Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco

My latest:

Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco

We here at TLC realize that our fabulous new hit series Sarah Palin’s Alaska may not appeal to all our viewers. We understand that a substantial segment of the population has no interest in watching Sarah Palin or taking a tour of Alaska.

And so it is with great pleasure that we’d like to announce a new show carefully designed to appeal to those of you who don’t like Sarah Palin, her state, or her values:

Come join Nancy Pelosi as she shows you around the wild places of her home district. All the sights and sounds of San Francisco, as you’ve never seen them before…with Nancy as your guide!

(Programming note: All the photos and videos in this show were taken in Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco congressional district, and originally posted on zombietime. For real.)

Settle into your couch, and brace yourself for an adventure with Nancy…

…etc. Read the rest HERE!

39 Responses to “Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco”

  1. 1tenfed1861 on Nov 14, 2010 at 5:00 pm:

    Where is Washington,Jefferson,Adams,Franklin,Grant,Lee,Jackson,Thomas,Sherman,Cheatam,Hardee,Chamberland,Hancock,Authur MacArthur,Wild Bill Hickcok,Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders,Black Jack Pershing,Douglas MacAuthur,Patton,Ike,and John Wayne when you need them?

  2. 2BeukendaalMason on Nov 14, 2010 at 5:23 pm:

    Are we going to see Nancy Pelosi hunt and shoot any of the animals? Though I guess to Pelosi it might be the non-liberals she would view as animals to be hunted and shot…

    I dont know if anyone has seen this bit from the Bob Hope movie “Ghost Breakers”, but I thought since it dealt with Zombies and Democrats it might be appreciated here.


    Unfortunately they have all passed away (and very few have stepped up to replace them). I think to many in Zombie’s pictures, those great men you listed would be “the bad guys”.

  3. 3CattusMagnus on Nov 15, 2010 at 9:38 am:

    Truly horrifying.

  4. 4eots on Nov 15, 2010 at 10:15 pm:

    Oh, but what do you know? Pelosi is not liberal enough for San Francisco. See here:

  5. 5Ringo the Gringo on Nov 16, 2010 at 7:00 am:

    What the pictures don’t capture is the unique aroma of Nancy’s San Francisco – am mixture of salty air, urine and cannabis.

  6. 6Bakunin on Nov 16, 2010 at 9:03 am:

    Sorry to break up the Hatenanny going on right here, but must I point out that these protestors probably don’t support Nancy Pelosi, nor is it Nancy Pelosi’s job as a Congressperson to police local events. I mean really, is BeukendaalMason really suggesting that a sitting member of congress take a gun and murder American citizens for there differences of opinion or different lifestyle?

    Of Course, then there’s the logical fallacy that Zombie employs that who don’t like Sarah Palin, her state, or her values must like Nancy Pelosi, the city she lives in and her values. I’m sure zombie also belives that because every person she’s met speaks English, so it must be true that all people speak English…

    Let’s try this on for size:

    As a companion piece to our new series Sarah Palin’s Alaska, TLC has developed a series that will continue the trend of allowing extremly divisive politicans free campaign air time to increase there likability, not prove there ability to govern.
    And so it is with great pleasure that we’d like to announce a new show that carefully takea control over an image by letting a reality TV show redefine who she is in the public eye:

    Jan Brewer’s Arizona

    Look at all those American Flags! True Patriots!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

  7. 7eots on Nov 16, 2010 at 10:42 am:

    Bakunin, you are right, most of these people don’t support Pelosi. What’s more, there are quite a few decent people in SF, particularly in Richmond and Sunset districts, who support her or supported her in the past, anyways. Still, Pelosi represents this constituency. For instance, when she said around the time of the passage of the Health Care bill “imagine the economy where everyone can start a band, and don’t worry about paying the bills” (I’m paraphrasing) she was catering to the people who come to protests.

  8. 8Ringo the Gringo on Nov 16, 2010 at 10:51 am:

    C’mon now, Bakunin, it makes no difference if these people voted for Pelosi (although I’m sure many of them did); the point is that these are the denizens of Nancy’s district. There is no other place in America (or the world, for that matter) where you will find such an assortment of crazies than in Nancy Pelosi’s congressional district. These are her constituants.

