The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Sarah Palin Shows Her Union Card

Posted on | September 6, 2011 | 100 Comments

Writing “as a proud former union member and the wife, daughter, and sister of union members,” Sarah Palin denounces the “thuggery” of Jim Hoffa:

Union bosses like this do not have your best interests at heart. What they care about is their own power and re-electing their friend Barack Obama so he will take care of them to the detriment of everyone else. . . .
Recently someone commented: “I’m a union member. I’ve been a Democrat all my life. Now I’ll vote for anyone with a plan to save America.” I know what that person is feeling. I want all good union brothers and sisters to know that there is an alternative. The grassroots, independent Tea Party Movement articulates a real alternative rooted in free men and free markets, not the cronyism of Barack Obama and the permanent political class in DC. Their cronyism is why we have no job growth, massive unsustainable debt, and a housing market in the tank. Too many politicians are simply addressing the economic symptoms instead of fighting the underlying disease. The path forward is through reform. . . .
In the meantime, good union brothers and sisters, don’t let Hoffa tell you what to do. He doesn’t represent the real interests of working men and women. He’s not doing you any favors. He’s just living off your paychecks.

Read the whole thing.


100 Responses to “Sarah Palin Shows Her Union Card”

  1. JeffS
    September 6th, 2011 @ 6:28 pm

    Tsk tsk, Anamika, tsk tsk!

    I’m referring to Fox News.  Not Sarah Palin.

    Tsk tsk, Anamika, tsk tsk!

  2. Anamika
    September 6th, 2011 @ 6:34 pm

    pay for the bandwidth that you use

    How much would that be? Please explain the math. Not sure WordPress or Stacy ISPs charge him any extra for a few KB extra server storage space and data usage limits (if any) respectively.

  3. McGehee
    September 6th, 2011 @ 6:46 pm

    We didn’t declare war on them, they declared war on us.

    Right, Jimmy. All you declared was an Authorization to Use Thuggish Force.

    Not the same thing at all.

  4. McGehee
    September 6th, 2011 @ 6:48 pm

    Anamika suddenly realizes TOM is private property, not an arm of the government covered by the First Amendment.

    Women and minorities hardest hit.

  5. Anamika
    September 6th, 2011 @ 6:57 pm

    I’m referring to Fox News.  Not Sarah Palin.

    I pointed out that Sarah used voilent rhetoric (“you too!”) when she critcized Haffa about his own rhetoric. But nobody, not even a loony stoned up tea bagger like Randy_Rager, ever accused Haffa of “dishonestly editing” a video to smear an ideological opponent, like Fox did.  So it’s pretty clear where the ‘tu quoque’ argument is employed and is worth considering here. Regards.

  6. Anonymous
    September 6th, 2011 @ 7:00 pm

    Only one lying is you… by pretending that his statements were in any way different than the “reload” metaphor you denounced when Palin used it.

    Oh, and except for the fact that unions in general, and Hoffa in particular, have a long history of actual violence….

    Yeah, he’s cleared, alright.

    They never told the ramping crowd to card a woman’s hide,They never marked a man for death — what fault of theirs he died? –They only said “intimidate,” and talked and went away –By God, the boys that did the work were braver men than they!


    “Cleared”, honourable gentlemen! Be thankful it’s no more: –The widow’s curse is on your house, the dead are at your door.On you the shame of open shame; on you from North to SouthThe hand of every honest man flat-heeled across your mouth.

    My soul! I’d sooner lie in jail for murder plain and straight,Pure crime I’d done with my own hand for money, lust, or hate,Than take a seat in Parliament by fellow-felons cheered,While one of those “not provens” proved me cleared as you are cleared.

    Cleared — you that “lost” the League accounts — go, guard our honour still,Go, help to make our country’s laws that broke God’s law at will –One hand stuck out behind the back, to signal “strike again”;The other on your dress-shirt-front to show your heart is clane. If black is black or white is white, in black and white it’s down,You’re only traitors to the Queen and rebels to the Crown.If print is print or words are words, the learned Court perpends: –We are not ruled by murderers, but only — by their friends.

  7. CalMark
    September 6th, 2011 @ 7:08 pm


    You really need to start deleting everything a certain troll (IYKWIMAITYD) writes here.  I truly believe it’s one of Obama’s Army, whether a single individual or “Fake Person By Committee.”

