Here's the transcript — as printed in Huffington Post, missing innumerable commas and periods, because you wouldn't want to interfere with the incoherent-rant feeling HuffPo readers crave when the speaker is dumb, crazy Sarah.
Let's watch the whole thing:
ADDED: The Politico's headline is "Sarah Palin resigns, blasts press, 'starlets.'" Now, here's the text in the speech with the word "starlets":
Let me tell you, Alaskans really need to stick together on this with new leadership in this area especially, encouraging new leadership... got to stiffen your spine to do what's right for Alaska when the pressure mounts, because you're going to see anti-hunting, anti-second amendment circuses from Hollywood and here's how they do it. They use these delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets, they use Alaska as a fundraising tool for their anti-second amendment causes. Stand strong, and remind them patriots will protect our guaranteed, individual right to bear arms, and by the way, Hollywood needs to know, we eat, therefore we hunt.In the effort to make Palin look bad, Politico exposes itself as a poor (or dishonest) reader. Palin doesn't "blast" "starlets" at all. She says that "They use these delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets..." Who are "they"? "Anti-hunting, anti-second amendment circuses from Hollywood." She's talking about powerful media elites, not the "delicate, tiny, very talented" young people they use to convey their message.
It's compelling when a beautiful woman (Palin) seems to criticize other beautiful women (the starlets), so it's important to get it straight. Palin is — or at least appears to be — conveying her own message, but the starlets she criticizes are — as she puts it — used by others. Also, the starlets are "delicate" and "tiny," but Palin is... oh, maybe she too is delicate and tiny! But she is minimizing them, both in their individual agency and in their size. Now, there's implicit criticism in there, but she is blasting Hollywood generally, not the starlets. She's needling the starlets a bit.
Posts
217 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 217 of 217Jim - a typical troll tactic is to go 'round and 'round the mulberry bush to tire you out. They never admit facts in evidence, and so they tirelessly keep astroturfing the ACORN line.
Jim - please just ignore the trolls. They don't offer anything to the debate. They exist to feed negative energy into the process. I believe some of them may be paid ACORN astroturfers.
So instead of actually trying to win a debate, calling names and making up conspiracies is your calling card. That's real lazy. I don't agree with Jim, but at least he's got the backbone to talk to someone he doesn't agree with.
There is a middle ground for me as well. MEE!!!
I have voted for many fiscal conservatives. William Weld, Paul Cellucci, Mitt Romney, and Rudy.
The thing is I doubt a fiscal conservative republican can not win in the republican primary states because of the large social conservative turnout.
The social conservative stuff just doesnt jive with me.
I don't like higher taxes or government interference in anything. I am a self made man, who likes it that way, and don't want to pay taxes for a bunch of social services.
I also like Sarah's tits and enjoy watching her. I don't agree with her on much but I find her interesting, exotic and hot. Todd I do not find hot. He is too white. Not much into white guys.
Bill Whittle has an excellent take on the Palin resignation.
My apology if someone already linked it. The thread has gotten a little tedious.
Here's the dirty little secret about social conservatives: mostly they just want to be left alone.
They become politically active mainly when they perceive a threat to the values, much as those on the Left do when the issues of abortion, gay rights, or gun control arise. They are simply mirror images of each other.
A social conservative will vote for a fiscal conservative provided that fiscal conservative doesn't threaten their way of life. You don't have to be a fundamentalist to win social conservatives: you just have to promise to leave them alone....and mean it.
@Jim, actually I left Maryland. I couldn't take the politics one more day.
Virginia has a real two party system at work. I'm not enthused by Kaine, but next to O'Malley ...
I don't agree with Jim, but at least he's got the backbone to talk to someone he doesn't agree with.
And so do you. Which is good. I just wish your mind was a little more open.
Big Mike -
"Virginia has a real two party system at work. I'm not enthused by Kaine, but next to O'Malley ..."
We're leaving as soon as my wife finishes her degree too...The tax burden here is way too crazy, and the politics? Let's not even get me started on that....
And so do you. Which is good. I just wish your mind was a little more open.
I'm not sure about what. Most of America agrees with me as to our respective opinions about Palin, and that includes a good deal of Republicans. If its not about Palin, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Well, Invisible, since you asked. You cannot seem to get your head around the notion that Sarah Palin found herself tied in knots, unable to function as a governor, and in danger of being bankrupted by the ethics issues, which you characterize as being "a bit overboard," which IMHO is a terrible understatement. You seem to think it's about the same as being the butt of negative press, and it's an order of magnitude worse.
You compare Palin negatively to Churchill, but I'm pretty familiar with his term of office as Prime Minister, and I don't recollect his political opponents setting out to make it impossible for him to do his work.
Perhaps you'll be a little more sympathetic when our side tries out the same tactics. Where do you live? Can we target your governor?
To echo what I wrote much earlier in the day, I think the jury is still out on Sarah Palin's leadership potential. She was unprepared for John McCain making her his VP candidate, but she won't necessarily be that way forever and ever. My mind, in other words, is still open. You think what you see in front of you today is the way it will be now and forever. Your mind is shut tight.
And as for your comments yesterday on Gates-gate, I think you looked at the respective skin colors and your mind shut tight.
Synova
Your view reminds me of an Academic argument that tries to fit in every shade of gray possible.
Okay, maybe Palin will benefit from resigning early.
My point is admittedly a black and white one. But that's the reality of politics; you either win or you lose elections. No in between.
My main point is simply in my opinion it is not considered politically smart to resign mid term as opposed to staying on through the end of your term. But maybe her move is brilliant. We shall see.
Jim
[sigh]
You sure do like to make Palin a victim. She was poked with sticks! Hilarious.