  9. 9Bakunin on Nov 16, 2010 at 2:08 pm:

    Ringo the Gringo: C’mon now, Bakunin, it makes no difference if these people voted for Pelosi (although I’m sure many of them did); the point is that these are the denizens of Nancy’s district. There is no other place in America (or the world, for that matter) where you will find such an assortment of crazies than in Nancy Pelosi’s congressional district. These are her constituants.

    No other place in America? The ENTIRE world? That’s a pretty big generalization that I think your obligated to prove, seeing I seem to remember a blog that carries photos of similar kinds of demonstrations, actions and actions taking place in L.A…. what’s it called again? Zingo’s pictures? Bingo’s Pictures… meh, must be not all that important.

    If the “denizens of Nancy’s district”/”her constituents” are representative of the lady and her policies, then I think it’s fair to say Jan Brewer and the Republican party in Arizona are best represented by the neo-nazi’s that marched though phoenix the other day in support of SB-1070 ( considering the lawyers who are credited with authoring it are employed by an organization that has reportedly accepted $1.2 million in donations from the Pioneer Fund, “a foundation established to promote the genes of white colonials.” and the law’s sponsor, state Rep. Russell Pearce (R-AZ), has in the past for cozying up to local neo-Nazis, including endorsing one of “Arizona’s leading neo-Nazis,” J.T. Ready, when the he ran for City Council in the spring of 2006.)

    So, here’s a question for you, Mr. Gringo: Do you support Jan Brewer and SB-1070, and if so, why are you so pro-nazi?

  10. 10Gork on Nov 16, 2010 at 3:48 pm:

    Nancy Pelosi is a politician of her district. These are some of her constituents. Yes, they’re way out there on the lunatic scale, but she has to represent those who voted for her. I can hardly fault her for that. Her liberalism is quite understandable and, even ethical.

    Where I fault her is what she did with the health care bill. “You have to vote for it to find out what’s in it.” Uhh, no. That’s not a liberal talking. That’s someone on a power trip. I fault her for not questioning the dispensation of the TARP funds. I fault her for spending millions, upgrading military jets so that she could jet home on weekends.

    I can’t fault Ms. Pelosi for her constituents, no matter how strange they may be. I fault her for her ethics.

  11. 11Scott on Nov 16, 2010 at 5:19 pm:

    To Bakunin: I’m curious. If someone who advocates for SB 1070, which is essentially a state law to enforce that which the federal government refuses is a nazi, but an organization like MALDEF supports Federal enforcement of immigration laws, but again the federal government refuses to enforce its own mandates, then why are you an anarchist? Are you in Harry Reid’s face about enforcing the current federal law? Which is it, SB 1070, proper enforcement of federal law, or anarchy?

  12. 12Bakunin on Nov 17, 2010 at 10:22 am:

    Gork: I can’t fault Ms. Pelosi for her constituents, no matter how strange they may be. I fault her for her ethics.

    and that’s my issue. I think that Nanci Pelosi is terrible (probably for reasons that differ from you, of course) but her constituents are not her fault or responsibility. More important is the logical leap that anyone who disagrees with the person and views of Palin MUST be in favor of Pelosi and/or these nuts.

    To Scott: I am for anarchy, but I’m not as Utopian to think that I can make anarchy all out of the blue. The way I see it is it’s a matter of triage. The blatant racism of SB 1070 is worse then and must be fought against before taking the fighting against federal laws of the same nature (don’t be fools by “the lack of enforcement”. During fiscal year 2009, 100,000 more immigrants were deported than during the last full fiscal year of the Bush presidency.)

    I don’t agree with the tactics or views of MALDEF, I don’t think that SB 1070 can be challenged though legalistic ways. But that’s the front they find the best way to fight on and I’ll respect that, so long as they allow myself and those I support to take a more direct action approach (blockades, disruptions, lockouts, strikes, etc).

  13. 13Bakunin on Nov 17, 2010 at 10:42 am:

    Also, don’t think that I was calling all supporters of SB1070 nazis. I was pointing out that there is connections with the writer of the bill and the neo-nazi movement, as well as pointing out the logical fallacy of saying ones constituency reflects the individual. While I think that the bill is racist, I’m sure that there are plenty of well meaning folks who support it but are simply ignorant to the effect it will/does have on racial minorities.

  14. 14eots on Nov 17, 2010 at 1:52 pm:

    Since that Nazi theme picked up: Some of the banners in Zombie’s pictures seem pretty Nazi to me. Neo-Nazis are “anti-war” isolationists: No war for Israel, of course.

  15. 15michael cline on Nov 17, 2010 at 4:53 pm:

    Thanks for your Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco. I have been to your site and looked at almost every gallery you have. I had been thinking of how I could share it with others and tie it to Nancy’s constituents. I have shared it on my Facebook page asking people if they have heard the phrase, “as California goes, so goes the nation”, and the question, “‘Really?” This was perfect. I love it… Sarah Palin’s Alaska and Nacy Pelosi”s San Francisco.

    MIchael Cline

  16. 16Scott on Nov 17, 2010 at 6:11 pm:

    Mr. Bakunin, I suggest you actually read SB 1070. Here is the link. There is no reference to ethnicity, creed, color, religion, or race. You are interpreting racism, and therefore your whole premise is flawed due to leftist bias and ignorance of truth. Anarchy, by the way, is bogus too. There are no true anarchists in this country, certainly none who use a computer they no doubt bought with an Internet connection they maintain to have a blog chat with others regarding politics. As for the lack of enforcement stats you are putting out there, sorry, that is relativism. Either we are making sincere attempts at enforcing our borders or we aren’t. Yet we have laws on the books that obligate the federal government to enforce our borders and protect United States citizens of all statuses from foreign invasion. That is what is happening in Arizona…a foreign invasion. The fed is doing very little to fix it…and all Arizona was attempting to do is protect themselves against it. Now before you start accusing me of being a racist, I’ll simply state that I know unchecked illegal immigration is making decent legal immigrants mad. People like my step mother (from France), one of my former employees (Canadian/Italian), and former bosses (Costa Rican). They managed to do it the right way and either became citizens legally or obtained proper work Visas while maintaining their country of origin’s citizen status. Why would you advocate for penalizing them while the illegals are a drag on our society? Are you a racist? Xenophobic? This whole argument is silly. Illegal immigration is just that. ILLEGAL. Let’s keep it that way and invite those who WANT to be United States Citizens come in LEGALLY, just like it was done, en masse, over a hundred years ago. It really isn’t that hard.

  17. 17Bakunin on Nov 17, 2010 at 9:30 pm:


    Could you tell me how one determines a “reasonable suspicion” of non-recognized immigration status? How many Canadian illegal immigrants will be under this “reasonable suspicion”? This is the racist clause in the bill, one that states that if you look “illegal” (IE Mexican) then the police must stop you to ask for your papers. There doesn’t need to be a latent mention of race, color, ethnicity when that is how the bill will be enforced. This is already happening (see

    We’ve already established that I’m an anarchist, and as such I have no respect for the laws, state or federal. I’m in favor of unrestricted boarders. No one is Illegal. Granting citizenship to a privileged few is part of a racist immigration and border policies designed to exploit and marginalize migrants. It’s the international economic policies that create the conditions of poverty and war that force migration. If you have a problem with illegal immigration, then you have a problem with Free Trade and NAFTA.

    You call it “foreign invasion”. I call it the Liberation of territory stolen in imperialist wars. Viva Aztlán! :P

    If you think that anarchists are just Ted Kazinski anti-technological nut-jobs, think again.

  18. 18Winslow on Nov 18, 2010 at 1:02 am:

    Bakunin: If you think that anarchists are just Ted Kazinski anti-technological nut-jobs, think again.

    Quite so. They are much more than just Ted Kaczynski anti-technological nut-jobs.

  19. 19Ringo the Gringo on Nov 18, 2010 at 9:20 am:

    Could you tell me how one determines a “reasonable suspicion” of non-recognized immigration status?

    How about 18 non-English speaking people with duffel bags crammed into a small apartment 10 miles from the Mexican border?