    Debate is good.  A vicious troll packing your blog with half the comments posted is not.  It’s just a different version of Alinskyites who shout down their opponents.

  8. ThePaganTemple
    September 6th, 2011 @ 7:10 pm

    By the way folks, and this is a very important point to remember about Hoffa’s remarks. Democrats are starting the predictable meme, that when Hoffa said to “take them out” he actually meant at the ballot box. There might be a very small amount of technical merit to that, but the most important thing to remember here is, words have meaning, and can be very powerful.

    Raised as he was in the world of Big Labor politics, corruption, and underworld influences, Hoffa knew exactly what he was saying, and he knew exactly how it would sound. He knew on the one hand that it would be seen as a call to arms and a rallying cry by his friends and supporters. Even more importantly, it was intended as a means of intimidation. He’s trying to scare you, and all of us. Don’t let him get away with it, and don’t let Democrat politicians and pundits get away with glossing over the true meaning and context of his words.

  9. McGehee
    September 6th, 2011 @ 7:21 pm

    I think it means get your own blog.

  10. Anonymous
    September 6th, 2011 @ 7:26 pm

    That despicable call for violence from a common union thug was not “dishonestly edited”. It perfectly captures the complete thought… oh now I understand complete thoughts exceed your comprehension skills.

    As always you are a Dungbat, and may well be delusional though I suspect even that exceeds your intellectual capacities.

  11. JeffS
    September 6th, 2011 @ 7:26 pm

    Doug, Anamika fears Palin and loathes Hoffa…..but she vents her bile on the private citizen, Sarah Palin. 

    Such hypocrisy, Anamika!  Tsk tsk!

  12. CalMark
    September 6th, 2011 @ 7:27 pm

    Sarah Palin never encouraged violence, you worthless scumbag liar.

    Go to hell.

  13. JeffS
    September 6th, 2011 @ 7:29 pm

    Tsk tsk, Anamika, tsk tsk!

    Then you engaged in Tu quoque against Sarah Palin on behalf of Jimmy Hoffa.  A third party argument, as it were.

    But you did drag Fox News into the discussion as well, so the Tu quoque charge against you remains valid.

    Tsk tsk!  Doubly dishonest, Anamika!  Tsk tsk!

  14. JeffS
    September 6th, 2011 @ 7:31 pm

    Women and minorities hardest hit.

    You mean, leftie trolls hardest hit.  That includes a lot of women and minorities, but still, “leftie trolls” is the better generalization.

  15. CalMark
    September 6th, 2011 @ 7:33 pm

    Time to start holding Democrats and their fellow travelers
    accountable for hatred and violent speech.  In the last few weeks, we’ve been told to “go
    to hell,” called a lynch mob, and been made targets to be “taken
    out.”  But that’s just talk, say the Democrats.

    Conservatives get crucified for standard political rhetoric that
    everyone–even the Democrats condemning it–understand is nonviolent.

    If Hoffa didn’t specifically say, “At the ballot box,” he doesn’t get a pass.  Period.  Enough phony-baloney “objectivity” and “understanding.”  DOWN WITH THE DEMOCRATS.

  16. Anonymous
    September 6th, 2011 @ 7:35 pm

    Rabid dogs must do what rabid dogs do.

  17. JeffS
    September 6th, 2011 @ 7:35 pm

    Tsk tsk, Anamika, tsk tsk!

    As you haven’t noticed, Stacy employs the honesty system:  If you’re honest, you’ll contribute an amount that you consider fair.  If you’re dishonest and haven’t contributed a nickel, or consistently under contribute, well, …….

    Tsk tsk!  You shame yourself in the end, Anamika!  Tsk tsk!

  18. Anamika
    September 6th, 2011 @ 7:45 pm

    Neither did Haffa. Nor I. Go shoot yourself.

  19. McGehee
    September 6th, 2011 @ 7:50 pm

    I was riffing on something specific, but you are of course correct.

  20. Anamika
    September 6th, 2011 @ 7:54 pm

    There was no call for violence, other than a call for blood bath at the ballot box.

