Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Let's all feel bad for poor Sarah Palin

She who wants to help the run the country is apparently being inappropriately maligned by  ... wait for it .... an internet MEME! OH NOEZ!!!!!!!

Because you know, accuracy of internet memes determine the course of this country. *nod*

But back to ppppooooooooooorrrrrrrr Sarah *sniffle*

Couric didn't ask her to name any Supreme Court Case other than Roe versus Wade, but to name one that she disagreed with. That was left off of the internet meme. Bad internet meme, bad!

So to be fair here to smart and spunky Sarah, let's give her the benefit of the doubt and know that as someone with the extensive executive experience she claims, she can answer the question Couric posed in a poised and thoughtful manner even if she doesn't carry a list in her back pocket of SCOTUS decisions she disagrees with.

Well - you decide. Following is the text of her answer:

PALIN: Well, let's see. There's --of course --in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are -- those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know -- going through the history of America, there would be others but--"

COURIC: Can you think of any?

PALIN: Well, I could think of -- of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a Vice President, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

Video and text here


Gee. Now, I feel SO BAD I picked on her. I feel even worse that Biden was able to answer quickly and directly. What does he think he is running for anyway - the Vice Presidency??



( 25 comments — Leave a comment )
Oct. 3rd, 2008 03:51 am (UTC)
It is possible to disagree with both Palin's competency and the quality of the meme.
Oct. 3rd, 2008 04:03 am (UTC)
Indeed it is! But this was more in response to another's entry than yours. I blew over yours (no offense) because you feel like crap right now. And you were correct in that it wasn't a fair fight.

But - I did point out the error of the meme in this post. I did so sarcastically, yes, but that is just my take on this style of meme. I find other memes, like the open a book one, or ask me a bunch of questions, or ... well, most all of them to be superior to one of this nature.

But this meme was fun for me - not because it showed up Sarah (I'm pretty certain she gives not a rat's ass what I think of her competency), but because it allowed me to see what rulings were memorable to other people on my f-list.

Then when I found I had to add a description, I did. Then I decided a commenter needed a link so I found one - only to discover what I had always referred to as the "t-shirt ruling" really started with armbands. hahahaha. Yes - I have a weird idea of fun. :P~
Oct. 3rd, 2008 04:04 am (UTC)
LoL - I was *fair* I went and changed my meme entry. Because fair's fair.

But my opinion still stands. I would expect that she could name off any of the SCOTUS decisions with which she disagreed (well, was "extremely displeased" with) that directly affected the state of which she is governor and on which she commented on 06/28/08 as published in the Juneau Empire. (stand in AWE of my amazing run-on sentence!)

I would expect that any politician running for a MAJOR political office would have at least had a set of Cliff Notes on US Policy and stuff.

My husband watched the debates without the sound. He said that the body language of both candidates was quite fascinating. I watched and listened.

What is fun is to flip between Fox and MSNBC after debates. :/
Oct. 3rd, 2008 04:11 am (UTC)
*applauds your fairness*

I feel no compulsion to edit my other post. It dropped off of my friend's page sometime earlier.

Hey - I would have settled for her stating one that she AGREED with in lieu of the question. But she babbled.

I will say, she was coached within an inch of her life for the debate, but she didn't fail. They both did better than I thought they would. I would have preferred her answering some actual questions instead of skirting them to go back to shouting "Obama will raise your taxes!!!" She settled a wee bit more on topic about midway, then drifted again later.

I am SO happy she is not running with my candidate. :P~

I watched the CNN focus group after the debate. 2/3 of them believe Obama will win the election, even though all those who raised their hand for that are not voting for him. I found that fascinating.

All in all I think the VPs behaved better than the Ps in the debate.
Oct. 3rd, 2008 04:32 am (UTC)
Bonafide bitch-Trad here. I'd rather feel bad about Sarah Palin going back to Alaska and never being heard from again, thanks. I can't even call her a bitch. She doesn't meet the minimum criteria demands. And no, you don't want to know what I call her instead....but it is far from the brain stem and a word I very seldom use.
Oct. 3rd, 2008 12:44 pm (UTC)
She's a piece of cotton candy in a torrential rain. Whatever poll boost she gave to McCain is fading fast. Aaawwwwwww.
Oct. 3rd, 2008 01:42 pm (UTC)
I like cotton candy better than I like her. I was posting as I watched the debate....pissed over every bit of soundbite bull! And that is one heartbeat from the Presidency in the event of a GOP victory.

