June 14, 2009

Let's read Andrew Sullivan's new Sarah Palin post.

Here's the post:
It's getting worse. This is a classic:
"The Palins have no intention of providing a ratings boost for David Letterman by appearing on his show. Plus, it would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman," PalinPAC spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton said Wednesday.
So Letterman is a child abuser for making a tasteless joke?
Sullivan seems to miss that Stapleton just made a child-rape joke. It's a joke! Well, it's a joke is not an apt excuse — is it? — when the joke is supposed to work based on a shared belief about the butt of it.

Stapleton's joke depends on seeing Letterman as someone who's enthused about the rape of children — or at least the children of politicians we don't like. By the same token, Letterman's joke worked to the extent that the audience shares the belief that Palin's daughter is a big slut.

Neither joke is any damned good. Letterman is a creep for making a girl the butt of his joke, and Stapleton is an idiot for trying to show that she can joke too and cranking out another dose of child-rape humor.
But the surrealism and narcissism of the Wasilla nutcase is what stands out:
"First, remember in the campaign, Barack Obama said, 'Family's off limits. You don't talk about my family.' "And the candidate who must be obeyed, everybody adhered to that and they did leave his family alone. They haven't done that on the other side of the ticket and it has continued to this day so that's a political double standard."
So brandishing a special needs infant as a campaign prop was putting your family off-limits? Pushing your own daughter into the klieglights to divert attention from your own fantastic lies is family-protective? Pushing Bristol Palin into an absurd abstinence campaign to gin up support from the Christianist right is looking after your kids? Palin reaps what she sows. And she clings to any whisp of victimhood like the attention-starved celebreality star she really is.
Now, this is absurd. Nearly all politicians display their families. Do they brandish them? Brandish means to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly/to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner. Occasionally, one reads of some criminal swinging a baby around like a cudgel, but with politicians, the displaying of the family is non-aggressive and without any weapon connotations. Obama displayed and continues to display Sasha and Malia in the conventional political way, and I'm sure Sullivan would be steamed if anyone mocked them or said anything sexual about them.

Bristol Palin's abstinence effort seems pretty silly to me too, but there's no reason to view that as opening her up to all sorts of vicious mockery. She found herself in an awfully uncomfortable spot. It's embarrassing enough for a teenager to become pregnant by accident, but to endure this in the crossfire of a political campaign had to be excruciating. But she put up with it somehow, didn't take the out of abortion, kept smiling, and tried to turn herself into a good lesson for others. How is this sowing something that she deserves to reap?

Or — oh — it's Palin who reaps what she sows. Is the girl not a person worthy of any regard? What did the girl do? "Family's off limits. You don't talk about my family." Obama said that. It was intended to bind his harshest opponents to a standard of behavior. Sullivan offers absolutely no reason why the same principle does not protect Palin's family.

And why should the governor of a state be called an "attention-starved celebreality star"? Is it because you don't respect her as a politician? You might call everyone with the nerve to run for President/Vice President an attention-starved celebreality star, but the fact is you don't. Apparently, it's because she's got kids who do things that you think we can sit back and view as objects of idle amusement. If anyone is to be a politician — in your nasty little world — their kids better toe the line and stay perfectly prim and healthy and smart (or hide).

226 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 226 of 226
Wally Ballou said...

Folks - I think I have never commented here before, but I must say - some of you are amazing troll feeders. Those of you who attempt to engage "Jeremy" are giving him exactly what he wants. It is troll heaven! As long as it goes on, he can preen that he is "correcting" all the wingnuts - you can all aim arguments, whether well-thought-out arguments or hasty blurts, it doesn't matter - why would he change his mind or tactics? Do you expect a conversion ("Oh, my God, you are all right! What a fool I've been")? Real trolls are like one of those Star Trek creatures or the "Id monster" from "Forbidden Planet" - beings who feed on negative energy and get stronger. It really is possible not to respond.

Tom DesJardins said...

"And I notice you can't defend this twerp's ridiculous notion that others should not do what she herself does. (As usual)

Hypocritical wingnut."

