Get your yard signs ready, everyone! Who’s excited about a possible Palin/Taitz presidential ticket in 2012!?
As if it weren’t enough that Sarah Palin is functionally-retarded, addicted to facebook and twitter, completely illiterate on the issues of the day, a firm believer that there’s such a thing as “death panels” and a prolific quitter, she further beefed up her GOP bona fides on Thursday by checking off another important box: birther.
Palin appeared on a conservative radio show hosted by Rusty Humphries — sounds pornographic — where she was asked whether questions about Barack Obama’s birth certificate would be valid in a possible 2012 matchup.
From Politico…of course:
I think the public rightfully is still making [the birth certificate] an issue,” [Palin said]. “I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers,” she replied.
Gah! Of course the public still wants answers! The public is retarded! Know what other things they want answers to? How many chicks has Tiger Woods been boning? Why’s there a Mick on TV instead of Jay Leno? And when the hell does Kid Rock’s new album come out?
“Do you think it’s a fair question to be looking at?” Humphries persisted.
“I think it’s a fair question, just like I think past association and past voting records — all of that is fair game,” Palin said. “The McCain-Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that area.”
Actually, according to the next paragraph, they did look at it.
McCain’s campaign counsel has said the campaign did look into the birth certificate question and, like every other serious examination, dismissed it.
Still — and we hesitate to give Palin too much credit — but this might actually be a spot where she’s being smart and shrewd politically. You see, according to recent polling, a staggering 42 percent of Republicans believe Obama wasn’t born in this country (an additional 22 percent aren’t sure). This number far outpaces the 25 percent of Democrats who believed 9/11 was an inside job, proving that Republicanism is a far purer form of retardation. Ah, but we digress.
The other important point here is that Palin — despite what may be a political calculation — also has a totally ghey and childish reason for pursuing this line of inquiry.
Palin suggested that the questions were fair play because of “the weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn’t my real son — ‘You need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he’s your kid,’ which we have done.”
Another couple points before we stick a fork in another Sarah Palin post. First, Trig Palin wasn’t running for office, and his relationship to Palin had (and has) no bearing on her fitness for office. She never needed to show his birth certificate, and we’re pretty sure she never did (though we’re not gonna Google it). Secondly, she’s right: it was a weird conspiracy that originated with bloggers, not with an actual presidential campaign or candidate. She takes attacks from random bloggers just as seriously as she does those from politicians during campaigns — that’s her problem, not everyone else’s — and the fact that she chose to respond to such ridiculous rumors further illustrates her unfitness for holding office. And finally, if she really wants to end “gotcha politics” and stop seeing stupid stories from the “lamestream media,” she should stop doing stupid shit, stop pushing completely-debunked stories and get back to doing what she loves, quitting.
haha random bloggers huh.. you cite huffingtonpost about this ridiculous poll. The same huffington post that ran the story about trig not being palins son.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/archive/236/news/2008/08/30/were_going_with_the_rumor_sara_1_8598.html
So are you citing a credible source, the lamestream media, or random bloggers?
“stop pushing completely-debunked stories”
did you read the transcript? she was asked about it and said she wouldn’t make it an issue! Why is that hard for you to understand? I will agree with you that it was stupid for her to give credibility to the public for looking into it. But come on you hate towards her is way over the top.
Functionally retarded? Illiterate on the issues? why all the spite?
Ugh. First of all, we’re not sure how to tell you this, but the 23/6 site you linked to — you called it “The same Huffington Post” — is actually HuffPo’s comedy site. In other words, it’s a totally different Huffington Post, and your question doesn’t really make sense.
Next. Yeah we linked to a HuffPo article, but it’s pretty much just a cut-and-paste job of actual polling results from Public Policy Polling, which according to the WSJ, provided the second most accurate polling during the ’08 cycle (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122592455567202805.html).
Thirdly, yes we did read the transcript and we even watched the video from the Palin interview. You’re right in that she said she didn’t think she’d have to make it an issue. The part that’s disingenuous here, though, is that she also says she’s cool with it being an issue, making no attempt to bat down an issue that’s been debunked everywhere.
And finally, yes we think she’s illiterate on the issues. She didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is, has virtually no policy experience, can’t name a newspaper she reads, confuses John Wooden and John Wooden Legs, “wrote” a memoir that even her own campaign staff says is full of lies, and quit her job as governor because she thought she could do more for Alaska by not being governor.
What’s so great about someone SO incompetent and SO stupid?
Thanks for the reasonable response.
Sorry about trying to discredit Huffpo… They certainly didn’t help the trig stuff but your right it was from bloggers.
The public policy polling is a joke and you know. First the article you linked doesn’t say it was the second most accurate it says fourth. For your future arguments you should also know that PPP is a Democratic affiliated polling firm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Polling
being cool with issue… i agree is wrong also, but that is politics look how obama has reacted to Climate Gate.
Illiterate on the issues? do you know what the bush doctrine is? nobody does… no policy experience? Mayor and governor longer than obama… or do you weight community organizing heavily.
Yep, I do know it’s a Democratic firm in that it was founded by Democrats. I also know Frank Luntz — a Republican — has been called “The Nostradamus of pollsters” and is good at what he does. I’m not sure what someone’s political background has to do with their methodology. If you (or anyone else) can show me where PPP’s methodology is flawed and skewed toward Democrats, that’s something totally different. My bet is you can’t, though.
And I totally stand by saying she’s illiterate on the issues. I’ve not seen her in any forum at any time, and been impressed by her grasp of policy. I know she’s pro-America and anti-tax, but come on, are you seriously trying to argue Sarah Palin’s policy chops?
Also, I do know what the Bush Doctrine is — he articulated that we could use preemptive war to defend our interests. I should say, though, that it doesn’t matter whether I know. What matters is that she was a vice presidential candidate running for office at a time of war, and she didn’t know something fundamental — and I’m sorry, but that’s FUNDAMENTAL — to what had been going on for the past eight years.
I think she would’ve been a disaster then and I know she’d be a disaster in 2012.
Ok i will get back to you about the PPP.
Not trying to argue her policy expertise. She is just not illiterate on the issues. Yes, she botched the interview with Couric but so did Biden. In any forum… have you read her book or anything unbiased about her? I know you disagree with her ideology but the truth she became Governor because or her work with democrats and knowledge of policy that enabled her to fight off a corrupt incumbent. There is no other way to spin that… but great policy expertise.. no, executive experience though, yes.
Come on the Bush doctrine thing was bogus… that is why charlie gibson was fired. Yes, she could have handled the question better. But speaking of FUNDAMENTAL shouldn’t a VP know something ELEMENTARY?
http://cbs2.com/politics/joe.biden.interview.2.823202.html
among many stupid things Biden has said…
“When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television ”
Lol, come on VICE President! FDR wasn’t president then and the TV wasn’t even invented! So dont play the Palin is fundamentally stupid card when it happens on both sides. If you at least acknowledge Biden’s gaffs also and Obamas lack of experience then your opinion of Palin is much more credible.
Good God. What kind of thinking is that? I can’t believe you’re comparing a gaffe (Biden) to Palin’s monumental pattern of stupidity. That’s just ridiculous.
And Charlie Gibson was fired for the Bush Doctrine question? First, Gibson wasn’t fired. Second, where are you getting that non-information? That doesn’t even make sense.
“Obama’s lack of experience.” Well, he’s getting plenty of on-the-job training now, isn’t he? That argument doesn’t hold water. Especially when you’re comparing the President of the United States to someone who thought being near Russia gave her foreign policy experience.
Dave settle down…
Fine, Gibson mysteriously lost his job for other reasons.
Dave once you come back to reality try to add credibility to your rambling. Explain why a VP candidate not knowing who was president when the stock market crashed isnt comparable to anything palin has done or said.
Give examples of her monumental pattern of stupidity, specifically…
In case you can’t read the tread above, we were discussing her experience as a VP candidate. I simply made a VALID point that her experience WAS comparable to obamas.
I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any credible media source that says anything remotely to the effect of “Charlie Gibson was fired.” And seriously? He was fired TWO YEARS after the fireable offense? Are you serious?
From the Miami Herald:
The 66-year-old Gibson — who waited for the ABC anchor job for years in the shadow of Peter Jennings, then was passed over when Jennings died in 2005 — planned to retire when his last Good Morning America contract expired in 2007. But when ABC co-anchors Bob Woodruff and Elizabeth Vargas were sidelined within weeks of one another in 2006 (Woodruff by a roadside bomb while reporting in Iraq, Vargas by an unexpected pregnancy), Gibson stepped in to pull things together.
From the AP:
ABC says Charles Gibson will sign off from the “World News” anchor desk on Dec. 18.
The 66-year-old Gibson, who announced his retirement in September, has been at ABC News for more than three decades and plans to continue as an occasional contributor.
The NY Times on his original retirement date and the extenuating circumstances that kept him around for another two years after that date:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/arts/television/17abc.html
Again, I’m honestly asking for ANY credible media source…ANYTHING. I honestly don’t see it.
Come on Josh… I just said “Gibson mysteriously lost his job for other reasons” His rating were slipping and he was replaced. Did that really have nothing to do with his interview with palin? I wont say he got fired because of it but it surely didn’t help him. (i know it did initially)
here is your credible source.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-current-state-of-the-cbs-evening-news/
Since you didn’t counter my Biden gaffes were just as bad argument, I will assume we somewhat agree.
Well, actually, you said this:
“Come on the Bush doctrine thing was bogus… that is why charlie gibson was fired.”
Plus, according to the link you provided, the experts say Couric’s ratings went up after her Palin interview, which makes me wonder why Gibson’s would have the opposite effect from a similar interview. Plus (following a link from that story you provided), CBS actually has a more conservative viewership demographic, making it all the less that his viewers would turn on his for that reason, and all the less likely that his retirement (again, two years after the Palin interview) had anything to do with anything but his age and desire to actually do what he wanted to do in 2007 — retire.
Right I did say that FIRST… then backtracked and said this…”His rating were slipping and he was replaced. Did that really have nothing to do with his interview with palin? I wont say he got fired because of it but it surely didn’t help him”
can we agree here or not?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/03/charlie-gibson-livid-over_n_276279.html
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/charles-gibson-retires-diane-sawyer-replace-gibson-abc-news/story?id=8471429&page=3
“Plus, according to the link you provided, the experts say Couric’s ratings went up after her Palin interview, which makes me wonder why Gibson’s would have the opposite effect from a similar interview”
Right… which is the reason part of the reason he was replaced…gibsons ratings fell because he was seen as being much more harsh. Its not hard to see … He got the job of his dreams in 2006 and three years later he turns and around and voluntarily retires?
Why do you keep saying two years later? He retired/replaced in september 09, the interview was in september 08.