Did You Know?

Ever been curious why Democrats are Donkeys and Republicans are elephants? Well Filistro dug up this little tidbit.

http://history.howstuffworks.com/american-civil-war/donkey-elephant.htm/printable

How about that?

Mr. Universe



About Mr. Universe

Mr. Universe is a musician/songwriter and an ex-patriot of the south. He currently lives and teaches at a University in the Pacific Northwest. He is a long distance hiker who has hiked the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail. He is also an author and woodworker. An outspoken political voice, he takes a decidedly liberal stance in politics.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

101 Responses to Did You Know?

  1. robert verdi says:

    Nast was one of the greatest and most prolific political cartoonists in the history of the USA, he is most famous for his acid tipped drawing of Boss Tweed and the Tammany machine in New York. I would recommend a quick image search and you will see what I mean.

  2. Mainer says:

    Totally agreed Robert. I have a number of Nast cartoons I look at frequently. Some are as appropriate today as they were when drawn. My favorite has always been the Tammany Ring. That lad could skewer any and all and did so frequently.

  3. filistro says:

    Speaking of donkeys and elephants..Now it’s the LEFT talking about “armed revolution.”This would be an interesting war. One side is rich and has all the guns, but is old and slow-moving (and resistant to change.) The other side is poorly-armed (and pretty poor overall) but young, nimble and passionate.Place your bets.Seriously, has there been a time since the Civil War when there was so much loose talk about taking up arms against one’s own countrymen? Even in tough economic times, I don’t recall so much of this nonsense. Maybe I just wasn’t paying attention. Mainer… your thoughts?This all seems different to me somehow. It’s unsettling. I don’t know what to make of it.

  4. shrinkers says:

    I just realized — it’s been well over a week since the Republicans won control of the House.WHERE ARE ALL THOSE JOBS THEY PROMISED?

  5. filistro says:

    One other random off-topic comment (well, I guess it does tie into donkeys, elephants and generalized inter-species anger) is how tone-deaf and stupid Republican men tend to be when it comes to women.Bart yesterday called me “catty” for criticizing Sarah Palin. He was actually quite serious in lecturing me about this. And it’s not the first time… I think half a dozen Republican men have said the similar things to me in the past couple of years. Several have openly suggested the criticism arises out of “jealousy.”Good grief. They seem to have no idea how insulting and infuriating this is… as if intelligent, well-read women can’t criticize an aspiring politician without being “catty” if that politician happens to be another woman.What a juvenile attitude. If this bunch thinks they can capture and hold women voters as a group while maintaining such a junior-high-school view of women in general, they have a lot to learn.Sorry to vent all over you all… but it’s sort of an open thread… and this is really, REALLY annoying.

  6. filistro says:

    Susan Collins being really catty.Clearly she’s JEALOUS.After all, Collins is only an insignificant little ol’ United States Senator, while Palin is… well, whatever Palin is.

  7. GROG says:

    @fili,It’s because if you’re a Republican and a woman, you’re enemy #1 to the Democratic Party.There are no Republican politicians who are treated with more disdain, hatred, and mean-spiritedness than Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, Sharon Angle, or Michelle Bachmann. Women are a fairly small percentage of the Republican party, but they garner more attention and hatred than any Republican man (with the exception of Michael Steele who happens to be black. Go figure.)

  8. filistro says:

    Yeah, sure GROG… Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are the most hated women in America, aren’t they?Try again, eh?

  9. filistro says:

    Hey GROG… are you saying those poor maligned GOP women are… you know… victims? πŸ˜‰

  10. Realist says:

    Speaking strictly for myself…The reason I disdain and dislike Palin, O’Donnell, Angle, and Bachmann (BTW, GROG, for someone who likes Bachmann so much, you could at least learn to spell her name correctly) is that they are shallow and show no intellectual curiosity.I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Snowe and Collins, because they are thoughtful and show a great deal of intellectual curiosity.Incidentally, there are plenty of Democrats that I also dislike for their lack of intellectual curiosity.So perhaps you’re falling into the false-cause fallacy.

  11. GROG says:

    @Realist,You got me.@fili,Those women don’t play the victim card. That’s the difference. They’re strong women who are unapologetic about their beliefs and don’t care about the attacks against them.

  12. shiloh says:

    @grogre: disdain, hatred, and mean-spiritednessSarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, Sharon Angle, or Michelle Bachmann.~~~~~hmmNancy Pelosi feels their pain …’nuf said!

  13. filistro says:

    @ GROG… Those women don’t play the victim card.I never said they did. My point is that for the past week you’ve been repeatedly attacking Dems for “playing the victim card” on behalf of others… and now you, personally, are doing that very thing.Aren’t you?

  14. shrinkers says:

    @GROGThose women don’t play the victim card. That’s the difference. They’re strong women who are unapologetic about their beliefs and don’t care about the attacks against them.If you meant Snowe and Collins here, you’re absolutely correct.Palin and O’Donnell, of course, play the victim constantly. Palin blames the “lamestream media” for all her problems, and O’Donnell is angry at the Republican establishment for not supporting her. I agree with Realist, by the way. I don’t care for Palin or Bachmann or O’Donnell or Angle because they tend to play to the lowest sort of brainless jingoism and anti-intellectual snobbery. Collins and Snowe, on the other hand, strike me as brave and independent, capable of a great deal of thought and careful consideration.If you want to know why “liberals” don’t like someone such as Palin, you should ask rather than make assumptions.