I would read your own words again and give it some thought as it makes you sound totally ignorant (and I am sure you are not). I would wager that you haven't had teenage children yet.

The irony of doing not-so-smart things as a pre-adult and then trying to keep your kids from doing the same thing after becoming a parent has been in existence since the beginning of civilization. Please allow Palin to be parent and a part of the human race without being called hypocritical.

I promise that you will understand that the term "hypocritical" does not apply if and when you ever have teennagers.

Tom
- Father of four (none teenagers yet, but thinking hard about what is coming soon)

jms said...

I assumed that the intent of Stapleton's joke was that it would be wise to keep Willow Palin away from David Letterman because she would have beaten the crap out of him, not because he would have assaulted her.

I thought it was a brilliant way for the Palins to remove Willow from "timid victim" status and empowering her, by implying to the press and public that she was fully capable of taking care of herself -- with her fists and fingernails -- if necessary -- and ready to do so if not "kept away" from David Letterman.

Michael said...

Here's another minor but telling Sullivanism: he published a reader's letter slamming CNN for not covering Iran's post-election riots, then slamming National Review Online for only one item while he, the great Andy, had had a zillion posts about it by then. (Bloggers aren't the same as 24-hour news networks, I would have thought, but never let something like that stand in the way of internet triumphalism:

"And I realize that it's the weekend and they usually take the weekend off, but over at NRO, the only thing they've managed to post about Iran today is a link to Daniel Pipes' piece cheering on an Ahmadinejad victory because otherwise his dream of a massive Israeli air assault would be dashed. That's it...a staff of 10+ regular bloggers, and all they can come up with in the midst of an Iranian revolution is a single piece cheering for the status quo?

"Thank God that you, Juan, and Josh are on the story.

"There's a reason the MSM is in trouble."

(the last was Andy, the first two grafs the reader)

Except... it's wrong. In an obvious and simple way. Go find the Pipes item at NRO and it is immediately preceded by FOUR, count 'em four, Iran items.

I kinda think the MSM would have at least checked before running it, whatever their other and many faults. There's a reason no one trusts Andrew Sullivan....

Jim said...

April -

Andrew Sullivan is a lapdog for the Obama administration. He was the one they emailed to start this whole Trig Trutherism, so he will carry their water as far as they ask him to go.

He is a narcissist who feeds on feeling like an important man. The Obama campaign knew this, so it made him an integral part of their underground AstroTurfing.

He famously broke with the Bush administration over the issue of gay marriage, but look how he defends Obama's position against gay marriage and in support of DOMA. He's not an ideological bigot: he's a crass opportunist.

He was a vocal supporter of Bush until it was unpopular to be one, and he'll be a vocal supporter of Obama right up until the day that there's more profit and prestige in opposing him.

Anyone still reading him is a fool.

Unknown said...

I'll bet Letterman was relieved that Todd Palin won't be appearing on the show. Todd might be inclined to smack the sick jerk upside the head. I know I would if a moron made a comment like that about my daughter on national tv.

WiseGuise said...

To ricpic and others who yearn for the days of socially enforced abstinence through general condemnation of sexual behavior, how did that differ from the slut-shaming you now decry? In the old days, everyone was nice about it? Abstinence education now does not include slut-shaming? You don't do any slut-shaming? You aren't hypocritical? I'm not? What?

Fred4Pres said...

When Obama sells Iranian students and political opposition out and throws them under his bus, will Andrew reocognize he screwd up?

Nah. Maybe a post or two, but he is too tightly wound for any real self reflection.

technogypsy said...

Ann,

Maybe I'm just a dumb hick, but I took it as a joke that Willow wanted to smack Letterman around for what he said and probably could. Implying Letterman is such a wimp that a 14 year old girl could kick his ass.

I am not surprised at Sullivan but I am that you took it as a child molester joke. Unless I read the post wrong. (I refuse to read Sullivan's blog. It rots the mind).

Anthony said...

Like most, I came to the blogosphere thanks to Sullivan. I continued reading his material but at some point stopped, I believe around the time he became obsessed with Sarah Palin's uterus.

My theory with Sullivan is that he was head over heels for Bush then turned against him. I can understand that -- the GOP began to attack gays in a way that was purely for political benefit.

Then he fell in love with Obama. Completely head over heels. So he now feels the need to swing widely in that direction, for nothing else but to atone for his earlier sins.

I mean, this is a guy who was basically calling for blood in the aftermath of 9/11. He was a big cheerleader for the Iraq invasion (and I think part of my support for the invasion came from Sullivan's writings). He does not really talk about that now does he?

So in order to change the subject, he asked pointed questions on Palin's uterus.

LoafingOaf said...

There's that stupid meme again. No, she was not found to have lied a lot. You are either gullible or disingenuous, and it doesn't actually matter much which one.

You must be one of those people who only reads web sites that tell you what you wanna hear, because Palin was found to tell lots of lies on a regular basis. You have Google, and the articles and blog posts that documented her lies are still out there.

LoafingOaf said...

You mean outside of the current President, right? The press has been infamously incurious about him and his family.

The media can't protect Obama to the extent you guys think. The right wing was busy digging for dirt on Obama, including on his family (there was nothing to dig for with respect to his kids, but they were focusing on other family members). When they found something negative on Obama that could stick, such as the hateful rhetoric of Rev. Wright, it got into the mainstream. When they were manufacturing B.S., such as the accusation widely-held in right-wing circles that Obama is not a U.S. citizen, it didn't get much further than the right-wing web sites and right-wing radio programs.

Also, the mainstream media did protect Palin's family from a lot of the stuff swirling around out there. They didn't give the NAtional Enquirer's article alleging all kinds of drug abuse amongst Palin's children much play, for example. Like when the Enquirer claimed Track PAlin was joining the military as a result of OxyContin abuse. Another example: They went along with Sarah Palin trying to pretend Levi Johnston and Brisol Palin couldn't wait to get married and spend the rest of their lives together, when it was obvious that engagement would fall apart the moment Palin lost the election.

LoafingOaf said...

Wally: This blogpost was sorta trollish from Althouse. She wanted to sock Sullivan because he was mean to her pal, InstaPundit, the other day. InstaPundit then linked to this post claiming Sullivan was hit "hard", which I don't think is accurate but Althouse gave InstaPundit the chance to claim that after he was feeling stung by Sullivan's hit the other day.

See, these bloggers are all on "teams", and the hidden motives behind some of their posts are related to that.

Scott said...

Peg C. writes:

"Sarah Palin is a much bigger and better woman than Sullivan will ever be."

She's probably more of a man than Sullivan will ever be, too.

Shanna said...

Another Palin thread to hit 200! It's amazing how much fervor she draws. I'm with Palladian in that I will always defend her against these filthy attacks (I found the entire election season disgusting), but I wasn't impressed enough with her political chops to be interested in supporting her for the Presidency at this time. Maybe with more seasoning she will grow, who knows. She has time.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

"because Palin was found to tell lots of lies on a regular basis. You have Google, and the articles and blog posts that documented her lies are still out there."

Yeah. You can't come up with "lots of lies" so you direct me to Google.

I think you just proved my point.

doodlebug said...

When Obama said that children were off limits he was talking about Palin's children. He had been asked a question about Bristol's pregnancy and he responded by saying "people's families are off limits and people's children are especially off limits". He refused to comment about Palin's child. Why do you people repeat the distortion of his position trying to make it look as if he was only concerned about his own family?

Synova said...

Right, Obama was talking about Palin's children...

But he couldn't make it stick.

This is one case where I really wish his followers would take what he said to heart. It's really a very simple standard to apply.

Love said...

HA!!!!

This is funny.

Just me said...

Palin reaps what she sows.

Actually, I don't think this is an unfair comment. Trig was paraded around, and included in almost all of her election speeches, while Bristol and her pregnancy almost made center stage at the convention. I remember telling my Mom that this was going to backfire - with the children being the ones who got hurt. It's always best to have the children in the background (a picture communicates a thousand words) rather than vocally in speeches and interviews.

Also, I do have to question the Governor's honesty in this debate. If she really wants to protect her children -- why would she allow Bristol to keep doing these horrible interviews and go to work for the (sex obsessed) Candies company? Ask yourself: would you allow your kids to do this? I certainly would not.

Unknown said...

Hey, to Sully, Sarah Palin is just an icky girl.

Kevin said...

For the Palin bashers, Palin supporters and Palin fence sitters, here is an excellent article on Sarah Palin:

The Meaning of Sarah Palin by Yuval Levin of Commentary Magazine

Anonymous said...

This post shows why our readers nominate you ever year to be the Grande Conservative Blogress Diva. You command the respect of responsible gay men by telling it like it is.

Kudos.

I should buy you a martini just to celebrate this (most) excellent post, taking someone to task for taking his obsession with a strong women to the extreme.

And I thought gay men loved strong women. (Maybe that's why he has to try to hard to smear her; he has to fight his nature inclination to admire her, but she's an evil Republican and must thus be dissed.)

Rocky2 said...

DAVID LETTERMAN'S HATE, ETC. !

David Letterman's hate is as old as some ancient Hebrew prophets.
Speaking of anti-Semitism, it's Jerry Falwell and other fundy leaders who've gleefully predicted that in the future EVERY nation will be against Israel (an international first?) and that TWO-THIRDS of all Jews will be killed, right?
Wrong! It's the ancient Hebrew prophet Zechariah who predicted all this in the 13th and 14th chapters of his book! The last prophet, Malachi, explains the reason for this future Holocaust that'll outdo even Hitler's by stating that "Judah hath dealt treacherously" and "the Lord will cut off the man that doeth this" and asks "Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?"
Haven't evangelicals generally been the best friends of Israel and Jewish persons? Then please explain the recent filthy, hate-filled, back-stabbing tirades by David Letterman (and Sandra Bernhard) against a leading evangelical named Sarah Palin, and explain why most Jewish leaders have seemingly condoned Palin's continuing "crucifixion"!
While David and Sandra are tragically turning comedy into tragedy, they are also helping to speed up and fulfill the Final Holocaust a la Zechariah and Malachi, thus helping to make the Bible even more believable!
(For even more stunning information, visit MSN and type in "Separation of Raunch and State" and "Bible Verses Obama Avoids.")

Gaius Petronius said...

You are wrong on the facts. Palin put her kids out there in a way no prior major Presidential politician ever has. She used her infant child and her 18 year old daughter for an abstinence campaign.

You may like her. You may want to defend her. But she made the choice to use her family. And Sullivan is wrote: Palin reaps what she sows.

Rocky2 said...

DAVID LETTERMAN'S HATE, ETC. !

David Letterman's hate is as old as some ancient Hebrew prophets.
Speaking of anti-Semitism, it's Jerry Falwell and other fundy leaders who've gleefully predicted that in the future EVERY nation will be against Israel (an international first?) and that TWO-THIRDS of all Jews will be killed, right?
Wrong! It's the ancient Hebrew prophet Zechariah who predicted all this in the 13th and 14th chapters of his book! The last prophet, Malachi, explains the reason for this future Holocaust that'll outdo even Hitler's by stating that "Judah hath dealt treacherously" and "the Lord will cut off the man that doeth this" and asks "Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?"
Haven't evangelicals generally been the best friends of Israel and persons perceived to be Jewish? Then please explain the recent filthy, hate-filled, back-stabbing tirades by David Letterman (and Sandra Bernhard and Kathy Griffin) against a leading evangelical named Sarah Palin, and explain why most Jewish leaders have seemingly condoned Palin's continuing "crucifixion"!
While David, Sandra, and Kathy are tragically turning comedy into tragedy, they are also helping to speed up and fulfill the Final Holocaust a la Zechariah and Malachi, thus helping to make the Bible even more believable!
(For even more stunning information, visit MSN and type in "Separation of Raunch and State" and "Bible Verses Obama Avoids.")

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 226 of 226   Newer› Newest»