Posts Tagged ‘Sarah Palin’

Sarah Palin, ever the victim of the lamestream media (how clever she is), has now called them out for the lie that she uses the blood of children in her religious rituals. Or that she is responsible for the death of Jesus. Or some other thing jerks are always accusing Jews like Sarah Palin of doing. You know, blood libel.

Of course, it is entirely possible that Palin went a little too far when playing the victim this time. Obviously she has to act like everyone is out to get her, like she did nothing wrong. That’s been the theme of the crazier side of the right for awhile. People are always out to silence them. The media wants to practice something called “gotcha journalism,” in which they ask simple questions about what magazines poor conservatives read. Damned people are trying to make war on the over one month long celebration of Christmas, perhaps the biggest cultural phenomenon and holiday ever. And now, they want a woman to apologize for putting crosshairs on a site where the woman she wanted people to target was targeted and nearly killed.

I have said I don’t think she’s to blame, but does she not recognize that it was perhaps over the top to use crosshairs? Does she not see how that looks? Does she not see how some people were and are offended and how that insensitive act can be viewed by the families affected by the shooting? She doesn’t have to take blame for the shooting to admit that using crosshairs was wrong. That’s all it would take.

But instead she’ll welcome the liberal hatred (which indeed goes to far) so that she can play the victim to rally her supporters around her. Poor Sarah Palin. We should all feel bad for her now that someone callously made her callous use of crosshairs look bad by murdering a bunch of people. Hopefully she can make it through this trying time with her political career intact, because, you know, that’s why she resigned from being governor. Gotta help Alaskans out, or whatever.

Adam Feser

If you thought the last presidential election was nuts, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Michele Bachmann is considering a 2012 presidential bid. Oh glorious day!

I think it would do the country a lot of good to have Bachmann’s insanity paraded out in GOP debates. Other Republicans might even be forced to respond to it, and you know she wouldn’t have a problem going after less crazy Republicans. And the amount of support she would probably get would be great in exposing just how many people agree with her lunacy.

Perhaps seeing Bachmann’s candidacy would even convince some Republicans that Palin isn’t so bad. They could nominate her, all but assuring a second term for President Obama.

National politics would be hard to take if so much of it wasn’t so crazy. Bachmann definitely is about the craziest politician going. I think this would be hilarious. Do it, Michele.

Enjoy getting on those resolutions.

Adam Feser

Politifact has chosen the whopper of the year, and it is the oft-repeated (even by Dr) lie that the government has taken over our health care system.

As they (and I) have pointed out several times, it simply isn’t true. Repeating this lie seemed to be a part of the strategy of misinformation intended to stir anti-Obama/Democrat sentiments before the mid-term elections. Well done. All it took was lying over and over to your constituents.

Enjoy the second year in a row where a health care reform lie won the prize. (Last year’s was Sarah Palin’s death panels comment.)

Adam Feser

Democratic National Committee Executive Director Jennifer O’Malley recently said John Thune scares her. This is because he could be the most dangerous contender in 2012 (though I don’t think it’s as scary as the prospect of him actually being president). She went so far as to say he gives her nightmares.

O’Malley and others recognize that most of the possible GOP contenders are flawed, but she sees something in Thune that is threatening. I personally think he’s flawed, but when compared to Palin (lying quitter) and Romney (who implemented Obamacare before Obama was near the Oval Office), I guess it’s easy to stand out.

For some reason I think Newt Gingrich is scary, and he seems to want to run. The least scary thing in the world would be Palin winning the Republican Primary. The most scary thing in the world is that she has a chance to win the Republican Primary.

Enjoy the quick ramping up of the 2012 election in mid 2010.

Adam Feser

Here’s a video of Sarah Palin on O’Reilly’s show:

I have no problem with National Prayer Day because it is voluntary. I do have a problem with some of Palin’s other statements.

I want to start by summarizing the Ten Commandments (though the order varies).

1. I am God and you can have no other gods.
2. Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain.
3. Keep the Sabbath holy.
4. Honor they father and mother.
5. Don’t murder.
6. Don’t commit adultery.
7. Don’t steal.
8. Don’t lie.
9. Don’t covet your neighbor’s house.
10. Don’t covet your neighbor’s wife or possessions.

How are we supposed to use these to create law? Making the first three Commandments (you could also argue the Fourth and Sixth) law would make us a theocracy. The Fourth Commandment can hardly be made a law. The Fifth is a law. The Sixth Commandment cannot be legislated. The Seventh is a law. The Eighth is only a law in rare circumstances (when under oath). And if we outlawed coveting it would ruin our economy. The American dream is built on coveting stuff other people have.

So 5 and 7 (and 8, at times) of the Ten Commandments are already laws and would be laws regardless of the Ten Commandments. If we legislated 1,2, and 3 we’d be a theocracy. Legislating 4, 6, 8 (most of the time), 9, and 10 makes no sense.

Knowing this, exactly why would we want out laws to be based on the Ten Commandments? The Ten Commandments are an important part of may religions, but that does not mean a huge modern country can base laws on them. Which commandment is salient regarding environmental policy? Where should we set speed limits? What about the death penalty?

To be fair, Palin also mentioned the Bible. Which parts of the Bible do we legislate? Do we use the Old Testament? Do we outlaw tattoos and shellfish? Do we stone women for premarital sex?

Or do we move in a New Testament direction and work on forgiveness and turning the other cheek? Should we use that as our guiding foreign policy?

This gets at one of the main problems with trying to legislate based on these texts – everyone has different interpretations of the texts. Many Christians believe the Old Testament does not apply. Others believe only parts of it apply. Palin is fond of the word “Judeo-Christian,” so should we include Orthodox Jewish law? Do we keep single women separate from men at night? Do we keep kosher?

I recognize and have no problem with anyone using whatever religion they follow for their own purposes. If it provides comfort and purpose, then it is a good thing. But when you attempt to force your religion on others, you are acting against the Constitution, which is the guiding law for creating legislation in this country.

I also think it cheapens religion to have it involved in something as contentious and oftentimes corrupt as politics. The First Amendment protects the right of citizens to choose their own religion, and it also protects religion from misuse and abuse.

I have to believe that Sarah Palin knows it would be impossible and often unconstitutional to legislate according to the Ten Commandments and the Bible. I can only imagine she says things like this because she knows it will appeal to certain parts of the Republican Party. Either that or we better hope she never gets in a real position of power.

Just to reiterate: I am not trying to belittle anyone’s religion. I am simply stating that no one religion is or should be the basis of the law in this country. It should for each individual, not something you force on others.

Enjoy angry comments.

Adam Feser

Joe Conason has a nice little op-ed on Sarah’s latest falsehood to draw thunderous applause. She basically called Obama a wimp for wanting to reduce the amount of nuclear missiles then said Reagan wouldn’t have done that because he was such a tough guy. I already wrote about it, but this is an interesting question. Does she know she’s lying, or is she just woefully ignorant? Either way, it’s making it difficult to see why she would make a good candidate.

Some of the better points from the article:

Listening to Sarah Palin, it is often difficult to determine whether her remarks demonstrate ignorance or dishonesty. She frequently waxes on about Ronald Reagan, for instance, revered ancestor of today’s far right, whose real record bears little resemblance to the fantasies of extremists like her.

Now, Palin usually sounds bereft of even the most basic knowledge of history, let alone diplomacy, but in this case she had already graduated from college by the time Reagan decided to encourage peaceful change in the Soviet Union and rid the world of nuclear weapons entirely. In other words, she might be expected to remember those events, however vaguely, without reading a book.

Reagan’s utopian aspirations were never achieved, of course, but the elimination of nuclear weapons was certainly what he proposed, more than once, in negotiations with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

Reagan’s bold decision to cultivate Gorbachev and promote détente required him to dismiss the reflexive stupidity of his own base.

A boiling zeal to discredit Obama as dupe or traitor has led critics on the right to falsify the content and implications of both the START treaty and the Nuclear Posture Review. Their lying necessarily includes a distorted account of the Reagan presidency — very much in the old Soviet style of making inconvenient history disappear. But facts are stubborn things, as the Gipper once quipped, and the undeniable fact about Palin’s sainted idol is that in his approach to nuclear disarmament, he was closer to Barack Obama than to belligerent kooks like her.

Enjoy the win, Twins fans, it’s the last you’ll get on the Red Sox.

Adam Feser

Salon’s War Room has an article about Palin’s speech at the SRLC. It mostly details her horrible stand-up (“How’s that hopey changey thing working out?” being an example of a joke, I guess?) and how loving the crowd was. It’s pretty much the same things she has always said and the same loving crowd. But there was an interesting exchange that occurred after her speech:

As the delegates filtered out of the hall afterwards, I stopped one woman randomly, figuring her own Palin button meant she was a big fan. True enough, she was. “It was awesome,” she said, identifying herself only as Loretta from east Tennessee. “She’s wonderful. She thinks the way America thinks, she knows what we want, and she’s not afraid to voice it… We need change, but we can’t afford Obama’s change — he’s killing us.” Palin, she told me, would bring the right kind of changes — jobs, prosperity, God back in our country. “This is a Christian country, it’s not a Muslim country,” she said. “We have Muslims here, and they are welcome here. But we as Christians have rights, too.” Obama, she insisted, is a Muslim (which is why she wouldn’t tell me her last name or exactly where she lives). So surely, Loretta would be voting for Palin if she ran in two years? “I don’t think she’s ready,” she said. “I love her. I don’t think we’re ready for her as president yet… I think she still needs to educate herself a little more on foreign policy.”

