something seriously, seriously wrong here.  People are not perfect and they shouldn’t be treated as such.  No one ever agrees with someone 100% of the time and if you do you should question your judgement.

I loved Reagan as  President.  I can name a dozen things I think he was wrong on.  I loved Romney, there are a dozen or more things I think he wasn’t right on.  I believe Aristotle’s philosophy is perhaps as a whole the most logical argument ever presented…it’s full of problems.  I can agree with people, support them, push for their ideas without believing them to be absolutely perfect.   Why because no one is perfect.

Ron was a racist, an anti-Semite, a hypocrite and if in control would have either been utterly powerless or would have killed government programs too fast to let society adjust to change and thus caused more problems than the government programs themselves.  That doesn’t mean he was wrong about auditing the Fed, or cutting back on government spending, taxation and regulation. Although correct in theory on many of his wishes, as demonstrated with his newsletter, he is not a good manager or leader.

In theory I agree with a lot of what Sarah says.  Of course since it’s all a collection of vague one-liners it’s kind of hard to find an actual point to disagree with.  But despite this lack of substance there are quite a few in the Republican Party who hang on her every word.  For god’s sake, she pulled a cheap prop trick with a Big Gulp (which I’ve seen at least a dozen people already do) this weekend, and from the reaction you’d swear she was Moses come down from the mountain with the Commandments.  Does anyone forget that she was in support of using federal funds for the biggest pork project one could imagine (the bridge to no where) or that during the VP debate she suggested that the solution to fixing the education system was to throw money at it.  Or how about her backing of RINO politicians like McCain.  I don’t care if he made her his running mate, the man is a corrupt, brainless, liberal.  His major piece of legislation is an assault on the First Amendment.  And she endorsed him.  There is no possible excuse for that, but watch so called conservatives one minute who would rightfully be howling for McCain’s blood the next minute defend Sarah’s endorsement to the death. It’s sad and disgusting.  And given that she has no depth to speak of, only quips and charisma, and that everything she does is motivated by what’s good for Sarah, not necessarily the country, I feel comfortable in saying that Sarah Palin is the Republican Party’s Obama.  A vainglorious hack who leads an army of sheeple.  To my knowledge she has made no concrete statements regarding plans/solutions to Republican issues other than the promoting our big loosers ; ending abortion and gay rights – yeah those are the two most pressing problems our country is facing today – that’ll solve all our problems.

Yes we all understand why liberals don’t question anything about their leader, Barry.  To hell about the corruption, the drone war*, the gun running, the cover up in Benghazi, the pork, the opulence, the incompetence.  Obama is the savior and one must not question the one true God.  We’ve come to expect this sort of idiocy from liberals.

But we’re conservatives and libertarians.  We’re supposed to think, goddamnit!  We’re supposed to care about ideas more than people.  We’re supposed to care about truth/substance more than perception.

Now maybe if their followers could be less psychotic and admit the faults of Ron or Sarah I wouldn’t attack them so much.  I mean they serve a needed purpose in the party. You need people/firebrands like Sarah Palin who can energize the base.  You need policy extremists like Ron to keep us honest. You need people who can use a stunt like a 13 hour filibuster to rally the troops.  But you also need people like Cantor (and I still hold a little hope for McConnell) who can cut the deals when they need to be made, lest we lose on everything.  And we need leaders like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, who in the spirit of Reagan, know how to balance these two ends of the party and when to use one and when to use other to best achieve their goals.  But right now we don’t put enough faith in those leaders because both sides, the establishment and the ideological purists, hate the other and won’t talk to each other admitting we have a common enemy to kill.  You know once liberalism and progressivism has been reduced to the political relevancy of the Whig party, conservatives and libertarians can rip out each others throats to their heart’s content for all I care, but NOT ONE SECOND BEFORE THAT!

And the first step is to admit that our icons are not perfect. Until we can stop treating political figures like they are prophets from God and utterly infallible, we are not going to be able to prioritize and work together to kill the beast that is the Democratic Party.

Here’s a test, if you can’t name 10 things** you disagree with the person you are supporting, you’re not thinking.  There is no person on Earth you can agree with on everything, especially in politics, where even the best have to make deals that to someone not aware of all the ins and outs looks like a bad call. If you can’t find 10 things you disagree with a politician on, go back and do research, because you obviously haven’t done any.

Maybe the way to deal with all of this is to make a list of what needs to occur in our country and maybe we can all agree on the top 3/5 and then together start there and work our way down and we might find that as we accomplish the goals forward some of the items lower on the list will become not as important will self correct to an extent.  It’s worth a try or we will just become as irrelevant as the Whig destiny we would wish on the other party.

*I have no problems with a drone war in theory…but a weapon that should be used with the precision of a scalpel is being waved around like a broadsword in the hands of a Berserker.  That’s a problem.

**I’d even go as far as to say that if you can’t come up with 10 nice things to say about someone you oppose you’re admitting you don’t know much as well.  (Yes I can say 10 nice things about Barry, Sarah and Ron if I had to, like I perfectly agree with Barry’s 2009 statement that running up the debt is unpatriotic.  But even though I am not so blinded by bias that I can point out that they are human and thus not entirely without any redeeming values or positions, that does mean that when taken as a whole, they do not come up very, very lacking.)


Filed under Conservative, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics

7 responses to “What do Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, and Ron Paul have in common?

  1. You lost me when you said we need people like Mcconell and boehner. Sarah has flaws, you pointed to a couple of them. I have criticized her in the past and will continue to do so.

    Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were no saints. I like Ryan more then Romney, but just no. Not all of Sarah Palin’s “followers” are as you describe. Not all of Ron Pauls “followers” are as you describe. Heck, not even all of Barack Obama’s “followers are as you describe.

    Speaking in such broad strokes is just as anti-logical as saying you agree with someone 100%. I can find 10 things I “agree with” barack obama about. The problem is he does not believe those ten things through his actions.

    Really? Boehner and McConnell are needed? this logic is why the republican party is the whigs reincarnated.

    • Is this a bullshit stock response? Because the name Boehhner never appears in this article (and if you can’t see the difference between McConnell and Boehner and just lump them together, you clearly have blinders.) so hitting me for defending Boehner seems just a tad bizarre.

      “Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were no saints. I like Ryan more then Romney, but just no.” I also don’t seem to remember mentioned Romney or Paul were saints. I merely said they had the pragmatic leadership skills necessary to know when to deal and when to stand your ground. From the way you lump Boehner in with McConnell, and from the way you seem to frown upon Romney’s need to compromise with 90%= majority Democratic legislature, you seem to strike me more as the stand your ground at all costs at all times even if it means hurting your long term chances, everything must be a fight to the death! If I’m reading too much into your comment, I’m sorry.

      “Not all of Sarah Palin’s “followers” are as you describe. Not all of Ron Pauls “followers” are as you describe. Heck, not even all of Barack Obama’s “followers are as you describe. ” Well no shit Sherlock, if you mean followers as in someone who just says they occasionally agree with them. But the term follower implies a much heavier level of devotion and it would be foolish to deny that there is a large groups of people who blindly follow these hacks.

      “Speaking in such broad strokes is just as anti-logical ” Broad strokes like the conditional phrases “a good portion” “All three of them have followers ” (notice it’s not “all of their followers”) “some people on the right” “For a disturbing portion of libertarians (or at least the vocal ones)” Now it may be just that I have above a third grade reading level but phrases like that which do not imply and all or nothing world view would usually not be classified a illogical broad strokes. I am critiquing a very vocal portion of both parties, which by no means are the entirety of either party, for their illogic. But you would rather hit me for defending people I didn’t defend and fall into the category that I mentioned of hitting any one you do not deem as ideologically pure enough. (This was highlighted by some of the blogs you have written for instance the one on January of 2011 on last year’s candidates shows you didn’t do much research beyond what the media summaries spoon fed you).

      But if you don’t think we need people who can negotiate with the other side and hammer out deals that can get passed that will, if nothing else, slow down the liberals when they hold power (as they do now) you’re crazy. A party of nothing but firebrands is the Libertarian and Green Parties…and remind me how well they’re doing with elected offices? You need a wide variety of skills to make a successful party.

      • I read mcconnell and stopped actually. There is no significant difference between cantor and boehner and its odd that you used him instead. I did plenty of research on the candidates, and it was just an overall approach not a down and dirty detailed approach.

        You compared Romney and ryan to Reagan. There is no comparison. We can’t work with a side that wants bigger government to get slightly less bigger government. Its why we keep losing. But, if you want the party to go the way of the whigs, go ahead. I have no loyalty to the party that has done no significant good since I was 5 years old. All the candidates were flawed, but almost all of the candidates were better then Romney. Yes, he had a liberal legislative, but the doesn’t mean you capitulate on large swathing increases in government. But, thats what the republican party does, even when it is in full power.

        We have no clear contrast. We have no principles. We defend the lingo of the left to the death and fight to the death those that take a stand on principle. McConnell in many ways is worse then the house leadership. There was a time where he was somewhat useful, but that time is passed and clearly shows the need for term limits.

        I don’t want to win, if winning means nothing other then semantical differences about how we should grow government. If winning means nothing, then why exactly should anyone care about the health of the GOP? If McConnell and Cantor make the best deals we can do..then what is the point? The conservative movement would be better off with a dead GOP in the long term then what is going on right now.

        I voted for Romney. I stood against Obama in doing so. I was voting against Obama. Now that he is in line to appoint 2 judges, after that, its checkmate for a long time and there is no point to continuing this charade. I know what I believe, and I know the people you praise for negotiating, the negotiations they have made have made my goals harder to ever get to. More harm is done by the GOP then the democrats could even dream of. “No immediate debt problem” “We must get immigration reform done” etc etc.

        • Yes there no comparison between Reagan and Romney (despite near identical style in being governors in liberal states, called liberals by psychos in the party and a whole slew of other things….https://conservativenewager.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/its-story-timethe-story-of-the-conservative-who-was-called-a-liberal/) no comparison at all.

          And the rest of what you haven’t doesn’t sound like a fanatical kool-aid drinker to which I can’t actually make a reasonable response because there is nothing really rooted in reality there to respond to, no, not in the least.

        • I think Cris responded to your comments about Romney and Reagan quite well – but your statements demonstrate your lack of actual research. I found out that the reason that Romney and Heritage participated in developing healthcare initiative was because it would have been worse if they had not done so – are you suggesting that to be a true conservative you must let every thing be destroyed to represent your ideology? Most governors would think they were supposed to save their state when possible. Again if research was done you would find out that the current healthcare in MA is not what Romney and Heritage originally got passed – it was changed by the legislature that kept overturning him and the followup governor. Get a grip on reality. The man was overturned 85% of the time on his vetoes.
          The statement about term limits is supported by every conservative but it is not so simple as it requires an amendment to the constitution – and no one in the real world seems to want to do that.

  2. Pingback: Ron Paul is championing home schooling…God help us all… | The Conservative New Ager

  3. Pingback: GOP, Let’s ask what worked and what didn’t… | The Conservative New Ager

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s