  15. shiloh says:

    Oh please grog as hypocritical/inane mama grizzly er palin has played the (((victim card))) since day one, particularly w/her virginal πŸ˜‰ children.You bet’cha!ie the major reason she resigned her strenuous AK governorship πŸ˜› ’cause people were picking on her and her family lol.palin is a total frickin’ fraud as most of the polls indicate … but, but, but the winger fringe is still under her charlatan spell πŸ˜€ ~ shocking!

  16. shortchain says:

    I’ve got nothing personal against any of the people you mention, GROG. I do, however, object to the GOP’s methodology of nominating (and often managing to get elected) shallow, intellectually incurious ideologues who end up causing a lot of trouble.And I also detest the dishonest hacks who pretend that these shallow, empty souls have something to say. Because they’re liars (the defenders, not the politicians, although they are often liars and grifters also) — Bachmann, O’Donnell, Palin, none of the three have anything intelligent to say on economics, politics, finance, science, you name it. If it requires a frontal lobe, it’s beyond their ken.

  17. shiloh says:

    it’s beyond their ken.but is it beyond their inner barbie …

  18. GROG says:

    Maybe I am playing the victim card but you played the victim card first by saying Bart called you “catty”. So there. (Good Lord. I feel like a 3rd grader.)

  19. Realist says:

    @GROG,Seriously, you sound like a 3rd grader.But you’re really the one who has had a whole anti-victim thing. I doubt anyone else here thought much about it in the first place.Serious question for you: why do you feel the need to compartmentalize and define liberals so narrowly?

  20. filistro says:

    @GROG… you played the victim card first by saying Bart called you “catty”Oh, hardly.Over the past couple of years I have felt at various times appalled, frustrated, outraged, intrigued and amused by Bart… but NEVER “victimized.”

  21. GROG says:

    @shortchain,fili,shrinkers,shilohYou have every right to criticize and dislike those women for the various reasons you listed. Surely there are Republian men who you feel are shallow, anti-intellectual snobs, brainless, etc. But please don’t try to argue that your level of criticism for Republican men is the same for R women.

  22. shiloh says:

    @grog(Good Lord. I feel like a 3rd grader.)~~~~~Indeed!

  23. GROG says:

    @Realist,Why don’t you criticize filistro or shrinkers for compartmentalizing and defining conservatives so narrowly?

  24. shortchain says:

    GROG,Oh, please! George W. Bush is simply Sarah Palin with a Y chromosome and better packaging (mostly due to having “connections”)You are the one who came here and started this inane BS. We simply responded to your inane BS. That it happened to be about women is entirely on your head.If you want to know how I feel about conservatives, male or female, why don’t you take a scroll through a couple of the recent threads. Then come back and tell me that you detect sexism in what I said.You won’t, of course. When you’ve been proven wrong, yet again, you’ll simply disappear, to appear yet again on another thread, as if nothing happened, spewing the same lame BS.

  25. Mr. Universe says:

    HBachmannere’s a question for you. Nikki Haley is the smartest Republican female in this election cycle. Why aren’t people talking about her?Answer: because she isn’t bat shit crazy like Angle, O’Donnell, Palin, Bachmann, McMahon, etc. This has nothing to do with their gender. That anyone would wave gender around as an issue is using these women as tools in the bfirst place.

  26. GROG says:

    @shortchain,First of all, filistro brought up the topic.Secon of all, don’t be so naive. The left seeks out conservative women and minorities with a mission to destroy them. PalinBachmannSteeleO’DonnellThomasAngleOther than Bush and Cheney (who just happen to have been pres and vp) there are absolutely no male Republican politicians who have have attracted as much attack, hatred, and disdain as the ones I listed. Prove me wrong.

  27. shrinkers says:

    @GROGPlease don’t try to argue that I criticize Republican men less harshly than Republican women. If you want, I’ll give you samples. Name your favorite male Republican and I’ll tell you what I really think of him.

  28. GROG says:

    @Mr. U,Conservative women politicians are called “batshit crazy” on this blog all the time… like you just did.Can you find one example of a conservative male politician being called “batshit crazy” on this blog since it started?

  29. GROG says:

    @shrinkers,Name your favorite male Republican and I’ll tell you what I really think of him.That’s not how it works. The fair thing would be to skim your past comments from this blog and see how many criticize conservative women compared to how many criticize conservative men. What do you think we would find?

  30. robert verdi says:

    Whats great about the Tammany Ring is that you could likely photoshop any number of people on the heads and it would still be true!

  31. shiloh says:

    apologies to all (((batshit crazy))) women out there who have been compared to palin, angle, bachmann, o’donnell et al.To be fair, palin is more of grifter attention whore than batshit crazy ~ Damned w/faint praise! ;)>Oh to be a fly on the wall and hear Snowe/Collins/Murkowski/Bailey Hutchison/Ingraham/Coulter/Nicolle Wallace talk honestly about said female Rep wingnuts as these clowns set the Rep party back several generations …>Can one ever imagine bachmann becoming a Rep Speaker :-PThe horror! πŸ˜€

  32. Monotreme says:

    Sen. DeMint: batshit crazy.Sen. Inhofe: batshit crazy.There.