This woman that believes Obama is a Muslim thinks Palin needs more than two years to educate herself on foreign policy, though she loves her. I never thought I’d agree with a Palin-loving, “Obama’s a Muslim”-saying, SRLC-attending woman, but here we are.

Enjoy folksy platitudes framed as wisdom.

Adam Feser

Barack Obama recently signed a nuclear arms reduction pact with Russia. The pact has us both reducing our nuclear arms by a third (so that we have over 1,500, I believe). There is also a pledge that we will not use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear states or states that are adhering to the principles of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

This, of course, means several countries are not a part of the new agreement. Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel would not fit the criteria laid out.

This has led to Republicans pitching a fit about reducing arms and big scary monsters out there that will now overtake us and pillage our cities. One such person was Sarah Palin. She compared it to getting into a playground fight, letting someone punch you in the face, and not retaliating. Because, you know, you should be able to respond with a nuclear bomb to being punched in the face. And those gosh darn wars are just so cute, like those danged childhood fights. I remember this one time Trig (or Trip or Shoot or Flyfish or whatever his name is) got punched in the face. Since schools have reduced arms and students’ rights to carry them, Trig couldn’t even shoot the kid. Instead he just punched back, it was broken up and they went to detention. Can you believe that?

But I digress. When Obama was asked about Palin’s comments, he said, “I really have no response to that. The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues.” Prodded further about Republicans fears, Obama continued, “What I would say to them is, is that if the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are comfortable with it, I’m probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin.”

Check and mate. (Now king me.)

But if you want to see just how ridiculous the reaction to Obama’s agreement with Russia is and how predictably awesome Fox’s coverage is, there is no one better than Jon Stewart. Enjoy yet another hilarious Daily Show clip in which he exposes how one-sided Fox’s coverage is and just how ignorant Reagan-worshipers are of his actual stances.

I also want to say/ask this: Why would we need nuclear weapons to respond to a non-nuclear attack? Why? Have we not proven our ability to destroy a country completely without nuclear weapons? We hang out in doors and fly remote-controlled planes that devastate countries. If we get punched in the face, to use Palin’s horrible analogy, we are more than capable of killing the person with any number of weapons. But we need the option to nuke a country? Really? Someone who agrees with these people explain to me how the nuclear option is necessary. Because the notion seems dumb to me.

Enjoy knowing we still have enough nukes to destroy the world.

Adam Feser

Mind blowing, isn’t it? Mr. Maverick himself now claims that he never considered himself a maverick. He never took pride in his ability to do what he thought was right as opposed to what the party thought. At least now that he’s in a primary with an opponent who is farther to the right with the support of those farther to the right, McCain is not a maverick. Here’s a John McCain-approved message about how unmavericky he is (via Politico):

Here’s McCain himself on how unmavericky he is (also via Politico):

Wait, that was in 2008 when it was politically helpful to distance himself from hardcore Republicans. Now it’s 2010 and it’s politically helpful to put himself with hardcore Republicans. It’s also helpful to say he’s always been that way. Basically, it’s helpful to just lie.

I personally don’t think he was or is such a maverick, and I damn sure know Palin wasn’t and isn’t a maverick (she was for that bridge to nowhere until it was unpopular). But I know McCain loved that title and claimed it all the time. To now claim he isn’t and never considered himself a maverick is just ridiculous.

Here’s a montage showing just how much he loved the term when he thought it was helpful:

Jon Stewart once loved John McCain. He had him on the show constantly and the two had a great time. But Jon and the Daily Show have seen that he no longer is the man they knew and loved, they also had their minds blown when he claimed he never thought of himself as a maverick:

I sort of think of this like a professional athlete that hangs on too long than ruins his storied career by being horrible. Old McCain is making me forget about anything I used to respect about Less Old McCain.

Enjoy the Masters Par 3 Contest.

Adam Feser

After her resignation as governor of Alaska, Palin claimed there were better ways she could serve the constituents of Alaska. Many of us wondered how she could help them more by not being their governor, but we were assured by her many (inexplicable) fans that she would get their back.

So at first it seemed she was going to help them by scaring the hell out of them and the country by lying about the government’s proclivity for granny-slaying. Then it seemed she was going to help them by contributing opinion at Fox News. Maybe she was just getting ready to make another horrifying and unsuccessful push at the White House. But none of this really seemed as though she was serving Alaskans.

Now we finally know what her big plan to help her constituents is: a reality television show. That’s right, Alaskans, don’t worry about your elected governor quitting on you because she’s had your bets interest in mind the whole time. And it’s only for your best interest that she shopped her reality show to networks to get the most lucrative deal.

Now, to be fair, the show has something to do with Alaska. That’s right, you’ll be better served by her making millions on a show about your state than by her governing it (this is probably actually true, though I don’t think that’s how she’d see it). So yeah, your welcome, residents of Alaska who voted for her to be their governor.

I only wish Ray was still around to spin this to show how she’s America’s last great hope. (Is Ray still around?)

Enjoy the defense of this move.