Skip to content

@MJosephSheppard → Libertarians See Sarah Palin As Circe Leading Them To Neocon Doom

03 December 2015 @ 20:28


I have long been puzzled as to why “Outside The Beltway’s Doug Mataconis seems to have joined the ranks of the sufferers of Palin Derangement Syndrome (PDS in extremis). On the surface his education, profession and general writing would seem to indicate a balanced person (allowing for a political emphasis which of course bloggers all are wont to).

Yet where Governor Palin is concerned he seems to go off the deep end, not only in a long series of attack articles about her, but also descending into utter condescension towards her (“when she is speaking you will find me out back at the bar”). It’s seven years for goodness sake, and Palin is not a candidate for office and seems unlikely to be one for the foreseeable future if at all.

Why then this seemingly odd fixation? A clue, perhaps, may have arisen from an article attacking Palin as some sort of Circe luring Libertarians to their doom upon the rocky shores of neoconservativism. Mataconis being not only a libertarian but a Libertarian having “proudly voted for Gary Johnson” as part of the genuinely 1% of such voters.

In an article by one Mark Alvarez at WEBCommentary the writer goes to great pains to warn his readers that the superficial siren song (or in a rather odd simile a “Trojan Horse”) of Palin towards the likes of Rand Paul, or any libertarian candidate in the GOP, will lure such hypnotized people to the fatal attractions of a Jeb Bush.

Sarah Palin: A neocon Trojan horse

Sarah Palin is a neocon Trojan horse. Anybody who cares about the Constitution and liberty should ignore about 80% of what she says….

Sarah Palin offers us the quintessential example of the bait-and-switch in a recent article. See: This article confirms my long held belief that Sarah Palin is a neocon Trojan horse.

I’ve said for some time that her role is to smuggle neoconservatism past the electorate by amalgamating it with germs of truth. She will do things like throw accolades in the direction of Rand Paul and Ron Paul in order to build rapport with liberty activists. Not that she offers us any insightful commentary on behalf of liberty. Giving accolades to the Pauls helps her establish pro liberty credentials, which she then uses to lead people straight into the arms of neoconservatives.

Notice how in this article she gives accolades to the Pauls as well as Jeb Bush and George W. Bush. Liberty voters are supposed to believe there’s some kind of equivalency between Rand Paul, Ron Paul, and Jeb Bush.

Well here’s my warning to the liberty voters: Like Obama, Sarah Palin is a menace to the Constitution. She is not a friend of liberty. There might be an inconsequential race where she endorses a good candidate. By inconsequential, I mean a race with a certain outcome, where her endorsement won’t change anything and she could even build rapport with liberty activists. Or it could be a race where if a liberty candidate does win, their solitary vote will be inconsequential.

But on consequential races, Sarah Palin backs neocons. She even endorsed a neoconservative, who worked for Bush, in a Republican primary race to try to unseat Congressman Walter Jones. Congressman Walter Jones has one of the most pro liberty and pro Constitution voting records on the Hill. He is like the closest thing to Ron Paul’s clone in Washington. Is it an accident that Sarah Palin backed a neocon primary opponent to Walter Jones?

Mark Alvarez
Expose 9/11

If this sort of thinking is widespread in libertarian circles, and has reached the likes of Mataconis, it would go a long way to explain the seeming inexplicable attacks on her-if it does.

The fact that the writer appears to a 9/11 conspirator might also go a long way to explaining the caution the wider voting public has to both Ron and Rand Paul’s candidacy and the Libertarian Party’s lack of any traction.



​Credit where due; Doug Mataconis “Outside The Beltway” on Colorado Planned Parenthood shooting in relation to Gifford’s criminally insane attacker Loughner and the hate attack on Palin.



This was not received with total acclamation by Palin supporters as this comment indicates:

My cynical guess is that his previous attacks on Sarah Palin were basically due to the threat that she posed as a potential candidate, since she would most likely have stopped a Rand Paul candidacy dead in it’s tracks…where it finds itself right now BTW.

Unfortunately, she would have been blamed for Rand’s failure to win, just as she’d be blamed for anybody else’s loss. For whatever reason she’s a convenient lightning rod and allows dishonest people to deflect the blame for lackluster candidacies on her presence instead of the candidate themselves.

The really sad thing? Think about how inclusive and gracious she is. She works to unite.

Mr. Sheppard is the proprietor of the blogs Point Of View and Palin4President 2016. He also writes occasionally for American Thinker and is a man of refined taste. Follow him on Twitter: @MJosephSheppard.

  1. rkae permalink
    03 December 2015 @ 21:44 21:44

    …and the Libertarian Party’s lack of any traction.

    I love it that libertarians worship “the marketplace,” believing that if we just throw everything out there then the public will choose what’s right…

    …and they only get 2% of the vote.

    • MJ Sheppard permalink
      03 December 2015 @ 22:13 22:13

      You are actually too generous-as above they received 1% in the 2012 presidential election

  2. mibones permalink
    03 December 2015 @ 22:30 22:30

    Sarah has always praised the policies that she endorses. It does not matter who says it. Your last sentence, of this article, says it all. “She works to unite.”

    • MJ Sheppard permalink
      04 December 2015 @ 00:01 00:01

      Thank you-it is a direct quote that I am honored to reproduce

      • mibones permalink
        04 December 2015 @ 00:39 00:39


  3. Pedro permalink
    04 December 2015 @ 04:23 04:23

    You’ve been sniping back and forth with Mataconis for years on Twitter over Palin. If as you note, it’s been seven years and she most likely isn’t running for anything etc…, then why bring it here…it’s best left on Twitter where at least both of you are limited in words to spit at each other….I thought you got smart and moved on to the Donald anyway? Please leave the Palin stuff in the past where it belongs….

    • Dixie permalink
      04 December 2015 @ 04:28 04:28

      it was kind of like…why is this mataconis guy still talking about palin, blah blah blah so i will write a long post talking about it–you both need to let it go if you ask me!

      • MJ Sheppard permalink
        04 December 2015 @ 16:35 16:35

        As I said,an analysis of political reasons/mechanisms is totally valid. If everyone just “let it go” there woudl be no historical writings nor lessons for future generations. You have the wrong end of the stick

        • Reynolds88 permalink
          05 December 2015 @ 02:21 02:21

          Gee CPS, you don’t get any respect on any site….

        • MJ Sheppard permalink
          05 December 2015 @ 14:59 14:59

          E tu Reynolds?

    • MJ Sheppard permalink
      04 December 2015 @ 16:32 16:32

      The passage of time hardly precludes analysis of what is/was the mechanism for a particular point of view and or historic action. Whether it’s 7 or 70 years explaining why libertarians appeared, on the surface to take an irrational stance and the in-depth reality behind it is absolutely correct historicity. But thanks for your concern

      • Pauline permalink
        05 December 2015 @ 02:19 02:19

        I think the point they are trying to make is…………MOVE ON AND STOP WITH THE SARAH PALIN posts….

        • MJ Sheppard permalink
          05 December 2015 @ 14:58 14:58

          I think you should take a post and insert it

  4. Morgan Michaels permalink
    06 December 2015 @ 00:08 00:08

    Trump demanded (unsuccessfully) a $5 million payoff to show up for a debate on CNN. But Trump, Cruz, Paul and Jeb! all agreed to appear on the relatively obscure OAN network the week Sarah Palin guest hosted a one hour interview/opinion show. Her ‘relevance’ is unquestionable.

    On the other hand it seems that some ‘Libertarian’ activists are no better than the ‘Progressive’ activists when they feel their sinecure is threatened. There is no innocent explanation for lashing out at Palin. She merely suggested that calling Paul supporters ‘Ronulans’, ‘Paultards’ and ‘Paulbots’ was counterproductive. Such tactics are likely to alienate a potential base of support for a limited government, free market, Constitutional Conservative in the (likely) event that their preferred candidate fails to win the nomination.

    Sounds like some who make their living off the hopes and dreams of Libertarians are more worried about their meal tickets wandering off the plantation than achieving the electoral and policy goals Conservatives and Libertarians share in common. Smearing a woman who’s foreign policy positions are not Neutralist as therefore ‘Neoconservative’ is transparent and lazy. The five points Sarah Palin laid out back in 2011 are intervention skeptical, and she was roundly condemned by Jennifer Rubin and other real Neoconservatives as ‘Isolationist’ and likened to, of all people, Ron Paul (which Jennifer did not mean in a good way).

    • MJ Sheppard permalink
      06 December 2015 @ 14:05 14:05

      Thank you for such a thoughtful and wide ranging further analysis of the Libertarian/Palin situation which adds valuable insight to my article

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: