In case there was any doubt, Sarah Palin is bat shit crazy.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Then they hated her because she made a good salary (kind of bizarre seeing as how she doesn't make THAT much money).

Purely because this earnings issue seems very, very important to you, I have to point out that her lifetime earnings were most likely higher, or at least on a par with, Obama, before he wrote his book.

As it's, you know, such a big deal......
 
I agree with you here, but I don't think it's relevant to whether or not Letterman's comments were sexist and/or unduly tasteless.

I don't really think it's relevant to Letterman's comments, either. I wasn't making a value judgment about his "joke" in this statement, I was trying to explain my view of why this might happen in general, and more specifically, to Palin and her family.

Neither she nor her daughter (I mean Bristol Palin here) chose to have her daughter's pregnancy become a major media story, however inevitable the realities of presidential campaign coverage might be said to have made that outcome. And being a 'family values icon' (or the child of one) isn't a worthy justification for that kind of invasiveness--there's a reason why hounding or smearing children of public figures is generally considered beyond the 'MSM' pale, and it's not meant to be contingent on their parents' convictions or behavior.

No, they probably didn't choose to make it a major part of her campaign, but given the media and entertainment climate in our society (not saying it's right, just that this is the way it is), coupled with the fact that, as you said, a family values candidate with a pregnant teen was running for a very high profile position, I think that they easily could have predicted that her family life would be subject to a higher degree of scrutiny. Is there anything she could have done to combat this sort of invasion into her family life? I'm not sure. Maybe if she'd had something more substantive to talk about policy-wise, the media may have left her family alone after their initial fascination. I certainly don't think locking up the pregnant teen and keeping her away from the cameras is the answer, but surely there must have been something more that could have been done to convey that her family was off limits. I do know she talked about them an awful lot, more than any other candidate I can recall.

Besides, this wasn't a case of savagely brilliant humor artfully teasing out some complex point about the role of gender and motherhood in campaign propaganda; it was a garden-variety cheap shot of the tried-and-true "Your [female relative] is a slut" genre. Which of course is one classic form of exploiting sexism to attack someone--typically someone disliked for reasons having little or nothing to do with said relative's sexual behavior. It is true, as you say, that Bristol Palin has since become somewhat of an independently 'famous' figure, but realistically, whatever admiration or contempt she inspires remains heavily bound up in who her mother is.

It's certainly not highbrow humour, I agree. The fact is though, late night monologues are full of the type of humour that exploits people's weaknesses and foibles. Remember when the Bush twins were known as raging drunks? While certainly not sexual in nature, there were still a lot of jokes make about them, and they were underage at the time. Eventually that faded and nothing more was said about them. Again, I'm not saying it's right, just that it is.

I do agree that some aspects of Palin's response--the rhetoric of 'joking about rape,' which she knows full well effectively implies finding actual violent sexual assaults funny, or calling Letterman 'perverted,' as if one need be psychologically disturbed to be capable of sexism or crudeness--came across as overwrought, disingenuous, or both; reading those particular character attributes into his 'joke' simply wasn't credible, and there was plenty enough to object to without resorting to that.

It's this kind of behaviour that makes her seem like an opportunist. Anything for another 15 minutes in the spotlight.
 
I am not singling you out as the enemy. :wink:

But, it seems many of Palin's detractors have said she was the reason McCain lost.


I am convinced that she added millions of votes to the ticket.

Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani on the ticket would have seen a much larger Obama margin than just 7 %.


I think she added some ultra right that didn't care about her experience or abilities as a leader, but then took away a lot of independents.

But that's still not my point, fguy seemed to think every single one of those votes was a ringing endorcement for HER, and I highly doubt that.
 
She also was nervous in interviews. I agreed with her on:

- Supporting more troops in Afghanistan
- Balanced budgets and tax reform
- Israel
- Drilling for oil in ANWR and increasing nuclear power capacity
- Spending freeze

So when the liberals were attacking her it seemed exagerrated and based on presentation and what consitutes a real woman leader and the clothes she wore.



this is such garbage, i'm sorry. you agree because she was reciting GOP talking points, and she was nervous because she'd had so little time to study.

Plain had absolutely NO RECORD AT ALL of having any sort of position on Israel or Afghanistan prior to McCain picking her for VP. she was a literal blank slate when it came to foreign policy, and she had no demonstrated interest in it until it became politically necessary to have it.

her presentation was poor because she was POORLY PREPARED not because she was "nervous" or whatever pathetic excuses conservative men offer up because they find her attractive.
 
No, they probably didn't choose to make it a major part of her campaign, but given the media and entertainment climate in our society (not saying it's right, just that this is the way it is), coupled with the fact that, as you said, a family values candidate with a pregnant teen was running for a very high profile position, I think that they easily could have predicted that her family life would be subject to a higher degree of scrutiny.


i actually disagree.

Palin was a piece of red meat thrown to the anti-abortion base -- a woman who chose to take her child to term despite him having D.S., and a pregnant teenager who likewise had her baby. it was a big family, too.

all of this is more proof of the fact that Palin is an empty suit with absolutely no substance whatsoever beyond image, and the fact that she has made this tabloid Letterman nonsense into a means of getting back into the news cycle is further proof of the fact that Sarah Palin belongs on a reality show and not in elected office.

her appeal to the base was based upon looks and lifestyle and her seeming "embodiment" of the anti-abortion ethos.
 
I think she added some ultra right that didn't care about her experience or abilities as a leader, but then took away a lot of independents.

But that's still not my point, fguy seemed to think every single one of those votes was a ringing endorcement for HER, and I highly doubt that.

On balance I thought Obama/Biden were the better team, but a 6% margin of victory for them just a few weeks after the disastrous collapse of Lehmann and collapsing financial markets in general together wit plenty of media gaffes and negative stories involving Palin - some of her own making due to political naivete, granted - was hardly the ringing repudiation of McCain/Palin that some here predicted. By historical standards, the result was relatively close. If the election had occured two months earlier, who knows.

Clearly, however, the figures are wrong, because we have already been informed that Palin is no damn good because:

(1) Women (all women) are embarassed by her as they think she's thick stupid.
(2) She doesn't earn as much as those Wall Street type that caused the collapses I already mentioned.
 
btw, i fully hope that Palin wins the '12 GOP nomination.

particularly when Biden retires and HRC takes the VP slot, Obama won't have to spend any time campaigning and he'll be able to just show up for a couple of debates and that will be that.
 
On balance I thought Obama/Biden were the better team, but a 6% margin of victory for them just a few weeks after the disastrous collapse of Lehmann and collapsing financial markets in general together wit plenty of media gaffes and negative stories involving Palin -


this is another misunderstanding that's been peddled by the Right to explain McCain's trouncing (by a black man, no less) and it's been offered up in here by people like STING.

the McCain/Palin decline and the Obama rise started before the Lehman collapse, and the further rise by Obama was augmented by McCain's whole "i'm going to suspend my campaign" rhetoric that gave off the very accurate impression that he was erratic and out-of-touch.

the financial crisis was an opportunity for both candidates, one aced it and the other ran around like grandpa Walnuts after a few glasses of Scotch.
 
Clearly, however, the figures are wrong, because we have already been informed that Palin is no damn good because:

(1) Women (all women) are embarassed by her as they think she's thick stupid.
(2) She doesn't earn as much as those Wall Street type that caused the collapses I already mentioned.


Neither one of these were stated, and like I said before you need to talk to Oscar about why her earnings were important.
 
i actually disagree.

Palin was a piece of red meat thrown to the anti-abortion base -- a woman who chose to take her child to term despite him having D.S., and a pregnant teenager who likewise had her baby. it was a big family, too.

all of this is more proof of the fact that Palin is an empty suit with absolutely no substance whatsoever beyond image, and the fact that she has made this tabloid Letterman nonsense into a means of getting back into the news cycle is further proof of the fact that Sarah Palin belongs on a reality show and not in elected office.

her appeal to the base was based upon looks and lifestyle and her seeming "embodiment" of the anti-abortion ethos.

Even if for the sake of argument, that is true, doesn't the fact that the Obama/Biden margin of victory was not that high show that the anti-abortion base is far larger in the US in general than is represented, for example, here on FYM?

Also, in relation to looks....personally, I don't really fancy her at all - but look at the telegenic male Democrat candidates that have been selected in various elections. And Hillary is certainly not bad looking. Looks are going to be a factor in a television based culture - perhaps it's why the likes of Kucinch never gains traction. In any case, it seems silly to suggest it's only conservatives that vote partly based on looks and appearance. It couldn't be that liberals constantly raising her looks against her is an example of latent misogyny, now, could it?
 
this is another misunderstanding that's been peddled by the Right to explain McCain's trouncing (by a black man, no less) and it's been offered up in here by people like STING.

the McCain/Palin decline and the Obama rise started before the Lehman collapse, and the further rise by Obama was augmented by McCain's whole "i'm going to suspend my campaign" rhetoric that gave off the very accurate impression that he was erratic and out-of-touch.

the financial crisis was an opportunity for both candidates, one aced it and the other ran around like grandpa Walnuts after a few glasses of Scotch.

I remember STING2 raising the point - it's one of the few occasions I agreed with him.

In relation to your your last point, that does not make sense, as the financial crisis happened on a Republican president's watch, so immediately handed the opportunity to the Democratic candidate.
 