  33. shortchain says:

    GROG,First, filistro was commenting on a different issue, how women are considered “catty” if they criticize women politicians.You then brought up the lame “the left hates these women” BS.For Republican men that are “hated” (please note, nobody here expressed “hate” for these people, merely pointed out that they’re intellectually shallow and intellectually lazy) — I give you (in no particular order):1. Rove (despicable)2. Santorum (dim)3. Romney (dishonest and inhumane, not to mention just plain nuts)4. McCain (pathetic)5. Inhofe (brain-dead)6. Boehner (of the House of Orange)7. McConnell (Mitch “Box Turtle”)8. Bolton (vile)9. Yoo (deeply, profoundly disgusting)10. Gingrich (hypocritus maximus)How many do you want? Because I can go on for a long time.Now, you may pretend (and I’m sure you will) that these aren’t as hated, attacked, and disdained as the ones you’ve mentioned — but that’s only true in your head. By any objective measure, Bush, Cheney, Bolton, Rove, Gingrich, Santorum, all are as despised or more despised than the women and Michael Steele.Actually, I think a lot of us on the left like Michael Steele, as the “gift that goes on giving”.

  34. filistro says:

    GROG is sort of right, in that the women he named attract more calumny than most politicians. But he’s totally wrong about the reason. It’s not because they’re “Republican women.” There are lots of very conservative Republican women like Kay Bailey Hutchison, Shelley Moore Capito, Condoleezza Rice, Elaine Chao to name a few… who are NEVER criticized like this.The Big Four… Angle, O’Donnell, Palin and Bachmann, are riveting to the public because they are flame-throwers in skirts. As a society we don’t expect women to be flame-throwers, so they are an oddity and a spectacle. They are also annoying to serious women because these four apparently think flame-throwing.. without concomitant depth, study or knowledge.. should be enough to earn them a place on the national stage. They just want to ride the “Mean Girl” tag all the way to the top. It’s pathetic and embarrassing.

  35. shiloh says:

    Just adding:”Macaca” Allen ~ Bill personal liberites, I can diagnose Terri Schiavo from my senate seat, FristJim What planet am I on? BunningTom I may soon be in jail, the hammer Delay. :DMark ok, I won’t go there lol Foley>Mark Sanford, Larry Craig, David Vitter, John Ensign, Vito Everyone should have (2) families! B) Fossellaas shortchain mentioned, the list is endless …

  36. Realist says:

    @GROG,Why don’t you criticize filistro or shrinkers for compartmentalizing and defining conservatives so narrowly?Actually, I have criticized fili for that. Specifically, I disagreed with her that Freepers make up the core of the Republican party. She at least defended her position by producing evidence that was compelling, including connections between the site’s founders and the Tea Party, plus planks of the various state Republican parties, which lined up with many of the generalizations she had been making. Frankly, I was surprised by the results.You are free to do the same in your defense.

  37. filistro says:

    @ Realist… Frankly, I was surprised by the results.B-)

  38. Realist says:

    @GROG,Can you find one example of a conservative male politician being called “batshit crazy” on this blog since it started?Rand Paul immediately comes to mind.

  39. shortchain says:

    I’m going to disagree a bit with filistro. Palin, O’Donnell, and Bachmann, as well as Michael Steele, are not flame-throwers so much as lightning rods. They’re designed specifically to counter the obvious misogynistic and racist tendencies in the Republican leadership. By promoting these people, the GOP pretends that it is not what it obviously is.How many of these four are actually in positions of true “leadership”? Not Michael Steele. He’s been bypassed by Rove’s American Crossroads organizations, as well as largely hamstrung by inroads on his authority.Precisely which of the women that have been mentioned are part of the real leadership of the GOP? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are the power-brokers right now, with DeMint coming up strong. Bachmann is going to be sent to the kitchen, Palin is largely ignored by the leadership unless they need somebody to bring in a crow, and O’Donnell, well, if they need somebody to cast a spell, maybe, but otherwise, forget it.I object more to the people who push these people and defend them as someone the rest of us are supposed to listen to, because they’re hypocrites. The GOP will not make them leaders, yet we’re supposed to somehow consider them leaders?

  40. robert verdi says:

    why do replies end up in funny locations?

  41. shortchain says:

    Crowd. Crowd. I’m having fun with my wireless, thanks to some neighbor. Might be time to hack that microwave and aim it…

  42. Realist says:

    @robert verdiwhy do replies end up in funny locations?I don’t understand what you mean by this.

  43. filistro says:

    @shortchain.. Crowd. Crowd.Well, damn. I was completely beguiled by the image of the Great White Huntress being sent out by the GOP leaders, shotgun in hand, to bring in a crow… possibly for O’Donnell to use in one of those spells….Now I have to scrap the whole fantasy :-(shortchain, on the “flame-throwing” thing… I maintain that people go nuts because Angle tells Harry to “man up”.. or O’Donnell tells Mike Castle to “put his man pants on”.. or Palin bad-mouths the President or Bachmann talks about “anti-Americans on the Hill…” while a man saying those things would never attract the same attention. We are always fascinated by Mean Girls.

  44. Monotreme says:

    Robert Verdi: why do replies end up in funny locations?Realist: I don’t understand what you mean by this.I’m not sure, but I think Robert Verdi is commenting on the difference between a threaded vs unthreaded discussion.If I understand correctly, he is expecting to see replies under the parent article. Of course, in unthreaded format, they’re in strict chronological order.On the new site, I believe users will be given the choice of threaded vs unthreaded discussions, right?

  45. Michael Weiss says:

    Monotreme, that all depends…things aren’t set in concrete. πŸ™‚

  46. filistro says:

    This just in… about 7,000 ballots counted so far in Alaska. 98% indicated as designated clearly for Murkowski.

  47. shortchain says:

    I thought we already had a “threaded” option. You just click it at the top of the thread.Like, for example, I just hit “respond” to Michael’s comment.I wonder what will happen.

  48. filistro says:

    Miller only challenging about 600. This looks to be a done deal.

  49. shortchain says:

    It works for me. When I select “threaded” (and, paradoxically, “linear” gets underlined — don’t be fooled) I see replies directly under the parent comment.

  50. robert verdi says:

    thank you all for the info, and yes I assumed a reply would go directly under the parent comment instead of chronologically which is what I have been getting.

  51. robert verdi says:

    I get it, read the directions!

  52. shortchain says:

    filistro,I think to some extent the prominence which is given to provocative comments by right-wing women is a function of their position as lightning rods. Their base wants them to belittle and cast as effeminate their Democratic opponents. This is a well-documented strategy of the right wing.In the case of Palin and Angle, of course they’re going to make snide comments. You expect substance from these two?As for Bachmann, I have a lot of familiarity with her comments. She makes provocative comments when she’s put on Fox News — because otherwise she won’t be asked back. Anybody know any politician, male, female, or neuter, repeatedly asked to appear on Fox News who doesn’t make provocative statements?

  53. filistro says:

    shortchain Their base wants them to belittle and cast as effeminate their Democratic opponents. This is a well-documented strategy of the right wing.Oh yes, I agree. For some reason it’s just so much more exciting for the base when WOMEN do it.Maybe it’s because according to our social mores, men aren’t allowed to fight back. (Thus we have a sport appealing to the same mentality that once enjoyed bear-baiting.)

  54. Mainer says:

    But remember the right can call any one on the left any ting they want, Lie, Libel, slander…..hey all is fair in politics…..uh except when a Democrat does it and especially if they are speaking the truth.Dennis Kuscinich is out there and about as far laeft as one will find a politician. But does he come across as mean, dangerous, evil, against America and major segments of its people?Now when you have others that do come across that way then it is note worthy. I come from a state where 3 out of our 4 Federal law makers are women (can any other state say that 75% of that group is for them women?)so yes we have some feeling for it. Both SNowe and Collins have taken some heat of late for playing too much politics. We expect more. And it isn’t the left that is going to do them in but the right and because they are strong willed and will at times do what is right over expedient. Now have I sent them both some pretty terse messages this year? Yes I have but not because they are nuttier than a backhouse rat. I will argue with them on substance and they will reply in one manner or another. They talk to all elements of the media and take all questions. They may not please the left all the time but they also don’t please the right all the time either so quite possibly they have things in perspective. Our female rep is a Dem and makes no effort to hide it.No one here would tollerate these ladies being treated for any thing less because they are smart gutsy women.I find it so sad that the Republicans in other places can be comfortable with putting forward or even electing women that couldn’t carry the breifcase of a Snowe or Collins or Hutchinson. How can having a cartoon character such as Angle or Bachman or ODonnell do any thing positive for women? I have this sick feeling that there are many that take great pleasure seeing these clowns put into action what they actually beleive about women and I don’t think the ones that beleive that are Democrats.

  55. shrinkers says:

    People like Snowe and Collins and Hutchinson and Condi don’t go out of their way to say stupid, offensive, batsh!t crazy crap.O’Donnell, Palin, Bachmann do. Whenever Darth Cheney crawls out from under his rock in his undisclosed location in Dubai, he says some really insane stuff, too. But he does it far less often than, say, Caribou Barbie, who seems to have a pathological need to be on the front page every week.Rand Paul and Joe Miller are near as batsh!t, but they don’t get the press. I’m not sure why. Maybe they need to hire Tina Fay to do impressions of them.Anyway, seeing a conservative pretend to be defending women always makes me smile. Ask Al Franken about Republicans’ votes on women’s rights in this last Congress.

  56. Mr. Universe says:

    Hi conservatives,These chicks you’ve put forth as legitimate candidadtes are laughable. You don’t really expect u to take them seriously, do you? They are vacuous, empty, vessals of right wing party messages, It’s silly that you think that we won’t recognize this.Suckers!

  57. GROG says:

    @shrinkers,You didn’t answer whether or not you’re up to my challenge. We’ll go through the comments (or take a sampling) from you or all 538Refugee commentators and we’ll count how many criticize conservative male politicians and how many criticize conservative female politicians.And we’ll factor in the fact that women are a small percentage of total Republicans. What do you think we’ll find? Rand Paul and Joe Miller are near as batsh!t, but they don’t get the press. I’m not sure why.Shrinky, if they were women the you and the media would all them like a cheap suit.

  58. GROG says:

    @Realist,Rand Paul immediately comes to mind.I was unable to find a 538Refugee comment which called Rand Paul “batshit crazy”.

  59. GROG says:

    @Mr. U,Let’s say you’re right and these women are “vacuous, empty, vessals of right wing party messages.”Are you saying there are no men in the party who are “vacuous, empty, vessals of right wing party messages”.Because you Mr. U, cannot possibly believe that the number and viciousness of attacks on “vacuous, empy, vessal” men are anywhere close to that of “vacuous, empty, vessal” women. You’re free to prove me wrong.

  60. shortchain says:

    GROG,You want to gather data, go ahead.Personally, I’ve seen your computer and analysis skills in action, and such a report from you would be DOA. In addition, the short time frame this site has been open means you’ll be dealing with small-sample statistics. As Bart can tell you, that’s a dangerous area.Furthermore, look up tu quoque fallacy and perhaps you’ll come to understand, after learning about it, why your argument is not impressing people.Except yourself, of course.