Anyway, Obama didn't resign thus blemishing his record. Palin did. So the argument that he wasn't a model of stability is untrue. Obama was not highly qualified, true, but the way he ran his campaign [or the perception anyway] was pretty impressive. That is a sign of stability.
Also, the time line for running for President is longer than the time I mentioned, yes. But most don't really rev it up until two years before election day. And more years with experience sans a puzzling resignation isn't a bad thing.
I'm curious has any politician every resigned like this and come back to win a major office? I'm sure there are some but it was probably before major media world we live in.
Anyway, yes, this is all my opinion but is your view anything other than your opinion
I know we can both find allies to support our beliefs. I take Ed Rollins [GOP strategist] who says this makes her seem 'inept' and 'kooky'. Or another Republican friend of mine who simply said it would have been better for her to have finished out her term. He is convinced she is toast. I am too.
But I'd prefer Romney to her anyway. But I'm not a Republican so it's not my say. I would hope you would choose Palin [if she runs] because she would lose in a landslide. Romney, however, would make it interesting. [My that's my opinion].
@Matt, or maybe her move was not brilliant, but the best move that she could make under the circumstances. You have to play the hand you're dealt.
The brilliant move would have been to turn down McCain last summer, but it's a little late for that.
Well, Invisible, since you asked. You cannot seem to get your head around the notion that Sarah Palin found herself tied in knots, unable to function as a governor, and in danger of being bankrupted by the ethics issues, which you characterize as being "a bit overboard," which IMHO is a terrible understatement. You seem to think it's about the same as being the butt of negative press, and it's an order of magnitude worse.
Mike, none of this is objectively true. Yeah, she was tied in knots with her legislature, but how is that different from a number of situations. Getting out of knots is part of the job of a leader. I'd say that Arnold in CA has a much rougher time with his political environment yet he doesn't HAVE to quit. And I can give other examples that were much worse like Clinton post-94' or Mark Warner in his term in Virginia. As to the bankruptcy charge, that's been thoroughly debunked by every news source as to both the amount that she quoted and the that she actually had to pay for something.
And the ethics investigation is rough, but look at Arkansas politics where Huckabee and Clinton received much worse in terms of scrutiny and trumped up bs.
Again, Mike, I'm not saying that she didn't walk into a much tougher job when she came back to Alaska. And I'm not saying that maybe she shouldn't have quit for her or her family's sake. But she is not facing some insurmountable problem that no one has ever faced.
The real problem here is expectations that are being set for her, which are unfair and aren't my sides fault. Palin's admirers think that she is Presidential timber and believe that she would be best suited for that job. If you do that, you are setting high expectations for the ability, character and perseverance that is required to be President. And her actions just don't fit the description of what we expect in a President.
If you can keep an open mind you know that it can't be easy for Obama, even if you Mike believe any of these things, to hear that your a socialist, your wife hates America, your mother is some liar who faked your birth certificate, your a racist, your a bigot or any of the other things slung at him. But we can't afford him to complain about this stuff. He has to keep performing at his job and not even consider quitting because its too rough. That's the expectation.
"You have a potential candidate who can't take being poked with a proverbial stick, that's ludicrous. "
Completely false.
Defending herself from these ridiculous ethics charges has cost Palin -personally- $500,000 dollars.
This is well documented as the Gov has to use personal funds to defend herself and cannot have the state either pay the costs, defray the costs or defend her against these charges.
Have YOU got $500k to spend like this? With no end in sight?
Additionally the supposed "neutral investigator" is a dedicated Democrat who is employed by a legal firm that is contracted by the Alaska Democrat party.
Frankly the arguments used so far against Palin have been idiotic and deserve the contempt I feel for them.
Alex: "In fact the left thinks they have a victory in ousting her from office with all these frivolous ethics charges. Like in Star Wars, 'if you strike me down I will become more powerful then you can possibly imagine'."
Star Wars! . . . I think that just about sums up the level of discussion here.
@Invisible, sorry for the delay in responding -- I went to bed early last night because I had an all-day meeting today (I'm on mid-afternoon break).
You wrote a long, and at first glance thoughtful, message. But I think edwardroyce and Jim -- replying to you -- at 6:39 pretty much refute your first paragraph. And the "trumped up BS" thrown at Clinton was partly patently false (that he was paid by a drug cartel to cover up some murders), false but plausible (Whitewater), and probably true (the state's largest employer arranged for Hillary to get a 10-fold return on a $10K "investment"). My sympathy is limited.
As to your Mr. Obama, I grew up driving past Altgeld Gardens -- the community he allegedly organized -- whenever I went into the city of Chicago, and there cannot be a sadder, more polluted place to live in the entire United States. Go look it up on Google Earth and you'll see what I mean. Barack Obama took over a community organization that had already been set up, and piggy-backed off already existing grass roots efforts to get asbestos cleaned up in the Altgeld Gardens public housing units. He led the negotiations with the city to get it cleaned up, resulting in an agreement with the city. But then he decamped for Harvard Law School in 1988 without seeing the project begun, much less finished. Even though Obama returned to Chicago in 1992, he is not known to have involved himself any further with Altgetld Gardens. As a consequence, as of early 2008 there were still residential units in Altgeld Gardens where the asbestos has not been removed.
So your Mr. Obama has demonstrated to my satisfaction that he has no staying power, and he does not follow through. So I don't view him as any better than Sarah Palin. In fact I view him as someone who has had it easier than Sarah Palin, and who has yet to demonstrate that he has staying power.
But as I said, I will be as open-minded about Barack Obama as I will about Sarah Palin. The vikings are supposed to have had a saying, "bless not the sword until it's broken." Who knows how people will turn out? He may surprise me; I just don't think that's the way to bet.
Post a Comment