Oct. 3rd, 2008 01:46 pm (UTC)
If Gods forbid that ever happened she'd be handled so hard there would be bruises all over her. She may be big shit in Alaska, but in DC? No-one would take her seriously. Look how they've muzzled her thus far.

She referred to her talking as directed. She didn't veer off of them because she has of substance to add. Frankly, I thought she looked scared shitless for the first 20-30 minutes of the debate.
Oct. 3rd, 2008 02:41 pm (UTC)
Likewise. We thought she looked ready to shit bricks. Course, I would fast for the whole month and send the grocery money to the Dems if they would re-work the tape and let Joe go at her with the gloves off...if for not public consumption, for the hell of it for me. I'd pay by the frakking minute to see that.
Oct. 3rd, 2008 02:48 pm (UTC)
I don't think that is necessary. Palin seems to beat herself quite handily on her own, without the Dems needing to get their hands dirty doing it.
Oct. 3rd, 2008 03:22 pm (UTC)
Of course it isn't necessary. I was talking for personal enjoyment...you know, like porn, only political! I mean, it is like porn...Palin is moderately pretty and Cheney is a big dick, right?
Oct. 3rd, 2008 04:10 pm (UTC)
Ok. I wouldn't gain personal enjoyment from that, assuming we're using "gloves off" in the same manner. To each their own.
Oct. 3rd, 2008 03:50 pm (UTC)
Feel better?
Oct. 3rd, 2008 04:09 pm (UTC)
Do you?

I set the record straight, too, in my own fashion.

It is an internet meme copied and pasted without fact checking. I never fact check memes. It never even occurred to me to do so, since it was a MEME. So call me an idiot for that. Oh, wait - you already did in your choice of icon for your post: "Ma neighba ... He an idiot ... Peese kill him".

I don't see my post as any more snarky than yours.
Oct. 3rd, 2008 04:14 pm (UTC)
I don't see my post as any more snarky than yours.

Of course not.

Glad we've cleared that up.
Oct. 3rd, 2008 04:40 pm (UTC)
Funny how you skipped over the entire part about calling your f'listers idiots, smug idiots in fact when you add in your text.

Glad that's cleared up, too.
Oct. 3rd, 2008 05:16 pm (UTC)
Let me see if I can muster up the bombastic levels to match or exceed yours in this post.

Okay, I think I have it . . . .

Here's the thing, the Left in this country, over and over, takes the incredibly condescending view that anyone who is a Republican must, by defintion, be an absolute fucking idiot!!! I've seen it over and over, time and time again. Republican? Must be a fucking simplton who can't think for themselves. Rednecks and inbreds all (unless it's evil corporate heads, then it's a different insult). The Right just hates, pure and simple. With their comments you just see hatred. The Left mixes in hate with an self-assured smugness that just can't help but assert itself.

Sarah Palin has her good and bad points, and attacking her is fine. Want to attack about her possible corruption issues in Alaska? I'm all for it. About lack of experience? Sure, go ahead. And there are lots of others. But what I see with the Palin attacks, more and more, and what this meme again demonstrates, is the same old Republicans are dumber than whale shit! comments that are not only wrong, but narrow. This is why Clinton was able to attack Obama so well before the Pennsylvania primary, because he did the exact same, elitist-spouting put-down that so many just gleefully do, and what offends the hell out of a lot of others, and keeps causing divisions and partisan flak on all sides.

But again, fine, if the Left wants to be condescending assholes to a signifcant portion of the country, or a particular candidate, that's okay. Hell, that candidate or those people might even deserve some of those nasty and condescending remarks. But if the Left (or anyone else for that matter) is going to be insulting, they'd better get their fucking facts right, or else they look not only like condescending assholes, but stupid condescending assholes as well. That is to say, they look no better than the person they're insulting, and actually worse.

So was my original post nasty? Yep, giving what was given by others.


Somewhat related, does this make two, or three, vehement arguements we've had now? One was abortion, but I thought there was another one. Or did we argue abortion twice? I don't remember and I'm lazy about looking it up.

*sorry about the edits, had trouble with bold and italics*

Edited at 2008-10-03 05:23 pm (UTC)
Oct. 3rd, 2008 06:32 pm (UTC)
Do YOU feel better now?

I very specifically pick on candidates and politicians personally. I just reread the first post in this thread. Once again I specifically picked on Palin, and gave kudos to Biden for having an answer. Granted, Biden's been in DC "forever" so he has a better chance at a good answer, but she is seeking to be second-in-command and I expect better answers than what she gave to Couric. I expect better answers from *anyone* seeking that office.

Yes, I was Sarcasm Supreme™ in the OP of this thread, but I still set the record straight on what Couric asked - bolded and italicized and everything. And then I quoted Palin's actual answer to the corrected question she was asked.

I challenge you to find anywhere in any of my journal posts a blanket slam against *all* Republicans, let alone one that states the equivalent of all Republicans are dumber than whale shit. You are on all my filters so there is nothing I wrote about politics that you cannot see. If it's there I'll not only edit that post, I'll change the date so it shows up again and I'll state exactly why I did so, with an apology to all the other Republicans.

I've picked on Bush and his "cronies" (which I define as the people close to him who aggressively push his agenda or passively allow it to continue). I've picked on McCain, because I find his ideals scary as hell when compared to mine. I've picked on Palin, for numerous things, mainly Alaska issues and "troopergate" and her lack of knowledge of what exactly effects people in the "lower 48". I've picked on Obama for his idiotic remark about people around here "clinging to guns and religion". I used to pick on Clinton, but I wasn't online in standard message boards until 2001 and even later on LJ.

To lump me in with people who paint all Republicans as stupid I find to be greatly insulting. Both of my parents were Republicans and and though we used to butt heads on many issues, I never once saw them as dumb, just wrong.

I guess this is where I put in my reminder that I am not a Democrat. I'm registered Independent and I vote across party lines based on who I feel fits what I believe best. I've even *gasp* voted for 3rd party candidates on the local and state and congressional level. I have never voted 3rd party for President.


I don't remember the abortion argument. I remember my lllooonnngggg ass comment on McCain's stances and voting records awhile back. Did that start as an abortion issue?

This little back and forth definitely gets rated as an argument. I get that I'm being too sensitive since I got all butthurt about an icon on the internet. I understand "it's only the internet". I will get over myself as I always do.

I guess I am a bit surprised that while you decry the wholesale maligning of the Right you are quite willing to engage in that exact thing against the Left "or anyone else for that matter".

Quote you: "But if the Left (or anyone else for that matter) is going to be insulting, they'd better get their fucking facts right, or else they look not only like condescending assholes, but stupid condescending assholes as well."

So, does getting called a stupid condescending asshole "earn" me the right to my original post now?
Oct. 3rd, 2008 07:18 pm (UTC)
Point taken about my decrying things but then engaging in the same behavior. It's hard to make your point at times when you're running on emotion, as you know. The idea was to try and jolt some folks into thinking a bit more, with a very small and underhanded swipe at the meme and those who jumped onto it without thinking it through.

I could digress on how both sides don't think things through or try to see the other side, but that would move away from the point of the original discussion a bit too much.

I think the earlier arguement, like a year ago, was on abortion and my stance that Roe v. Wade should be repealed and a privacy amendment passed, as legislative action was more appropriate than a court case. The McCain voting record argument wasn't as strong as that one, or this one. Funny, but the first ones were more substantive.

I ratcheted up my rhetoric to match (if not exceed) your rant, which of course was a ratcheting up of your response to my original post, which was itself a reaction to numerous posts (not just yours) that I saw on the same thing. I'm ratcheting it down now, and apologize for the insults as they were not intented to be personal.

Oct. 3rd, 2008 07:45 pm (UTC)
Men are allowed to choose with their doctor elective surgery whenever they want to w/o interference of other people's morals restricting their access. A privacy amendment in relation to this issue would be no more than an 'abortion amendment" since that is the procedure pro-lifers want to ban and I don't think it has a snowball's chance in passing. Until men's rights are impeded in the same manner there is no push for such an amendment. The problem I see with a "privacy amendment" is the enforcement of such. Wouldn't that just be more and more court time until it went up to SCOTUS again with the same result as Roe vs. Wade with the decision being it is "unconstitutional" to withhold or block abortions? The problem of course is women being forced to bear children while each case went through the laborious court system. < --- Was that the gist of the argument that I do not remember?

I think I still feel the same way if it is. Maybe do *not* overturn Roe *and* add a privacy amendment.

Apology accepted.
Oct. 3rd, 2008 08:58 pm (UTC)
Pretty much the argument you had, yes. My point was that Roe v. Wade is, IMO, the single biggest cause of the current partisan shrillness in this country, and that such an important decision (and others related to privacy) are better solved through the legislature than the courts. It's my opinion that the long-term damage to the country by having this upheld only by a court decisions is far more damaging than rights to abortion at this point.

I'd love to have a privacy amendment now, and address these issues. But, as with so many other problems, it doesn't seem to push folks into action until there's some kind of crisis. Meanwhile we see our body politic continue to poison itself with this issue. I told my wife two days ago the Republican party has come down to one issue basically, and that is abortion. That's just wrong regardless.
Oct. 4th, 2008 11:35 am (UTC)
I understand what you're saying. I agree that no movement will likely occur w/o a crisis and that saddens me. We need men on our side on this issue. The Women's Movement was successful because we had men to support it, too. I don't see the push for men to get involved in it because it does not effect them in the same manner.

The idea of Roe vs. Wade being overturned sends a chill to my bones in a way I cannot describe and a way I don't think a man understands. I don't mean that in an exclusionary or insulting way, either. I think it's the same way that though I empathize deeply with black people I cannot fully understand the experience of racism in the manner they do.

It is about power over self in regard to medical decisions. You, like other males, walk through your life secure in the knowledge that medical decisions en ré elective surgery are a basic right. It isn't even something you think about, because it has always been there for you and you didn't have to wait for SCOTUS to make it so and you have no fear of another panel of SCOTUS taking it away.

I was going to argue that you were wrong that abortion drives the wedge of partisanship, but upon reflection I realized it *is* the deciding factor for me. A candidate could line up perfectly with all my beliefs, but if their position was they would work to overturn Roe v Wade that would remove my vote from them.

I would hope that overturning Roe v Wade would cause a privacy amendment to occur, but I fear it wouldn't because like I stated, it would amount to an abortion amendment. If such an amendment did pass, do you believe the issue would be taken away from the spotlight, or do you think people would work to repeal the amendment? I wish I was comfortable believing people would make it law through the COTUS, but right now I do not believe that.
Oct. 4th, 2008 01:46 pm (UTC)
Well there are men on your side of the issue, but just as you correctly said they can't fully understand, so too they're not fully engaged. At this point, fathers and husbands only have to be dimly aware of what's going on. Because of that they're not forced to think about it, not forced to take action.

I may not be able to understand fully as I'm not a woman. But I did have a girlfriend go through an abortion and the entire episode still haunts me. It does have an impact. But you're right that men can't fully understand. I used to think that I, as a nice white-male majority kind of guy, could understand different perspectives. It wasn't until I went overseas and didn't look like others that the point became more clear. Then, with the adoption of new religious beliefs, the idea of being a religious minority (and one hated by many) really drove the point home. So even though I say I have some understanding, and I probably do moreso than many men, I'll acknowledge that I really can't fully know what it's like to be a women.

And that's the issue, women have to carry babies until they're born. The Right believes those babies are full humans who should be afforded protections like any other living person, and it's very difficult to get around that. As you said, It is about power over self in regard to medical decisions., but when that power results in the death of another person, assuming that a foetus is a person, is it right?

(Remember, I'm pro-choice, I'm just presenting the other side of the argument for discussion's sake).

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, a number of states would immediately outlaw abortions. Some would keep it legal. But we'd have the same patchwork system for abortion that we do for gay marriage right now. It would evolve, eventually, because a majority of Americans support some basic abortion rights. But it wouldn't be quick and it wouldn't be pretty.

The alternative is to stick with what we have, but that's poisoning our political discourse. Another f-list person (Greek recon who used to work in the GOP like me, us Republipagans are rare but we're out there) wrote an excellent post yesterday where he lamented the direction of the GOP away from fiscal and good-government issues and towards social issues. He quoted the following article which you might find interesting:

"David Frum, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, agreed that Palin is grossly under-qualified, but also put the problem in more explicitly ideological terms. "So this is the future of the Republican Party you are looking at," he wrote. "A future in which national security has bumped down the list of priorities behind abortion politics, gender politics, and energy politics. Ms. Palin is a bold pick, and probably a shrewd one. It's not nearly so clear that she is a responsible pick, or a wise one."