  61. shiloh says:

    @grogYou’re free to prove me wrong.~~~~~We’re also free to ignore you, or not …Just like you tried to ignore me πŸ˜›

  62. GROG says:

    @shiloh,I like you too much to ignore you for very long. And happy Veterans Day.

  63. GROG says:

    @shortchain,There have been thousands of comments since this site launched. The sample size is more than sufficient.Isn’t there some kind of law that states an argument is lost when the losing side has nothing left to resort to but insults?

  64. filistro says:

    GROG… your basic premise escapes me. What exactly are you trying to prove?Dems don’t like women?Dems are mean to Republican women? Republican women are media targets?

  65. shiloh says:

    @grogIsn’t there some kind of law~~~~~No ’cause a day w/out insults at a political blog is like a day w/out sunshine! πŸ™‚Anchors Aweigh !!!United States Navy, (234) years of tradition unhampered by progress …

  66. shortchain says:

    GROG,There have only been a few threads in which particular Republican figures have been mentioned. Furthermore, if a figure is mentioned and then people go back and forth about them, how many of these do you count? I would submit that, as in the present thread, there is a statistical difficulty. Sure, filistro made an original (and somewhat equivocal) mention of Palin. But then it was you that dragged in all the women specifically, and elicited criticism of them. Would it be statistically fair to count any of the comments on this thread?No.Now, had there been a thread talking about Republicans in general, you might get some data. Oh, wait, we had one of those — and it won’t display what you imagine.In summary, if a person sees a pattern, does that mean the pattern exists? No.Yet I’m sure you will continue, as a true “conservative”, to believe what you choose to believe, and regard anyone pointing out your cognitive errors as “insults”.

  67. shrinkers says:

    I wonder if GROG is simply picking up on this Freeper thread:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2618680/posts.. or maybe he’s getting into some recent Beckism or Limbite?

  68. GROG says:

    @fili,Dems don’t like women? NoDems are mean to Republican women? YesRepublican women are media targets? YesDemocrats cannot stand conservative Republican women because that is supposed to be a demographic the D’s own. How can they perpetuate the notion that Republicans hate women when Republicans are voting women into office.And to make things worse for Democrats, Republicans absolutely love and respect these women. It disproves their theory, so these women become enemy #1.

  69. shiloh says:

    grog again, feel free to stop generalizing at any time … or not.

  70. shortchain says:

    GROG,”Republicans absolutely love and respect these women.”– must be why Michele Bachmann has been forced to withdraw her nomination for a leadership position in the House GOP caucus so fast it’s embarassing. I mean, two days after she floated it, she got buried in people going for the other guy.I don’t think the GOP is going to respect Palin, O’Donnell, Angle, and Bachmann in the morning.

  71. Realist says:

    Ahh, but GROG, there’s a flaw in your logic:

    Dems are mean to Republican women? Yes

    Agreed, based on the definition I know you’re using. But, are they “mean to Republican women” specifically because they’re women? Perhaps some are, but we’ve already provided examples of both moderate (Snowe, Collins) and conservative (Hutchison) women who don’t get treated that way.

    The real question is a chicken-and-egg question. Are they targets because they are lightning rods, or are they lightning rods because they’re targets? You claim the latter, but I say the evidence points to the former.

    Republican women are media targets? Yes

    Really? Why don’t we see much of Snowe, Collins, or Hutchison?

    Democrats cannot stand conservative Republican women because that is supposed to be a demographic the D’s own.

    So you say, but there are two problems with that statement. First, you aren’t a Democrat, so you really don’t know why they do what they do. Second, the evidence doesn’t even support your hypothesis.

    And to make things worse for Democrats, Republicans absolutely love and respect these women.

    It’s certainly worse to me, because of the particular women that they choose to love. These are women who make sweeping claims, and when asked to provide supporting evidence come up completely empty. Their behavior suggests that they have already made up their minds and don’t want to allow facts to get in the way. That people like that are loved and respected within the political arena is terrifying. To Michael’s article earlier this week, it’s overt rejection of specialists.

  72. GROG says:

    You’re willfully ignoring the obvious.Women are a very, very, very, small percentage of Republican politicians.Palin, O’Donnell, Bachmann, and Angle attract a very, very, very, large percentage the left’s criticism.Palin, O’Donnell, Bachmann, and Angle do not have views that are any more hard right than most Republican politicians who are men, yet they absorb the brunt of the left’s rage. The left has had a stranglehold on the women vote for generations. It scares you to death to see R women obtaining positions of power. And it scares you even more to see how popular these women are amongst conservatives who are supposed to hate women. The GOP is a changin’ and the left doesn’t like it one bit.

  73. shrinkers says:

    GROG, you can project any emotions onto others that you please. That says far more about you than it does about anyone else.You’ve been told many times now. You are simply wrong. Palin, O’Donnell, Bachmann, and Angle play addle-brained clowns on TV. I don’t know if they actually are as stupid and insane in real life as their public personas are. But from all appearances, it is the empty-headed cheerleader idiot that the Republican men seem to like.”These women” don’t scare us. See if you can wrap your head around that. They amuse us, in the same way a village idiot amuses us, and for the same reasons.What IS kind of scary is that such a large number of Republicans seem to think that insane fools like this should be elected to office.And it has nothing to do with gender — other than the fact that Palin, O’Donnell, Bachmann, and Angle are doing their best to play stereotypical dumb blonde cheerleaders, the way G. W. Bush tried to play an idiot cowboy, Dick Cheney tried to play Darth Vader, and Eric Cantor tries to be a fourth-grade bully. If you try to be a stereotype, you’ll often wind up being treated like one.You can convince yourself of whatever you want about someone else’s motives, GROG. But it’s all projection on your part, and has nothing to do with what is going on inside anyone else’s head.And as far as conservatives “hating” women — conservatives do seem to like idiot cheerleaders. Women with brains, not as much, though there are some exceptions like Condi Rice and Hutchinson.When you guys start to go as gaa-gaa over a woman with brains as you do over Baywatch stereotypes, we’ll start to take your respect for women seriously.

  74. Realist says:

    @GROG,

    You’re willfully ignoring the obvious.

    Not at all. Just because it’s obvious doesn’t make it true.

    Women are a very, very, very, small percentage of Republican politicians.

    Yes, they are.

    Palin, O’Donnell, Bachmann, and Angle attract a very, very, very, large percentage the left’s criticism.

    Yes, they do.

    Palin, O’Donnell, Bachmann, and Angle do not have views that are any more hard right than most Republican politicians who are men, yet they absorb the brunt of the left’s rage.

    Also true.

    The left has had a stranglehold on the women vote for generations.

    Correct again. But then you go and draw a wrong conclusion:

    It scares you to death to see R women obtaining positions of power.

    Nope. I couldn’t care less if Republican women become powerful. The only reason I wouldn’t want a Republican woman President is because I don’t want a Republican President. At least, not one representing the current Republican Party. The chromosomes don’t really matter to me.

    And it scares you even more to see how popular these women are amongst conservatives who are supposed to hate women.

    You are calling me a liar, aren’t you? Come out and say it, if that’s what you mean.

    And, of course, you are also claiming to know what goes on in my head. For that, I call you a liar. I won’t mince words there.

  75. shiloh says:

    Again grog, feel free to stop generalizing/projecting/deflecting at any time …”willfully ignoring the obvious.” Indeed!>Would also say feel free to back up your inane generalizations/opinions w/some facts/data/polls etc. but w/you, that would be a waste of time.>You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink, ehtake care

  76. GROG says:

    OK Realist. You’ve admitted that Palin, O’Donnell, Bahcmann, and Angle are no “crazier” than most Republican men. You’ve also admitted that even though women are a very, very, very, small percentage of Republicans, they attract a huge perentage of the criticism.You tell me. Why? Why do you pick on the women so much more, even though they’re no “crazier” than the men? I’ve given you my theory. You give me yours.

  77. shortchain says:

    GROG,Heavens! No matter how many times it’s explained to you that, thanks to the way the Republicans put their lightning rod tokens up, to pretend that they are not, in fact, white male dominated — and intending to stay that way — then pretend, just as you have on this thread, that the fire they draw is somehow a reflection on the left.This is the definition of the psychological phenomenon known as projection.

  78. shrinkers says:

    @shortchain”No matter how many times it’s explained to you that, thanks to the way the Republicans put their lightning rod tokens up, to pretend that they are not, in fact, white male dominated — and intending to stay that way — then pretend, just as you have on this thread, that the fire they draw is somehow a reflection on the left.”I think you’ve caught the scheme here exactly. The Republicans advance people who are clearly unqualified (Palin for V.P., for example) and the pretend that objections from the left are because she’s a woman rather than being because she’s unqualified. They are convinced that proposing a woman or a minority for a position automagically makes that person immune to being unqualified.

  79. Realist says:

    @GROG,Look at the evolution for the answer.We never saw Palin, O’Donnell, Bachmann, or Angle on the national stage until 2008. The closest we came to their personae prior to that was Phyllis Schlafly, and she was really rarely on the national stage.But once Palin secured the nomination, a funny thing happened. She was treated as a rockstar by the Republicans. Suddenly, nobody seemed to notice who the Presidential candidate was. It was all about Sarah the Barracuda. Not from the left. This was all from the right. Those on the left knew little about her.Palin got a ton of face time because she was a VP candidate. But she was different. She started having her unscripted moments, where it was clear that she understood the headlines, but had no idea what the stories were behind them. That scared the hell out of the left, because you can’t debate with someone who has no intellectual curiosity. At that point, there’s no discussion. There’s no compromise. There’s only vapid sound bites.Bachmann is a quick study. She saw the amount of attention that Palin’s rabble-rousing got, and followed suit. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the press gobbled that up in the same way.Once the election was over, and Palin converted to Fox News darling, it became clear that she had a path to political fandom.For this reason, Angle and especially O’Donnell intentionally modeled themselves after Palin. The response to them is similar to that of Palin for exactly the same reasons. And the more credible they became as candidates, the scarier the notion of one of them being elected became.It’s not really the “crazy” that’s so scary. It’s the total lack of intellectual curiosity, worn proudly on their sleeves. It’s Dan Quayle writ large. He, too, was picked on a lot for being an intellectual lightweight, by the way.So that’s my theory. It’s more about the proud lack of intellectual curiosity than anything else. And, yes, the only people on the national political stage who have done this are these Republican women.

  80. Realist says:

    @shrinkers,I’m going to call you out on this one”They are convinced that proposing a woman or a minority for a position automagically makes that person immune to being unqualified.”You don’t know this to be true any more than GROG knows what he thinks he knows. Now, their behavior does suggest that they are using the woman candidates for political gain, insofar as they gender-bait and then play victim when they are attacked. But that’s very different from believing that proposing a woman or minority for the position makes them immune to being unqualified.

  81. shiloh says:

    Rich Lowry ~ National Review re: palin’s love letter to conservative men πŸ˜‰ er 2008 convention speech:”I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can’t be learned; it’s either something you have or you don’t, and man, she’s got it.”>so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen>so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen>so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen>>>National Review founder William F. Buckley, Jr. was/is turnin’ over in his grave! :-PYou bet’cha! πŸ˜€

  82. mclever says:

    GROG,I don’t really know what I can add to this conversation that hasn’t already been said, but I’m going to try.As best I can put it, people like me tend not to like incurious idiots. We especially don’t like women who play up the “dumb babe” stereotype, because we think women are better than that. You’ll notice that few Republican women got much criticism from the Left prior to Palin’s arrival on the national scene. That’s because, like most Democratic women, most Republican women were serious, intellectual, and credible. Women like Snowe, Collins, Hutchinson, Condi, Laura Bush, etc. Regardless of their political stripe, it’s their apparent intellectual depth that inoculates them from being mocked and jeered. The only exception to this that I can think of is Ann Coulter, and she gets the Left’s dander up because she intentionally says inflammatory things–the female Rush Limbaugh, who gets equal derision from the Left.Republican men who play “bimbos” also get mocked by the left. Dan Quayle, GWB, Glenn Beck, to name a few. It’s not the Republican women we dislike, it’s the anti-intellectuals. Contrast this with the way capable, intelligent women on the Left are treated by the Right. Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, etc. All of these women have been vilified and treated as bogeymen by Conservatives, but none of them are even that extreme on the liberal scale, especially when compared to, say, Dennis Kucinich or the lone socialist, Senator Sanders. These women aren’t idiots or anti-intellectual, either. So, you tell me, why do Conservatives hate moderately liberal women so much? (I could get really snarky here, but I’m resisting the urge as a gesture of conviviality. Cheers!)

  83. mclever says:

    Moderation, seriously?!

  84. GROG says:

    Mclever,Here’s the difference. Hillary Clinton ran for President. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House. Barbara Boxer is Al Gore’s sidekick in the global warming hysteria. They’re front and center in the Dem party.Dianne Feinstein? She’s not even on the right’s radar. Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, and Obama attract the brunt of the right’s criticism. They’re all in leadership postions.Palin, O’Donnell, Angle, and Bachmann are not. They’re just women who happen to be Republicans.

  85. mclever says:

    GROG, I don’t buy it.Hillary was vilified before she ran for President. Pelosi before she became Speaker. Your characterization of Boxer is laughable–she’s not that major of a player with the Democratic Party. Besides, she’s supporting the values of her California constituents. Isn’t that what you want from a representative government?Maybe Feinstein doesn’t get the hate from your particular circle, but I’ve seen the vile emails that paint her as Satan incarnate, so I know it’s out there.The point is, that they’re apparently being criticized when their only crime is their arguably reasonable, well-considered, intelligent positions on policy matters. You can have a debate with Hillary, and she’ll come across as knowledgeable and thoughtful, even if you disagree. So, why has she been treated so horribly from the Right, starting a decade before she ran for President? Republicans who get the most of the Left’s ire right now are those who do nothing but rabble-rousing and spewing ill-considered talking points. Reasoned debate is impossible, because they can not (or will not) speak in depth on any subject of substance. Yes, Palin and her wannabe clones definitely fit that bill. So does Beck.Republican men and women who don’t fit that bill don’t get mocked extensively. It’s really pretty simple.Liberals tend to respect intelligence and reasonableness, so if you can present yourself as reasonable and intelligent, then you’re probably going to get debated rather than mocked. (Of course, there are *always* exceptions…)

  86. shortchain says:

    What is with this pretense that Palin is not front and center in the spotlight? She’s got her own reality show, which was previewed this AM on one of the big morning shows! Her tweets (putatively) are regularly featured on front pages of newspapers. She ran for VP. She’s arguably running for president.If she doesn’t deserve scrutiny, who does? I’ll forget about her and forgive all her cognitive faults just as soon as the right wing stops shoving her out in front of them. It’s an odd thing how the supposed stalwarts of the right are using women as human shields.

  87. GROG says:

    Mclever,We on the right are equal oppurtunity criticizers. We criticize liberal men, women, whites, blacks, hispanics, asians equally.The left does not. The vast majority of your criticism goes towards conservative women. I’ve offered a challenge to a little analysis of this site to prove my point, but no one is willing to take me up on it.

  88. shortchain says:

    Stop Lying, GROG! As I previously suggested: Do your own damned count, see how it’s received. Watch out for the small sample statistics.Until you do your own count, and get it accepted, you’re just talking out of the back of your neck.

  89. mclever says:

    I guess we’ll just have to disagree, GROG.I will agree that the Left mocks Palin and her protegees, because they make public spectacles of themselves. But these women aren’t even the main focus of liberal ire. The big bogeyman to most lefties is Rush Limbaugh. Last I checked, he’s a man. If the big villain isn’t Rush, then it’s Dick Cheney or GWB, also both men.Liberals castigate and mock plenty of Republican men. You’d be hard pressed to deny that there’s a lot of ire against GWB. Others who get mockery and/or ire include: Glenn Beck, Rand Paul, Joe Miller, Pawlenty, Huckabee, Cheney, Alan Keyes, Karl Rove, Zell Miller, etc. etc. etc. If you were to review the Democratic Underground’s weekly “Top Ten Conservative Idiots” list, you’d find that 9 out of 10 are usually men, excepting the times they call out all of Fox News, for example.So, your perceptions are likely colored by the frequency that Palin, et al, get on the news, and not by the actual amount of mockery and derision directed their way by, you know, actual liberals.

  90. Realist says:

    GROG,Your challenge has a flaw in the premise. Have we criticized the Republican women more than the men of late? Sure.But you presume this is because we hate Republican women for being women.This is what is known as the false-cause fallacy. A and B happen together, therefore A causes B.The problem with that logic is it presumes two things:1) That these particular Republican women are the only Republican women in any position of power.2) That the left chose to put these women in the spotlight.Both of these presumptions are patently false. So the very foundation of your argument is based on a fallacy.

  91. GROG says:

    You guys are engaging in classic projection. Treat these women in an unfair and sexist manner and then blame Republicans for electing them.

  92. filistro says:

    Hey GROG… we’re “unfair and sexist” to your serious women politicians?Really?So then… speaking of “sexist”… could you name me a few women politicians who are widely admired by your party but are NOT BABES?When it comes to politics, y’all like your women to be dumb and decorative. But of course, that’s not “sexist” πŸ˜‰

  93. mclever says:

    LOL, GROG.Sorry, but it’s already been pointed out to you that there are plenty of Republican women that don’t get mocked as Palin does. We don’t mock her because she’s a woman. We mock her because she’s an idiot.You are the one making the sexist claims here!

  94. shrinkers says:

    @Realist”You don’t know this to be true any more than GROG knows what he thinks he knows. Now, their behavior does suggest that they are using the woman candidates for political gain, insofar as they gender-bait and then play victim when they are attacked. But that’s very different from believing that proposing a woman or minority for the position makes them immune to being unqualified.”Fair enough. You’re right, I made an assessment about Republican political strategy.I will say in my defense that we’ve seen frequent criticism over the years from the right concerning affirmative action. The misperception seems to be that minorities and women are often promoted in preference to white men who are more qualified. Further, given these criticisms, Republicans appear to think that liberals WANT unqualified women and minorities to hold positions in preference to white men — or at least, that Democrats don’t mind this so much. (Yes, there are some unproven assumptions there.)Given 1) the above seems to be a common Republican meme, and 2) Palin was nominated for Vice Pres despite being stunningly unqualified, I drew the conclusion that Republicans strategists had assumed liberals would not dare criticize Palin’s lack of qualifications. This is particularly true since the Republicans had been very vociferous in claiming that Obama was unqualified — and, of course, he is Black, so this fits the meme I described above.It certainly appeared to me that this was an intentional political strategy, to place an (allegedly) attractive women on the national ticket, and then dare the Dems to point out that she was unsuitable, which (they thought) would allow them (the R’s) to drag out all those affirmative-action cliches.It didn’t play out that way, due to Palin unscripted moments in which she revealed just how unsuited she was to being a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Oh, they tried to pull “You’re just criticizing her because she’s a woman!” but since the runner-up for the Democratic nomination was Hillary Clinton, that didn’t fly too well.GROG is now trying to pull “You’re just criticizing her because she’s a CONSERVATIVE woman!” but the examples of K. Bailey Hutchinson and Condi Rice certainly put the lie to that.Anyway, you were right to point out my unsupported assumption. Thanks for the opportunity to expand on my thought process.

  95. mclever says:

    One thing I’ll add, then I’m going to try to leave this topic alone.I think women in political leadership positions in this country have a difficult time regardless of party. (“Shrillary” anyone?) A woman who speaks up about a topic is “strident” or “grating” or “brassy.” A tough talking woman is a “butch she-devil” or a “ball buster,” but if she speaks calmly, then she “can’t compete with the big boys.” If she’s passionate about something, then she’s cast as hysterical or whining or nagging. If she’s intelligent or career-minded, then she’s a lesbian or an unfeeling shrew. If a woman is involved in a substantive debate about serious issues, afterward, most discussion will ignore the issues raised and instead endlessly critique her attire or hair. While we like our male politicians tall and handsome, men rarely get the same level of scrutiny regarding their appearance. Most of this is done by the non-partisan, mainstream media and not by members of the parties themselves. (Yes, the media is mostly non-partisan, sorry to extremists on both ends who’d like to proclaim otherwise.) The media writes/airs what sells, so apparently sexism still sells big time.

  96. Realist says:

    @GROG,You have yet to show how your theory is compatible with the reality of how Snowe, Collins, Rice, and Hutchison are treated. Just because you ignore doesn’t make it go away.

  97. shiloh says:

    @grogWe on the right are equal oppurtunity criticizers. We criticize liberal men, women, whites, blacks, hispanics, asians equally.The left does not.~~~~~Again, an inane, uneducated, in wayyy over his head, as per usual, ad nauseam, one-trick-pony generalizing fool.To say you’re pathetic would be too kind!apologies to inane, uneducated, in wayyy over their heads, as per usual, ad nauseam, one-trick-pony generalizing fools …>There was this one conservative at ‘Joker’s’ who would debate 4/5/6/7 liberals at a time just like you do here, but one big difference:>She made an occasional rational point and wouldn’t put herself in a position of looking like a continual 24/7 class clown idiot!take care

  98. shortchain says:

    They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery — but I’d be more impressed if GROG showed some slight understanding of the concept before he tries imitation.

    Because even if what he says were true (it’s not!) — it’s not projection that he’s describing.

    As it is he sounds like he’s just throwing, childlike, what he thinks is an insult, without even understanding the words.

  99. Mr. Universe says:

    What animal do you suppose will represent the Tea Party?

  100. Monotreme says:

    What animal do you suppose will represent the Tea Party?

    The mole.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s