Saint Barack had no executive experience before taking up the office of POTUS, and earlier in his career seemingly had no more ambition than to become a 'community organiser'.

Don't be foolish. Anyone who was uncomfortable with Obama being president given his lack of experience and leadership was just letting their inherent racist beliefs get the best of them. :tsk:
 
Purely because this earnings issue seems very, very important to you, I have to point out that her lifetime earnings were most likely higher, or at least on a par with, Obama, before he wrote his book.

They are not of any concern to me whatsoever, in fact I never even wondered what they were until purpleoscar walked in here and said that people (women?) had an issue with her because she had a high salary.

Feel free to read the thread back if you're confused here.
 
Yeah that's not a great example. It takes awhile to surf the net for old stuff. Here are some other examples:

Why aren't women furious about Sarah Palin? | Salon Life
You missed an important clue from the author profile at the bottom there:
Cintra Wilson's new book, "Caligula for President: Better American Living Through Tyranny," will be in bookstores this October.
What Wilson is known for is over-the-top absurdist, savagely funny pieces meant primarily to entertain. She's not exactly a 'comedy writer' per se, and I don't doubt her sincere loathing of Palin, but this isn't by any stretch meant as an earnest, sober piece of 'feminist analysis,' and Wilson would roar with laughter at any attempts to discuss it as such.

More to the point, though--
Again, what do either of those links have to do with what you were actually being asked about, by several of us, which was your assertion that:


There were feminists that used sexist arguments against Palin running like that she couldn't have kids and run at the same time. That's old news.

I still don't see where you've answered this. Whether 'feminism' necessarily entails a commitment to a liberal economic agenda specifically might be a worthwhile discussion at some point, but it's not the one you were responding to.

Second Wave feminism was indeed historically associated in the political sphere with Democrats, and for obvious reasons--the Republicans were (among other things) the party of social and cultural conservatism, and women moving en masse into the workplace, availing themselves of contraception, etc. obviously didn't fit too well with that agenda. Things have changed, of course--the aforementioned two shifts have now attained near-universal acceptance, something they certainly didn't have yet in the '60s--but there's a decades-old legacy of party affiliation involved by now, and conservative failures to accept the inevitable and make it their own earlier on have as much to do with that as anything else.
John Roberts is not a conservative. He's an ex-Muchmusic VJ. Anyways the Republican response corrected him.

Those articles hint that you have to support liberal social projects to be a true feminist and to be supportive of equal rights for women?
Again the syllogistic fallacy here. You seem to want to blame liberals for whatever perceptions exist that 'feminism' essentially entails a liberal economic agenda, but then you also seem to want to say that because so-and-so isn't a conservative, then s/he must be a 'feminist,' so that you can claim them as support for your 'feminists attacked Palin for being a working mother' argument.
 
I am so grateful Sarah Palin's title is not "Vice President."

Oh, and If I'm up late enough, I'll still check out Letterman.
 
They are not of any concern to me whatsoever, in fact I never even wondered what they were until purpleoscar walked in here and said that people (women?) had an issue with her because she had a high salary.

Feel free to read the thread back if you're confused here.

I know it was Purpleoscar that initally raised the point about her salary, but $125k a year is actually a very high salary by most peoples' standards and probably goes a lot further in Alaska than New York, and no offense, but I would guess that professional Manhattanites are not very typical of average Americans in terms of either earnings or social and cultural attitudes. Plus, her husband is most likely a high earner (works for BP as an oil-field production operator and has his own business also), so their joint earnings are way, way higher than the average American family. So, the examples you raised from your personal experience don't necessarily delegitimise Purpleoscar's point (which, for the record, I don't particularly agree with or disagree with).
 
Yeah that's not a great example. It takes awhile to surf the net for old stuff. Here are some other examples:

And neither were these. If this theory of yours were true, it wouldn't be so hard for you to find examples and you haven't even found one.

You bought into Rush's middle school they're "jus jellus"(thanks vintage) mentality. Grown men should come up with adult theories.

And I think it's fair to say your theory holds no water for you couldn't come up with one example and you got spanked.
 
Therein lies the chaism seperating two schools of thought of-

Liberalism vs Conservatism:

One finds describing a public polictical person's behavorial traits (who can defend herself) equal to or as same joking about the subject of potentially raping a teenage girl, and besmirching her character on national TV-(who can't defend herself).

One is much more grievous than the other.

It's that simple.

<>

I don't think that's quite fair.

I think it's better to say that the difference between liberalism and conservativism is that the former largely operates in a land of make believe and fantasy, of nice but ultimately unrealistic ideas, and the latter sees the world as it really is and tries to make gradual, subtle and sensible improvements to citizens' and families' everyday lives that ultimately work better than what the liberal dreamers dream up. (I exclude revolutionary neo-cons such as Bush/Cheney from my definition of conservatism.) Liberals (as properly defined) tend to go for revolutionary changes, conservatives (as properly defined) are always and everywhere sceptical of revolutionary change.

Sometimes, liberals get it right, and should be given credit for so doing, but unfortunately it would be remiss of me not to point out that most revolutionary change leads to at best, a mess, and at worst, a disaster.

The reason why I'm at core a conservative and not a liberal is ulimately at core the same reason I hate neoconservatism - because of my scepticism, always and everywhere, of revolutionary change. The history of the last two centuries, in my opinion, is excellent backing for my 'philosophy', such as it is.
 
^ Would you consider national independence movements 'revolutionary'?

Actually, if anything I had the general impression that you're a rather idealistic person in your own way. Perhaps that's just a major misread.
 
^ Would you consider national independence movements 'revolutionary'?

I would argue that national independence movements are largely restorationist, rather than revolutionary - and hence inherently conservative. To me, it's an inherently conservative idea that the people originally from a particular land have the best claims to govern and regulate life on that land. It seems strange to me that historically, and probably still, it appears to be mainly left wing people that get involved with national independence movements, though in some ways it also makes sense. I think left wing ideology has majorly messed up some legitimate national independence movements, especially in Ireland. Possibly Zimbabwe and South Africa too, now that I come to think of it.

^ Actually, if anything I had the general impression that you're a rather idealistic person in your own way. Perhaps that's just a major misread.

I think the Myers-Briggs model is interesting in regard to this. I am borderline INTJ/INTP with slightly expressed 'judging'...but the direction of the preferences is said to be more important that the magnitude of preference...in other words, for J's, head rules heart.

Just to mention in passing, if it is the case that you read me as an idealist because of my agreement with or quoting of some 'libertarian conservative' or 'old right' types of ideas, I don't think it's for any idealistic reasons, I think it's because I reckon it's rationally the best way. Of course, I could be wrong. :wink:
 
And neither were these. If this theory of yours were true, it wouldn't be so hard for you to find examples and you haven't even found one.

You bought into Rush's middle school they're "jus jellus"(thanks vintage) mentality. Grown men should come up with adult theories.

And I think it's fair to say your theory holds no water for you couldn't come up with one example and you got spanked.

Well then who the hell are they responding to here?

Clinton aides: Palin treatment sexist - John F. Harris and Beth Frerking - Politico.com

It's hard to find old examples. Do I have to pay for lexus nexus?

I don't think John Roberts was just talking for himself. It probably was an early talking point that got slammed by the conservatives, before Palin was considered stupid and they ran with that. I don't think they were responding to nothing out of the air.
 
Well then who the hell are they responding to here?

Clinton aides: Palin treatment sexist - John F. Harris and Beth Frerking - Politico.com

It's hard to find old examples. Do I have to pay for lexus nexus?

I don't think John Roberts was just talking for himself. It probably was an early talking point that got slammed by the conservatives, before Palin was considered stupid and they ran with that. I don't think they were responding to nothing out of the air.

No, I'm not disagreeing with you that Palin may have gotten some sexist treatment, I still think unfortunately that we're in a day and age that women leaders will be treated different, I think that's a sad reflection on America actually if other countries have had female leaders for decades. But your premise was that it was coming from feminists, and I find that to be faulty logic.

The fact that she has a special needs child I think was at the core of most of these arguments, and for her it IS a double edged sword. In fact that issue did come up from people on both sides. The reason it's a double edged sword is purely based on the reason that conservatives have for a long time and still do to a point speak from a platform about "family values" and how the mother should be there to raise the child. It's one of the reasons many push for home schooling, it's one of the reasons that Murphy Brown was turned into an issue(and apparently still is according to a poster in here), and it's one of the reasons they are against gay adoption. So when you compile all of these angles that conservatives have been pushing for so long you can see how their automatic admiration towards Palin can come off as hypocritical...
 
the latter sees the world as it really is and tries to make gradual, subtle and sensible improvements to citizens' and families' everyday lives that ultimately work better than what the liberal dreamers dream up.

Is it not also fair to say that if we sat around waiting for conservatives to make gradual, subtle and sensible improvements to everyday lives, who knows when women would get to vote, blacks would get to sit at the front of the bus, and gays would get the right to have sex without being thrown in jail on sodomy charges?

Time waits for no man.
 
Personally, I simply cannot fucking believe you people.

Letterman's a comedian, so he made jokes, which are tame by today's standards, and were actually more A-Rod/Spitzer jokes than 14-year-old Willow jokes. We're calling rape, prostitution... both wildly inaccurate. Anyway, he's apologized. Why is this still an issue? And people want him fired? God bless America. :|

How precious are we? Honestly. Harden the fuck up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom