4 thoughts on “Catherine Crabill: Still crazy.”

  1. Subsequence (noun): The consequence of being after.

    I really don’t think Ms. Crabill was using the word “subsequence” as originated in the 1490s, but a combination of substance and consequence…which isn’t a word. Fun times with the semantics. Forgive me, I’m tight on grammar and vocabulary. To me it’s usually a good indicator of either education level, intelligence, or eloquence–or a combination of any thereof.

    Where to begin….

    I had to listen to this file again and make an outline so that I could make any sort of sense out of the rambling quagmire of a speech she gave. I guess I shouldn’t act surprised, considering most all of her speeches were this way–Obama this, abortion that, Tenth Amendment this, I’m a mom that, evil mascots this, bullet box that. I would like to add that neither Mr. Watson, nor I live in “our mother’s respective basements,” but we do plan to continue exercising our freedom of speech rights, contrary to her “conservative” protests against such. I would like to remind her that the same constitution that protects her right to rant, rave, and otherwise ramble in this fashion also protects our right to blog, vlog, and comment in the public eye as well. She doesn’t have to like it. She doesn’t have to read
    it. She also doesn’t have to make nasty comments about those who choose to educate the public about factual information. The meanness of her comment is something I have witnessed in person. I remember
    vividly when she commented that she planned to “pray that God treats you the way you’ve treated me,” to a local opponent. It seems that her apparent paranoia about world events transforms into good old-fashioned meanness when confronting her detractors in public.

    I. OK City. I guess Ms. Crabill and her campaign manager both have forgotten her comment about the U.S. government being “culpable” in the OK City bombing. Brigadier Gen. Partin (ret.) doesn’t make the
    case that the investigation’s outcome would have been different, except for the idea that those doing the investigating were themselves the culprits. This guy is a certifiable wingnut. I’m glad Ms. Crabill chooses not to disavow her belief in this conspiracy theory, because it solidifies the evil bloggers’ belief that she has crackpot beliefs. “Picking up the phone” wasn’t necessary. Her own written words were enough for most of us. Maybe she should realize the founding fathers she so adores and supposedly so follows, were men of words–written words–and didn’t have phones to contact one another on issues.

    Again, claiming she was directly quoting Patrick Henry, is ludicrous considering the scholars at Red Hill even say that she was paraphrasing at best.

    II. The “Bullet Box” speech
    Ms. Crabill and her campaign manager Mr. Kling seem to be continuing with the argument that the Democratic Party somehow modified the video of her speech, making her look even more lackluster than she
    already does on her own. The original video was a 1:30 portion of her speech. Later the same week, the entire video was available to the public. This full video is the one I watched, so as to allow Ms. Crabill the benefit of the doubt. Her speech didn’t in my opinion, call for armed insurrection, though it did leave her wide open for such interpretation to be made. This proved for me her inability to
    carry on a respectable discourse and her inability to discuss actual issues facing a person who would aspire to be a state delegate. She spouted things we all agree with–excesses of government spending,
    overstepping of personal freedoms by the government, Socialistic ideologies, etc–but NOTHING about local issues. It became apparent that she was either unable or unwilling to comment on things that would be in her purview as delegate.

    III. Blogs and Bloggers

    She says “I don’t read blogs.” This is untrue, as she has herself has commented on this blog, well before I or even James Cupp (the “slimy, lying, character assassin” who is being prayed for by Ms. Crabill) ever did. Wouldn’t she have had to read this blog in order to comment? The most disturbing part about this portion of her speech is her apparent belief in conditional freedom of speech. If it’s supportive it’s ok. If it’s not, then the speech should have “consequences.” I don’t know of any consequences I would be in support of. I feel both sides, no matter whether I agree, have the right to make their feelings known. I don’t want to live in a United States like Ms. Crabill proposes here. I have never requested her silence, nor should I be willing to give her mine. I consider myself an “unashamed conservative,” and I expect the same courtesy all of us in the opposition camp are willing to grant her–the ability to write, comment, and speak our minds freely. I have already commented above as to her “small dark hole” mention above.

    IV. For less than $20,000.00…

    I believe Ms. Crabill and her supporters are overestimating the “true” support for her candidacy versus the votes she received by those who voted a straight (R) ticket. If we could separate the “coattail” votes and the “protest” votes, Ms. Crabill would have been an even more dismal failure in my assumption.

    V. The “Crazy VT Letter”

    Yes, the person who wrote that letter is also a nut. You don’t deserve to be labeled a supporter of gun violence similar to what occurred at Virginia Tech. That’s just ridiculous. You don’t have the right, however, to make comments without rebuttals. Those doing the retort have the same rights to free speech as you do, no matter the stance. They may be certifiably nuts, but they have the right to spout the silliness all they want. Unless they’re yelling fire in a theater, be willing to take the heat Ms. Crabill.

    V. Language

    All the “crap” and “Hell no’s” have to go. Respectable people don’t use this type of language in eloquent speeches, blog posts, emails, and the like. I don’t care if YOU don’t think they’re curse words used in this manner, but they are. Take the time to look it up and find that it’s listed in the dictionary as “vulgar.”

    VI. Obama this Obama that.

    Guess what Ms. Crabill? WE AGREE WITH YOU. State delegates don’t have any recourse as to federal laws, decisions, Presidential elections, etc… Tell us what you know about the job you’re running for. We don’t want to hear more of OUR OWN rhetoric. We want to here something of “subsequence” or maybe, substance.

    VII. And now for some humor…

    All I could think about was the Fifth Dimension’s song “Wedding Bell Blues” as Ms. Crabill incessantly sang the praises of Mr. Kling….Here’s a link…


  2. Patterico (at Patterico’s Pontifications) hit the nail on the head today while talking about another blogger (emphasis in original):

    One of Goldstein’s several failures of understanding is echoed several times in this passage: a fundamental inability to distinguish between a constitutional right to say stupid things (on one hand), and a non-existent “right” to say whatever the hell you want without fear of criticism.

    With rights come responsibilities. If we say something that deserved to be criticized, we may get criticized. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that says you get to be free from criticism for saying stupid things.

    Yet it is a common “defense” of stupid statements to say “well, I should have the right to say it.” Yes, and nobody is saying you don’t. We’re saying we have the right to call you stupid for saying it.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *