Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Roger Ebert: Sarah Palin is just an "American Idol."

I won't go over the "Lipstick" thing since by the time you've read about Obama's insult here, you've probably read it everywhere. I will admit that it's obvious code. Obama may be an inexperienced candidate, but he's not outright dumb. He knew that dogwhistle.


Movie Critics hate Sarah Palin!

Sarah Palin is:

[T]he "American Idol" candidate. Consider. What defines an "American Idol" finalist? They're good-looking, work well on television, have a sunny personality, are fierce competitors, and so talented, why, they're darned near the real thing. There's a reason "American Idol" gets such high ratings. People identify with the contestants. They think, Hey, that could almost be me up there on that show!

And this is different from Barack Obama how, Mr. Ebert? My mind is puzzled at how the Obama-Left want to compare Obama and Palin. It really is.

Wasn't Obama the "rockstar"? That he could deliver a good speech? That he's an inspiration to so many Americans that could identify with him that "you can be anything you want to be"?

You can't accept the identity-politics of Barack Obama, and then denigrate that of Sarah Palin because she's an evil Republican! It's a losing argument.

To wit:

An Obama supporter meets someone who says "I like Obama because he's cool! He's young! He's the future!" Does that person start talking to that person about policy? Does that supporter tell this stranger "I hope you like him for more than his personal biography"? No.

Instead, they just say "Great! Tell your friends to vote! We need change from Bush!"

But if that same Obama supporter meets someone who says "I like Sarah Palin because she's cool! She's young! I like her a lot!" Would that same Obama supporter give a passing compliment or respect? "NO! SHE IS EVIL SHE WANTS TO BAN BOOKS [false] AND MAKE US A CHRISTIAN NATION [false] AND IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG FOR THIS COUNTRY [debateable, but this person isn't up for debate, mind]!"

That's how Ebert comes off. Saying one thing, but denying saying the same thing toward a comparable social reality.

You bring up sociology and Sarah Palin, you draw parallels to Barack Obama. And you look like a big, stinkin' hypocrite.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Are you KIDDING me?

Whoever created this needs to be... well... I'm too much of a lady to say.

Suffice to say, this is absolutely 100% despicable.

Someone's disgusting blog "writing" as Trig Palin.

Absolutely disgusting.

Monday, September 8, 2008

OMG! Escandalo! Sarah Palin had the State pay for her Wasilla-Juneau trips?!

DailyKos provides the hilarity.

But the Washington Post provides the meat tofu.


"The governor's daughters and husband charged the state $43,490 to travel, and many of the trips were between their house in Wasilla and Juneau, the capital city 600 miles away, the documents show."

First of all -- does anyone understand that Juneau, AK is not accessable by car or train? She's not able to hop the Amtrak like Saint Joe Biden.

What's more fun is that they attack the Palin family for writing off their childrens' travels as State expenses:

"In separate filings, the state was billed about $25,000 for Palin's daughters' expenses and $19,000 for her husband's.

Flights topped the list for the most expensive items, and the daughter whose bill was the highest was Piper, 7, whose flights cost nearly $11,000, while Willow, 14, claimed about $6,000 and Bristol, 17, accounted for about $3,400."

So let's see.

Youngest daughter has the highest expense. Second youngest, second highest. Eldest? Lowest expense.

Do we see a correlation? You elect a mother to office with young children you bet your eye that those kids will travel with her. And if Sarah Palin flies somewhere on State business (in Alaska, where air-transport is basically the only way to get around the State, no less) her children fly with her.

So what is this? Sexist double-standard. You want mom to be with the kids, but cry foul when the State -- whose population elected her knowing she's a mother -- pays to have the kids tag along.

Give me something real. "Sarah Palin uses taxpayer money to send Piper Palin to boarding school," or something real. Then we talk.

"Piper Palin flies around with mom," is a non-starter. That line is sexist, anti-woman, and anti-working mother.

In a world where "progressives" think that the private sector should afford day-care services to mothers (on their own dime) it's now suddenly fair game that a mother elected to office dare bring her children with her for the same reason.

But, it's okay to attack on this angle. After all: Sarah Palin is a Republican! And as the Obama-Left warrants: the wrong kind of woman.

Give me a break. You elect a family, you pay for a family. You elect a working mom? Working mom brings the kids. What's the "progressive" alternative? A glass ceiling for working-mom politician? "Working moms must PAY THEIR OWN WAY?"

I don't see that double-standard for working dad politicians, or the media scrutinizing their wives' travels, or his children's travels.

But then again: in the "real world" of politics, mom stays home, smiles, bakes cookies, and doesn't need to travel. Well, unless it's travelling from the kitchen to the restroom for a "short break."

Get bent.

But the Kos diary puts it best:

"This isn't the magic bullet, but it's yet another in the line of drip-drip mini-scandals that, framed correctly by the Democrats, should completely destroy Palin's claims of being a different kind of Republican.

Me? I think it's more in the line of the "drip-drip-drip" of sweatbeads running off the noses of O-Bots nationwide that are terrified of Palin-mania.

You choose.

John Aravosis is an idiot.

I want to be nice about it. I really do. But I mean, Johnny here gives me so much material. His milkshake brings me to the yard.

And yes, it's better than yours.

And yes, I realize that song is tragically old.

But ANYWAY. His latest:


Holy cripes! Snopes?! Well, I mean, now really. Well, then, next I hope he turns to Perez Hilton for his politics, because, well, gee!

Maybe next he'll link to me as the definitive source on all things true an earnest, since I'm all about debunking Sarah Palin smears. Why, I have authority!

Anyway, check this hot mess:

Check out - they are THE independent site on the Internet for snooping out urban myths - Snopes says the letter is real.

Well, let's look at the Snopes' piece, shall we?

Well, lookit that! They just re-post the e-mails. And if you parent up by clicking the "Soapbox" link at the top, what do you get in the list?

Why, this graphic.

And below the second bar expands on what that red/green logo means.

And then below the third shows how the overall story was rated.

Snopes basically confirmed Kilkenny wrote it. And that it exists. And?


Does that mean the letter has veracity? Authenticity? You think an Alaskan Maverick who made enemies within her own party and community by challenging them might not have someone willing to write a "personal letter" about the "truth" on Sarah Palin?

Yeah. 'Kay. And we all took Larry Sinclair so seriously, didn't we?

Or did we just say he was a fame-seeking nut?

Knife cuts both ways. That's not veracity. That's seeking anyone who will verify your own smears without a shed of proof, Johnny.

Even something like

So funny.

Will this go down the DKos Memory Hole, too?


From the DailyKos:

Mayor Palin Charged Victims for Their Own Rape Kits.

Yep! There's the headline! Now for the nuance.

The diarist quotes an article from the Frontiersman in 2000:

"Gov. Tony Knowles recently signed legislation protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for tests to collect evidence of the crime, but one local police chief said the new law will further burden taxpayers.

While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.

Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams."

But here's the fun admission:

"Sarah Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002. Whether this practice started before she was mayor, it's unclear."

Again: nuance.

But let's parse: The Obama-Left argues that Wasilla, AK is some "hicks in the sticks" community of 23 people. Now they want to warrant that Wasilla is like some metropolitan behemoth like Detroit, MI. "PAY FOR YOUR RAPE KIT!" as if, well, everyone ever is getting raped.


Listen to the quote from the Police Chief: "the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams."

Does that mean that Wasilla itself said: "Forget you, State law! We're chargin our wimmin'!" No. Not at all. The Police Chief -- NOT SARAH PALIN -- voiced disagreement. And it didn't mean they rejected the mandate.

But even if you want to argue that Wasilla was some sinsiter, evil, women-hating community for not being on-board prior to to the State law, check it:

Let's look at some facts on crime in Wasilla, per their own police department web site.

Sexual assaults by years Palin was mayor (mind, the law went into affect in 2000!):
96: 3
97: 0
98: 1
99: 1
00: 7
01: 6
02: 8

Total: 26. That's a statistic of 4/year. And before the law? 5. That's slightly over ONE CASE per year.
And, mind, police reports of sexual assault do not necessarily indicate insertive, vaginal sex.

And, MORE importantly, aside from the "Wasilla/Detroit" fallacy -- these were the words of the then police chief -- not Sarah Palin herself. And there is no indication that they defied the State law. None.

Sarah Palin appointed this loudmouth? Sure. Was the practice he described in place before Gov. Knowles struck it down? Yes.

In no way am I attempting to undermine the severity of sexual assault, especially rape. Each of those numbers represents a woman (or man) who has been violated. Yet let's face the matter squarely: what we're seeing is a projection that this "small town" is now a giant municipality that is denying the poor women of America right to free access to a rape kit. Look at the matter with a clear eye, and see if this initiative was a compelling community need:

Did the community of Wasilla see a need for this social program? No. The median income for a small town of 5,500 in year 2000 had a median income of $48,000/year. We're not talking minimum wage inner-city. And we're talking about a practice that occurred before the state law took effect, and is something the Obama-Left cannot refute. Then-Mayor Palin, the Wasilla Police Department, and the City Council did not try to reject the State law.

The Obama-Left projects.

They project that Sarah Palin is against assisting rape victims, when Sarah Palin has no quotable record or policy on this position and complied with State law.

More to the point: a police chief says this is a tax burden. Not Sarah Palin.

Prior to 2000, this was not a salient topic for a small-town community.
It did not have public support for enforcement.

No one was denied, or charged heavily, for a rape kit, aside from Obama-Left un-cited anecdotes of:

"At one point in the past, Wasilla charged the costs to the victim's insurance company."

"One point in the past" can mean before Palin's tenure as mayor. Or it can be a fabrication, like so many anecdotes can be.

Wasilla, AK is not an urban community with impoverished areas that require this type of assistance to be on the books, no questions asked, prior to State mandate.

To expect otherwise shows the Obama-Left's hypocricy in calling Wasilla "bumfuck nowehere" on the one hand, and now expecting them to have social programs at the fore for the benefit of a non-existant "urban poor" on the other.

The smear is the smear. It says nothing about Sarah Palin.

And expect this one to go down the DKos memory hole like "Sambo" did.

Retorts on abstience.

I've said before: my mom always taught me abstinence was 100% effective against STDs and pregnancy, even while teaching me about contraceptives.

But since the Obama-Left still like to promote the well-debunked myth that Sarah Palin is abstinence only, here's a nice counter for you I thought up:

"Is abstinence really that bad? After all, abstinence means to refrain from indulgence. We tell our kids to abstain from eating too much junk food. We tell them to abstain from eating too many fatty meats. We tell them to abstain from watching too much TV. We tell them to abstain from too much alcohol. Is telling them to abstain from too much sex now suddenly so radical?

"After all, I would think Sen. Obama is a proponent of abstinence. After all, he abstained from voting in the Illinois State Senate over 100 times. So: is abstinence a fine example to send to our children, sir/ma'am, or isn't it?"

Add the appropriate snarky tone in these lines. Don't teleprompter-read it.

And then?

Watch 'em squirm.


I hate them, others love them. So I'll share mine.

I have a co-worker. Middle-aged woman. Hockey mom (no joke -- they do exist).

I brought up Gov. Palin and my blogging about her today. Her response?

"I like her." Pressing further:
"I haven't been a registered voter in a long time. Every election season I think 'These are the best options they can give me?' So I don't bother to vote."

I talked a bit on Palin and my own experience as a Hillary supporter dealing with sexism and race-baiting. She said she did not like Obama one bit and grew respect for Hillary but probably would not have registered to vote for her regardless. But when we got back to Palin:

"You know I'm a conservative. But I don't vote if I don't like the candidate. And I haven't liked any of them for years. But, thinking about it, I think I'm going to go register so I can vote for Sarah Palin. She seems like a great candidate."

Sarah Palin is not a force to be under-estimated. This has created an environment where even disaffected Democrats and Republicans can agree to disagree. Far more so than HillaryDems v. ObamaLeft.

Just one anecdote. But there is a newly energized Republican base. The Obama-Left should be very worried.