Bumping abortion and other social issues to the top of the Republican agenda isn't how things are supposed to work -- those issues are supposed to be the opiate for the Republican masses, doled out generously at campaign time with the understanding that they'll have little importance once power is obtained. Palin, in fact, is the first Republican vice-presidential nominee drawn from that wing of the party obsessed with what other people are doing with their dirty parts. Look at the GOP running mates since Watergate: Dick Cheney, Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole. All may have had the appropriately conservative positions on social issues, but each was far more concerned with economics and foreign policy."

My friend posted that the Dems are no better, that Obama is the same policies wrapped in a different package, and he's right IMO. But I don't want to veer off onto that track here. (cont. on another post)
Oct. 4th, 2008 01:46 pm (UTC)
Look a the article above, and then look at your statement, and look at the worst discussions and arguments you and I have had. It's over abortion. We have massive fiscal, social, and international issues facing this country that desperately need addressing. You and I would probably disagree on many, agree on some, but we probably could have reasonable discussions about it. Instead, the abortion question hovers over us all, driving us further and further into vehement and polarized partisanship.

I get e-mails from Richard Viguerie, who is one of those movement conservatives. Here's part of an e-mail from September 20th:

"First, I want to express my great thanks and appreciation to all of you Cranky Conservatives out there…

What and Who’s a Cranky Conservative?

You’re a Cranky Conservative if you refused to give money to the GOP the last few years when they abandoned their principles and acted like Democrats.

You’re a Cranky Conservative if you expressed great disappointment even anger at the Big Government, Big Spending Republicans.

You’re a Cranky Conservative if you were undecided about who you were going to vote for in this election or if you were thinking about not voting because of the betrayal of the Republican leaders.

You’re a Cranky Conservative if you withheld your support and refused to volunteer until you saw who John McCain was going to select for his Vice Presidential running mate.

And conservatives are deeply in the debt of the bloggers, conservative talk show hosts, religious right leaders and other conservatives who went nuclear in July and August when John McCain personally, as well as his key campaign team openly entertained the possibility of appointing a liberal, pro-abortion Republican or Democrat as his running mate.

These Cranky Conservatives are also heroes of the conservative movement and they may end up saving America from a President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.

Today, Governor Sarah Palin, a principled young conservative is the Republican nominee for Vice President with a strong chance to be a future President of the United States because of the Cranky Conservatives in this room and the millions of others around the country.

Some people question John McCain’s health – Well one thing we know about his health is that his hearing works very well.

And while I’m talking about cranky conservatives – guess who’s the number one Cranky Conservative in America…..

It’s none other than Governor Sarah Palin.

John McCain selected her because she was a principled conservative who would not stay silent and go along to get along."

Take a look a that. First, the hard Right loves Palin. But why? If you look at the reasons for someone to be a 'cranky conservative' he pays lip service to the fiscal issues. But the most important issue that he flagged was on abortion. Today, if you're Republican it's almost demanded that you're pro-life. It's become the litmus test. A lot of us Republicans are becoming more and more uneasy with that, and we're left floundering in the sea of bitter partisan discussions and not knowing what to do.

I'm probably taking up too much of your blog but this has evolved into a really good discussion and I didn't want to pass up the chance to continue it.
Oct. 4th, 2008 08:52 pm (UTC)
One thing I do not get - is *why* really the Repubs allowed/made abortion the #1 issue. Roe v Wade was a round for awhile before that occurred.

I remember the old Repubs - small government that does not interfere with private lives. Republican used to mean keeping the feds out of your bedroom. That changed. Is that because the Far Right got some power?

The Dems have changed, too. It used to be freedoms for all and a leg up when needed which meant a larger government than it meant for old style Repubs, but not huge ass entitlement programs that carry people forever. Social issues that required taxes were Dems, but not like it is now.

Shiiitttt ... the last 3 of 4 Presidents have been Repubs and the deficit has skyrocketed, with the only surplus under the Dem. How fucked up is that? It's just .... not what it used to be, at all.

Maybe just make a true abortion amendment would get the rest back on track. Ha! I'm dreaming!
( 25 comments — Leave a comment )