  20. 20Ringo the Gringo on Nov 18, 2010 at 9:37 am:


    The belief that anarchy as a desirable – or even possible – way for society to arrange itself is so utterly juvenile that anyone who, with a straight face, advocates such a philosophy should be completely ignored, or better, laughed at. It is virtually impossible for any thoughtful person to honestly believe that such an Utopian state as described by the various schools of anarchist “thought” could ever come into existence, let alone be sustained, therefore one can only conclude that those who claim to advocate such an incoherent worldview are simply not serious people.

    To quote Jean-Francois Revel:

    “Utopia is not under the slightest obligation to produce results: its sole function is to allow its devotees to condemn what exists in the name of what does not.”

  21. 21Rento on Nov 18, 2010 at 12:41 pm:

    In a true anarchic society, the bullies and the violent shall rule.

    With no police and no laws to stop them, the more aggressive humans will simply take what they want with no fear of retribution.

    Anarchists are almost always youngish men in decent physical shape and with confrontational personalities, because they know that in a lawless world they are the ones who will dominate.

    Anarchy is not a drive to eliminate hierarchy or class; it’s simply yet another way for a certain group to seize power and become the dominant class. Same ol’, same ol’.

    Tell me Bakunin, in an anarchic society how you would stop aggressive, strong, violent people from seizing by force whatever they wanted?

    And don’t give me that crap about “without a capitalist class system, everyone will share everything, and there will be no need for dominance or violence!”

    Every phase in history from the dawn of time and every society on Earth has had violence and dominance/submission as features, because that is human nature.

    And there are not equal resources to go around. And under anarchy, when the agribusiness and manufacturing sectors completely collapse, the amount of shortages of all necessities will go way up.

    What will happen then? The strong will grab by force what they need and what they crave.

    Imagine a little old lady living in a gorgeous seaside mansion on the San Barbara coast. The anarchist utopia of Bakunin’s dreams somehow comes true. A group of 20 hungry homeless anarchist squatters show up, and think to themselves, “Damn! That’d be a nice place to ‘squat’!” You tell me what’s going to happen? They’re going to move in, and kick the old lady out (or she’ll flee of her own volition). And similar scenarios will play themselves out from coast to coast every day. When the food runs low, who will seize what remains?

    And don’t give me that crap about equitable distribution systems naturally arising, because that is just the concept of government re-arising of its own accord. Under true anarchy, there can be no overarching or centralized organization or distribution system; as soon as you have organization or centralization, it’s no longer anarchy.

    Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire was briefly anarchic. And what happened? Wholesale slaughter such as had been never seen before. Populations of barbarians moving into nations and literally seizing everything, homes, land, possessions, women, everything, by sheer force or intimidation. Cultures wiped out. Ethnic cleansing. A million smaller-scale indignities: rapes, theft, beatings, forced conversions, enslavement. The brutal dominated, the peaceful were exterminated.

    That’s what Bakunin craves, whether he admits or not, whether he even knows it or not.

    After a brief explosion of orgiastic retributive justice, anarchy as an actual social system would be hell on earth.

  22. 22Bakunin on Nov 18, 2010 at 5:17 pm:

    Ringo the Gringo:
    How about 18 non-English speaking people with duffel bags crammed into a small apartment 10 miles from the Mexican border?

    so a group of French Canadians can’t live together in Close to the boarder? What if it is about 18 English speaking people with duffel bags crammed into a small apartment 10 miles away from the Mexican boarder? Are you saying that language ability is a determining factor? Your description potentially can include any low income person or recent immigrant, which would make this law classist/elitist on top of racist.

    Ringo the Gringo: Bakunin,The belief that anarchy as a desirable – or even possible – way for society to arrange itself is so utterly juvenile that anyone who, with a straight face, advocates such a philosophy should be completely ignored, or better, laughed at. It is virtually impossible for any thoughtful person to honestly believe that such an Utopian state as described by the various schools of anarchist “thought” could ever come into existence, let alone be sustained, therefore one can only conclude that those who claim to advocate such an incoherent worldview are simply not serious people.

    I recognize that the kind of society I would like to see is at best a dream, BUT it is an a philosophical ideal to which motives me to fight against the oppression presented in society. I accept the existence of a minimal state as an unfortunate necessary evil but I have no moral obligation to obey the state when its laws conflict with individual autonomy, and a moral obligation to fight against those which are destructive towards human collective and individual rights.

    How is this any different then what the tea party is arguing? The only difference is that my opposition to state authority and for human liberty/emancipation is total, in both the political and the economic field, while the tea parties commitment to anti-authoritarianism ends as soon as the elect republicans/take away religious minorities rights/allow big business rough-shot over the environment and human rights.

    There have been plenty of anarchistic societies. Icelandic Commonwealth (930–1262), Holy Experiment (or Quaker) Pennsylvania (1681–1690), Spanish Revolution (1936–1938), Israeli Kibbutz Movement, and plenty of oppositional movements against the state that have taken anarchistic forms, like the struggles against soviet communism. While not perfect (no society is perfect) I would make the argument that those socialites are better then the kind of baltent racism of SB 1070, anti-mosque hysteria, and all the bullshit that we have to deal with.

  23. 23Scott on Nov 18, 2010 at 7:24 pm:

    Oh Baukunin. So many errors, so little time. So a cop in Arizona pulls over a car for speeding and weaving. He asks for license and registration, but the driver cannot produce a license or any sort of ID. The cop suspects the guy is drunk and administers tests to determine intoxication. He determines that the driver is intoxicated. He locks the guy into the tank. When he sobers up, during questioning, our DUI confesses he is not a legal resident of the United States. What ethnicity is he? What country of origin? What race? We don’t know. But the cop has the ability to remove the menace from our streets because (gasp!) he was breaking the law! That you wish to look at this through the fake prism of “racism” is your problem, not the law’s. The law (SB 1070) is NOT racist. You, on the other hand, insist that it will be enforced by racists, which is a popular leftist meme. It doesn’t even occur to you that perhaps the arresting officer might be a naturalized Mexican American citizen. Does it make him racist if he is following the law? What if he did pick up a Canadian of Irish heritage? What if he arrested a Cuban? An African? A Mexican? Illegal aliens come in all stripes. It so happens that Mexicans are creating the lion’s share of problems for the people of Texas, Arizona, and California. SB 1070 would still have been written if there was an invasion from the North by Canadians who trashed our land, set up armed outposts on our soil to protect their own illegal enterprises, and created a drag on our social welfare system. Also, the argument that we should give states including Texas back to the Mexicans is ridiculous. You DO know that before Texas was an American state that it was part of the Confederacy, and before that its own Republic, which was taken by force from Mexico? And the Mexicans took it from Spain, who took it from France, who took it (again) from Spain, who took it from the Commanches, who fought and took it from the Apaches, and they took it from the Pueblos, who took it from Plainviews, Folsoms, etc…all the way back to Clovis man about 11,000 years ago? To whom will the Mexicans give the land that they forcibly took? Spain? France? Clovis man is out of luck, I guess. Gimmie a break.

  24. 24zombie on Nov 18, 2010 at 7:57 pm:

    So true, so true.

    Every square inch of land on earth was “stolen” from the previous owners — some more recently than others — all the way to before recorded history. But to take the argument to its logical conclusion, we’d have to abide by the motto:

    Cro-Magnons out of Europe! This is Neanderthal country!

    As you point out with Texas, it passed through many hands, even in fairly recent history. To freeze one moment in time — that extremely brief period of a few years in the 1820s and 1830s when part of the territory known as Texas was included within the boundaries of the nation of Mexico — and to declare that as the true one-and-only correct political alliance of the territory for all eternity, is patently absurd. It would make just as much sense to hand the state back to France, or to Spain, or to the Native American tribes, or let it be independent, and so on.

    To conclusively demonstrate the double-standard hypocrisy of the Left, compare their attitudes about the American Southwest to their attitudes about Canaan/Israel/Palestine. The nation of Mexico briefly controlled the American Southwest for ten or twenty years at most, out of a long convoluted history. And yet the Left, including anarcho-leftists like Bakunin, agree with the “reconquista” and unabashedly declare “Viva Aztlán!”

    Meanwhile, those very same people want to wrest Israel away from the Jews and give it to the Arabs, despite the fact that the Arabs were in this case the “imperialists” who stole it, back in the 7th century. The Jews were there possibly as far back as 3,000 B.C. and had controlled the land, which they considered their homeland, for two thousand years before it was stolen from them by the Romans/Arabs/Crusaders/Ottomans/British etc.

    To be consistent, the Left should declare that Israel was “stolen land” and should be given back to its rightful original owners, in this case the Jews (since the Canaanites no longer exist). And that was indeed the position of the left until the early 1970s when the Palestinians adopted Marxist verbiage to mask their terrorism with a veneer of populism, and suddenly the Left switched sides, a switch which still remains one of the world’s most vexing problems.

    Just another example of the Left picking and choosing either side of various moral arguments as it suits their passing whims, all in the service of “resentment politics.” The reason leftism endlessly self-implodes is that it has no consistent moral position — just convenience, on the road to grab power.

  25. 25germaninspain on Nov 19, 2010 at 3:00 am:

    @ Rento and the rest:

    You really don´t recognize that capitalism is in itself anarchy, probably the most pure anarchic system existing in this world (that´s why I studied economics). Capitalism strives to not being regulated or controlled by anyone and the law of the strongest is officially acknowledged and applauded. Paraphrasing Clausewitz “Economy is war with other means”.

    Take Rento´s words from comment 21 and substitute bullies and violent with banks and companies or corporations – voilá, there you have our actual society, the only difference is that companies rarely are violent, but have enough lawyers and money for lobbies to bully every person or state in this world into submission or bankruptcy. Capital has shaken off in the last decade regulations and controls, and we are living and paying the results. Curiously we fear more individuals than anonymous corporations. Why? I would prefer to face 3 punks than my bank.

    And by the way, most anarchists I know are serious persons and have higher moral and ethical standards than average people, standards we would certainly want capital to have and not the mentioned “youngish men in decent physical shape and with confrontational personalities”, those are just cannon fodder.

    Isn´t it curious that you vehemently reject the anarchist ideals but accept or even support a capitalist system that is basically the same?

  26. 26Bakunin on Nov 19, 2010 at 8:23 am:

    Just to be clear, I was making an ironic statement when I said “viva Viva Aztlán!”. Hence the :P emoticon, commonly representing “tongue sticking out, cheeky/playful”. It was a response to scott’s blatant fear mongering and hyperbole about “a foreign invasion”. But I guess that would be too hard to understand.

    “just convenience, on the road to grab power.”

    Way to go, you’ve just described the political process. Politicians will promise anything to get elected, will change there political view points and talking points on a whim so long as political opinion is on there side. Case in point is the Republican 2008 presidential nominee John McCain (That ZOMBIE SUPPORTED). John McCain of 2003 explaining how he did not vote for the Bush tax cuts because they disproportionally favored the rich and added to the deficit. The John McCain of 2010 now disavows those comments and claims all the Bush tax cuts must be extended. In 2008 John McCain favored a “cap-and-trade” system in order to bring greenhouse gases under control. In 2010 John McCain refused to even call it “cap-and-trade,” instead referring to it as “cap-and-tax.” Before the 2008 campaign John McCain co-sponsored legislation which would have allowed for a “path to citizenship” for millions of undocumented immigrants. The immigrants would have to pay a fine and establish themselves as law-abiding immigrants before gaining citizenship. However, the 2008 presidential candidate John McCain actually said he would vote against the very bill he co-sponsored. John McCain ever-changing position on the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy (DADT). In 2006 McCain told Chris Matthews that when military leaders come to him and request to change the policy he would be in favor of such a change. In 2010 the military leaders did come before Senator McCain and said they support repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” McCain then claimed that these military leaders were being disrespectful by not respecting the authority of Congress. Then on Meet the Press last February John McCain said that we need to have careful study which will reveal how the repeal of DADT would affect unit cohesion and battle readiness. A study was commissioned and it showed that 70% of military service members favored the repeal of DADT. Now McCain once more says that he wants to hear from military leaders. McCain also is questioning the study and asking for another study.

  27. 27zombie on Nov 19, 2010 at 10:21 am:

    Bakunin: John McCain (That ZOMBIE SUPPORTED)

    I wouldn’t say that I “supported” John McCain. It’s merely that I strongly OPPOSED Barack Obama. I had no feelings for McCain whatsoever, knew next to nothing about his positions or politics, except that even back then he was known as a middle-of-the-road waffler. But in the 2008 elections, he was quite obviously the lesser of two evils, and so I voted for him, not because I supported him but only because I simply couldn’t vote for Obama. (And as things turned out, many of my fears about Obama came true, so I don’t regret my vote.) Better to have a flip-flopping do-nothing president than a president actively antithetical to American interests.

    The same is true in the 2010 California elections. Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina had ZERO charisma, just terrible candidates. And like most Californians, I resented the notion of billionaires attempting to literally buy political offices with their money. And yet, I voted for both of them reluctantly, because Jerry Brown is the most blatantly self-serving power-hungry over-ambitious career politician I’ve ever encountered, who’s in bed with all sorts of far-left lobbying groups (like the unions) and who likely will allow CA to go bankrupt, just as his protegé Gray Davis did. And as for Barbara Boxer — it was way past time for her to retire.

    But since I live in California, and especially a 95+% Democrat-voting area, I knew already that in all three cases (McCain, Whitman and Fiorina) my reluctant votes would be fruitless anyway, since Democrats pretty much have a lock on major statewide races here (unless you portray a robot in the movies).

    There’s a difference between reluctantly choosing the lesser of two evils and “supporting” a candidate.

    And I’ll say this: If Palin runs against Obama in 2012, I will almost certainly vote for her as well, also somewhat reluctantly, but what other choice do I have?

    (However I may abstain if the Republicans put up a really really terrible candidate, like Huckabee or many of the other guaranteed-to-lose socially conservative also-rans who are already preparing to run.)

  28. 28Bakunin on Nov 19, 2010 at 11:03 am:

    Can’t be neutral on a moving train. Reluctant support is still support. You chastise the left for not having a “consistent moral position” but you are more then wiling to sell out your own belief system for the “lesser of two evils”. I guess this is why republicans “endlessly self-implode”…

    I on the other hand recognize that the lesser of two evils is still an evil and there for derail “a pox on both your houses”, with the hopes of launching an extra-parliamentarian movement to see the kind of reform I would like to see. The tea party COULD be the rightist version of those kinds of movements if it didn’t continually suck up to and be used by the republican party (to the point now where they are pretty much indistinguishable from each other).

  29. 29Gork on Nov 19, 2010 at 3:57 pm:

    “Can’t be neutral on a moving train. Reluctant support is still support. You chastise the left for not having a ‘consistent moral position’ but you are more then wiling to sell out your own belief system for the ‘lesser of two evils’.”

    Without putting words in Zombie’s mouth, let me explain why someone like me would agree with him: Using your analogy If the train is moving, I can’t stop it and reverse direction suddenly. Even if it were possible, it would be catastrophic.

    But I don’t have to keep pushing the train down that track. Saying it’s all evil is basically a cop-out. That’s like jumping off that moving train and letting it go wherever it is headed. There are times when that is unfortunately necessary to save your life, but those situations are few and far between.

    In any case, I realize that Liberal views are frequently inconsistent, just as Zombie points out. Even many Conservative views contradict themselves in other contexts. For example, freedom of religion versus the right to a private medical procedure such as abortion. What happens is that when a party tent gets too big, there is dissension inside the tent that can’t be resolved, and the whole edifice has to be rebuilt.

    This is actually a healthy thing for both parties. Having one party in charge for too long, no matter which one it is, is an invitation to corruption and scandal. It takes incredible fortitude and self discipline not to get corrupted in the presence of so much power and money. That was Charlie Rangel’s problem. He stayed in office too long. That was Senator Ted Stevens’ problem. He had been there too long as well. These are not inherently evil people, but plain human beings with moral shortcomings.

    Oh, by the way, they both deserved every bit of the disgrace that came to them –and more. Pointing out their humanity does not justify their mistakes.

    The question I have for you is “Do you still believe in our system of government enough to participate in it?” If you’re jumping from this moving train, then we have nothing left to discuss. If you’re intent of contributing, then prepare to get dirty as we slog out solutions in the mud of politics.

    Those are your alternatives. One way or the other, we’re gonna get dirty.

  30. 30Scott on Nov 19, 2010 at 5:04 pm:

    Bakunin, you twist things constantly into your world view. I presented you with facts, I gave you hypotheticals, and you refuse to engage. I’m sorry if you wish to stick your head in the sand and ignore reality. There is no fear mongering…it is just that I refuse to play ostrich like you do. Here is a good dose of reality from the Washington Post, last July. Let’s see how you feel from, say, a Guatamalan’s point of view after you read this.

    Again, SB 1070 isn’t racist, it CAN’T be racist. But I know leftists do not wish to shift their world view to include truth…it is a very upsetting thing. Do yourself a favor, though…check out Mexico’s immigration law. You might find that it is harsher than SB 1070. Not that anyone in this country is beating down the Mexican border to subject themselves to death by drug cartel. Perhaps as an anarchist who does not recognize borders you can explain that to one of the guys with the fully automatic weapon trained on you when you drift across the border and into his drug harvest. That is if they let you get close enough to speak. And I would also like to point out that you and Zombie identified exactly why we have an unqualified president right now…it wasn’t that Barack Obama was “the one”…it was because McCain was NOT “the one”. President by default, similar to (but not the same as) Billy Clinton, 1992.

  31. 31seo on Jan 31, 2012 at 9:54 am:

    Yesterday, while I was at work, my cousin stole my iPad and tested to see if it can survive a 30 foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation. My iPad is now broken and she has 83 views. I know this is totally off topic but I had to share it with someone!

  32. 32Harley Buras on Nov 23, 2013 at 10:45 am:

    You are my role models. Many thanks to the write-up

  33. 33Tyrone Taliferro on Nov 27, 2013 at 12:53 pm:

    I emphatically like the beneficial facts you impart by your articles. I’ll bookmark your blog and test once more now recurrently. I’m somewhat positively I’ll ensue conversant a lot of pristine pack individual right here! Paramount of luck for the next!

  34. 34Ayako Bittner on Nov 29, 2013 at 3:19 pm:

    Superbly residential call, touched my peculiar heart. Has now dispatched a web site that will this mates, several admitted me personally mainly correct, you’ll live bright to obstinate a person’s rightly. Possibly will fantastically thriving alot more this sort of synonyms. Every the finest !

  35. 35Natacha Meachem on Dec 1, 2013 at 1:25 pm:

    I wish for to establish my own website. Are there several chairs I can act this for gratis with minimum promotion lying on them? Or all without charge chairs have plenty of advertising?.

  36. 36ogłoszenia praca on Dec 4, 2013 at 2:27 am:

    hello in attendance and thank you for your info I’ve certainly chosen something new as of beneath. I did unchanging thus expertise some technological issues applying this situate, since We experienced to once again install the situate scores of time before than I could achieve it to load properly. I had been wondering nevertheless if your web hosting is ALL RIGHT? Not that I’m buzzing, but slow down loading instances times will vastly often have an effect on your placement within google and can spoil your high-quality report qualification advertising down with marketing with Adwords. Well I consider adding this RSS to the transmit and can test a great deal extra of your respective exciting content pertinent. Ensure of which you replace this again soon..

  37. 37ogłoszenia ostrołęka on Dec 5, 2013 at 2:29 am:

    Thank you for sharing superb informations. Your web-site is very cool. I’m impressed by the details that you’ve by this blog. It reveals how nicely you perceive this subject. Bookmarked this web page, will come rearward in support of further articles. You, my friend, ROCK! I originate in basic terms the info I before now searched all above the categorize and simply might not get nearer crosswise. Could you repeat that? a abundant web-site.

Trackbacks / Pingbacks:

  1. The Republican Heretic

    Trackback on Nov 20, 2010 at 4:04 am
  2. beste WoW bot

    Trackback on Nov 9, 2011 at 5:50 am