    By all appearances, you’re barely short of a sociopath, Adobe_Walls — there is a very thin line between persistence and insistence, a line that separates the determined and principled from the neurotic and abusive bullies of the world. Please find something more substantive to insist upon — that’s one of the key distinctions between Gandhi outpersisting the British and a garden variety OCD patient insisting that the world conform to his arbitrary preferences (and therefore living in/with near-total frustration 24/7)!

  21. Anonymous
    September 6th, 2011 @ 7:55 pm

    But unions are merely the expression of middle class solidarity they are not a political movement are they? Hoffa as the head of an economic organization declared war on a grassroots political movement. Palin speaks for a political movement and therefore is entitled to use common political metaphors. Hoffa leads an economic organization that frequently uses violence in addition to its other legal coercive tactics for economic gain. When the unions crosses over to political action it’s inherent coercion and violence comes with it. 

  22. JeffS
    September 6th, 2011 @ 7:57 pm

    Tsk tsk, Anamika!  Such uncivil discourse!  Tsk tsk!

  23. JeffS
    September 6th, 2011 @ 7:59 pm

    Tsk tsk, Anamika!  An ad hominem attack is so uncivil!  Tsk tsk!

  24. Anonymous
    September 6th, 2011 @ 7:59 pm

    I seem to recall that the few times everyone ignored it’s demented ravings merely resulted in a thread composed of increasingly longer and more hysterical ranting.

  25. Anonymous
    September 6th, 2011 @ 8:08 pm

    Are you suggesting there is a substantive difference between you and gigi?
    The only difference between you a gigi is the your blather is often briefer and that WomBat has for the moment decided that you have not exceeded his tolerance level.

  26. Anamika
    September 6th, 2011 @ 8:24 pm

    Re. JeffS

    By “how much”, I meant the bandwidth.

  27. Anonymous
    September 6th, 2011 @ 8:25 pm

    My obsessions are not a disorder. I am merely dedicated to the task at hand and above all consistent. Some, with substantial justification, may consider me stubborn. Some may be stubborn to a fault, while I on the other hand am stubborn to a virtue. 

  28. Anonymous
    September 6th, 2011 @ 8:28 pm

    If violence is to be spelled “voilence” shouldn’t violent be spelled voilent?

  29. Anonymous
    September 6th, 2011 @ 8:36 pm

    Perhaps they’ve run out of lipstick and it’s hoping we had some.

  30. Anonymous
    September 6th, 2011 @ 8:41 pm

    Hoffa disappeared due to two flawed premises he held dear. One was that he was indispensable to the Union the other was that the “Teamsters” was his union. He was wrong on both counts, dead wrong.

  31. Anonymous
    September 6th, 2011 @ 8:50 pm

    He did say “at the ballot box”, the problem is that for unions, particularly the Teamsters Union that phrase doesn’t necessarily mean voting. The unions know many different ways besides agitation and get out the vote efforts to “take em out at the ballot box”

  32. Anamika
    September 6th, 2011 @ 8:57 pm

    Re. JeffS

    Then you engaged in Tu quoque against Sarah Palin on behalf of Jimmy Hoffa.  A third party argument, as it were.

    But you did drag Fox News into the discussion as well, so the Tu quoque charge against you remains valid.

    Tsk tsk!  Doubly dishonest, Anamika!  Tsk tsk!

    Reason and logic can only go so far. You SHOULD know that, and often act as though you do, but (all too?) often it comes out to a kind of sophistry, where winning the argument is the only important thing. Sometimes winning IS important, but when you get yourself into so many arguments, with the almost robotic device of saying basically, “No it’s not,” then there are too many arguments to defend to make winning everything worth the effort.

    Every now and then maybe it might serve a useful purpose, but as a way o (net) life, it’s a dead end. You must know that. How’ pointless mechanical sophistry workin for ya?

    I dunno. I haven’t been as clear and focused and cogent as i might have been. Only so much one can do with addicts, only so much energy one is willing to expend. In fact, it occurs to me now that you might view any liberal here as an addict of a different kind, stuck in a misery that only you can see. I offer that your determination to stay the course may be the greatest of any of  us. As a criterion of addiction, determination (perseverance, stubbornness, persistence, obstinacy, tenacity, resolve, obduracy, etc) points to you as the most addicted.

    Oh well.

  33. Anamika
    September 6th, 2011 @ 9:04 pm

    I have noted the Springerness of the Other McCain Show on occasion. The resemblance is there. But it is not anything goes, as you well know. Perhaps more goes than you would like. That’s another story.

  34. Anamika
    September 6th, 2011 @ 9:09 pm

    Indirect relational aggression is easier than conversing directly with the object of our aggression, especially for the conflict aversive.

    Reconciliation, through dialogue, is often perceived as being overly difficult to achieve, especially for the conflict aversive.

    Who wants to openly admit to their own errors, when faced with the unpleasant results of our relational experimentations?

    And thus, we can observe in the microcosmic immediacy of our online relationships, the ways in which the macrocosmic tribes and nations maintain their rigid stances, grievances, grudges and hostilities, against the ‘other’.

  35. Anonymous
    September 6th, 2011 @ 9:11 pm

    You’re wrong about that. Unless you’re on Blogger, you pay a fee for the server space and bandwidth you use, and additional fees if you use more space/bandwidth than you contracted for. If you were really interested in how much that costs, you could always call around and find out what the going rates are for a blog this size with this level of traffic. Very little is actually free on the Internet; somebody somewhere is footing the bill.

  36. Anonymous
    September 6th, 2011 @ 9:14 pm

    Stacy prefers to delegate the moderation to yours truly, and when Anamika gets to the point where she’s more annoying than entertaining, she, like gg, will be history. In the meantime she gives  folks a useful punching bag to work out on.

  37. CalMark
    September 6th, 2011 @ 9:15 pm

    I stand corrected.

    I also agree with the rest of what you say.

    Bottom line: 
    A Republican uses strong rhetoric, the Elites tut-tut and condemn it even though everyone knows it’s metaphorical.
    A Democrat uses violent rhetoric, the Elites line up to defend “freedom of speech” and say it’s purely metaphorical–even though everyone knows there’s a strong element of wish-fulfillment there.

  38. gg
    September 6th, 2011 @ 9:31 pm


    Hey Wombat, would you please take me back? So many months on moderation already!

    I will behave. I promise!

  39. gg
    September 6th, 2011 @ 10:02 pm

    Hello dear Wombat_socho

    Your encouragement of thoughtful online contribution (both monetary and ideas wise) is always appreciated. 

    Encouraging persons to formulate and present their thoughts with care and quality engenders growth and self/other respect.

    I hope you will persistently champion the dying art of thoughtful, substantive online dialogue.

    It is quite informative to watch the way aggression is played out in social groups.

    Yes. Sometimes even instructive to those playing it out, as they are not barred from insight any more than the impartial “outside” observer.

    The conversation between those involved and those observing can potentially help both discover useful insights. The observer then becomes the involved, in the ongoing play.

    We all have figurative blood on our hands, in the ways we have unskillfully related to other persons. No one is exempt from having misapplied aggression in their relationships. We’re all gradually re-learning ways of relating in more beneficial ways, through trial and error, second chances and adaptive correction of behavior.


  40. Anonymous
    September 6th, 2011 @ 10:22 pm

    Has someone stolen your moniker or are you the “gg” ACE hat tips from time to time?

  41. Anonymous
    September 6th, 2011 @ 10:25 pm

    I for one would appreciate some…um….honest debate with the forces of darkness.

  42. McGehee
    September 6th, 2011 @ 11:44 pm

    The unions want “card check.” What is this “ballot box” of which you speak?

  43. Darth Marie
    September 6th, 2011 @ 11:53 pm

    Sarah didn’t call for violence either you stupid whore.

  44. Heykelcan
    September 7th, 2011 @ 12:39 am

    what you said is rasist

  45. Heykelcan
    September 7th, 2011 @ 2:59 am

    the story is a HUGE red herring and the conservative responses here amount to a bunch of uninformed name calling  (or am i just delusional?)

  46. Anonymous
    September 7th, 2011 @ 3:13 am

    You’re delusional.

  47. Anonymous
    September 7th, 2011 @ 3:16 am

    You’re still delusional.

  48. Anonymous
    September 7th, 2011 @ 3:25 am

    I’m sure we could all use the exercise.

  49. DaveO
    September 7th, 2011 @ 3:31 pm

    Not 2 days: in the time space of one phone call.

    Imagine a union member as Veep?

  50. DaveO
    September 7th, 2011 @ 3:31 pm

    Not 2 days: in the time space of one phone call.

    Imagine a union member as Veep?