Saturday, October 04, 2008

My real quibble with Sarah Palin.

If I hear one more remark from Bay Buchanan, Sean ("DMoTV") Hannity or some other GOP apologist about how Sarah Palin is "real" and/or "authentic" and/or "knows how to connect with an audience," I am going to...well, I don't know what I'm going to do. But whatever it is, it'll be real, I tell ya, by gosh!

In the first place, how could anyone in his right mind (which, I grant you, gets Hannity off the hook) propose that the Palin we saw in Thursday's debate was "real"? Not unless real means "
the ability to render a carefully honed script with winks, smiles, down-home colloquialisms and other cheesy affectations thrown in for good measure at regular intervals without apparent regard for appropriateness or continuity." (I checked Dictionary.com, and that definition isn't there.) I could be wrong, but I think we saw something much closer to the real Sarah Palin in those very strange and somewhat disturbing sequences with Katie Couric. (Though, I agree with Couric's detractors that she was being highly unethical in asking a candidate for the U.S. presidency what magazines or newspapers she reads. Talk about "Gotcha!" journalism! After all, who would expect a v.p. candidate to actually, like, read?)

But that's not even the point. I don't understand the ostensible assumption that terms like real, etc., automatically constitute praise...and I certainly don't understand what realness, per se, has to do with anyone's suitability for the second-highest elective office in the land. Just f
or the sake of argument, let's concede the point and say Palin is "real," as in, "true to one's self; consistently, dependably so." So what? I think Charlie Manson was pretty real. Mike Tyson was and remains real. No one seems realer these days than poor Amy Winehouse. Does Winehouse belong in the White House?

I don't presently have a dog, though many have shared my various domiciles through the years, and I would say that most of them were fairly real, and authentic as well. Which is t
o say, they were dogs. Predictably, dependably so. Every single day. (I'm not saying Sarah Palin is a dog. I'm just commenting on the use of the word real in this context and wondering about the intended takeaway: What would constitute inauthenticity here?) I might also mention that my Brittany spaniel, Jake, had a very clear concept of how to connect with an audience. He did it by running over and mounting its legs.

If real = average, middling, "just like the rest of us"
and especially if, God help us, it means "Jooooe Six-Pack"then real is the last thing I want to see positioned a heartbeat away from the presidency right about now. We've had real in the Oval Office, for eight long years. Maybe it's time for someone who's not quite that real.

31 comments:

Stever Robbins said...

Aw, c'mon Steve, tell us what you really think!

I am appalled at the debates at what a piss-poor job the moderators do. What I want in the White House is someone who knows how to think, knows something about the thing they're thinking about, and can reach a reasoned, clear decision ... and change it if circumstances or information suggests that we're on the wrong course.

Most of the debate questions boil down to closed-ended, yes/no questions. The ones that don't are often open-ended, but open-ended in a shallow way: "recite your position on X."

Let's see some questions that require thought, comparison, and speculation. "What criteria would you use to decide what constitutes a clear-and-present danger to the United States? How can you be sure those criteria are the right ones?"

Of course, that would require a moderator willing to stick to their guns and not move on until the candidates actually answered. Otherwise, the answer could again devolve into stump-speech excerpts.

Steve Salerno said...

Agree wholeheartedly Stever, about the moderators in particular. Lehrer was a terrible disappointment--almost a joke--and Gwen Ifill, I think, was so rattled by that whole teapot tempest over her book that she was extra-careful (which is to say, too careful) about keeping her fangs retracted. What has happened to the talent for asking follow-up questions--I dare say, real follow-up questions, not the namby-pamby stuff we've seen thus far.

let's hope for better Tuesday.

Elizabeth said...

I'm not saying Sarah Palin is a dog.

Then again, she called herself a pitbull with lipstick. So, to quote you once more, "what would constitute inauthenticity here"?

RevRon's Rants said...

"I agree with Couric's detractors that she was being highly unethical in asking a candidate for the U.S. presidency what magazines or newspapers she reads. Talk about "Gotcha!" journalism!"

I dunno, Steve. I want my elected officials to have an innate curiosity - even passion for - knowing and understanding the world in which they will be required to play a significant role. I want to know that they will research to the best of their abilities to find the facts and different perspectives that create the circumstances in which they govern. And if a candidate for the vice presidency is so incurious that she doesn't bother to consume information on current events (AND historical precedent for those events), I would expect a conscientious journalist to point that out. If that's "gotcha" journalism, we need more of it.

As to the mediocre performance of moderators, we should keep in mind that they are highly constrained by the "guidelines" the candidates insist upon before agreeing to appear. Media executives and personalities know that if they don't play by the candidates' rules, their access to those candidates will evaporate, and by extension, their ratings.

If we want some integrity in our debates, I think the only way we'll achieve it is to regulate campaigns, legislate that they can only access public funding, and restrict their appearances to unscripted, un-sponsored public forums, such as debates and interviews. And with no requisite criteria offered by the candidate or his/her supporters. This would free the media to actually pursue topics the candidates would rather avoid, but upon which the public deserves to be fully informed.

Like I'd said on another thread, I suspect that porcine aviators will emerge before this happens.

Steve Salerno said...

Yanno, it's funny. Last night, of course, I followed my customary Friday-night ritual of watching the latest Bill Maher, and the panel included Christiana Amanpour. And as the show progressed, and she reeled off insightful, thoughtfully composed line after insightful, thoughtfully composed line, and then I remembered another recent panel member, Michel Martin, who did likewise, and before that Jeanine Garofalo, another cerebral heavy-hitter... Look, if this is supposed to be the Year of the Woman, and that's what we're committed to doing, fine, even though by now everyone knows my feelings on engineering something like that for purely "socially conscious" reasons. But of all the women McCain had to choose among...did he have to pick, like, the dumbest?

Steve Salerno said...

Ron: Um, I was being facetious in the line about Couric. I guess it didn't come across that way, which makes me think I should change it. It can hardly be called "gotcha" journalism to expect a v.p. candidate to...read something. I don't even think it's "gotcha" journalism to ask Palin to cite another Supreme Court decision; I mean, the woman does want to be vice-president of the United States!

Elizabeth said...

did he have to pick, like, the dumbest?

Steve, as mind-boggling as it is, the answer is yes, he did. There is a method to that madness and it can be summed up in three words: Christian fundamentalist base.

Anonymous said...

This is one of your best, Steve. It "really" goes to the heart of things.

The Journal piece was good too.

RevRon's Rants said...

Well, Steve, since you ultimately agree with me, I'll give you a pass.

This time... :-)

Elizabeth said...

Steve, have faith, Palin was given an opportunity for a "do-over" of her incoherent non-responses to the questions Couric asked. On -- surprise, surprise -- FOX News.

Of course now it turns out that Palin knows more than one Supreme Court decision (and yes, you guessed it, she's known them all along! -- and she even disagrees with them, gosh darn it!) and admits, ever so nonchalantly, that she reads The New York Times and (drum roll, please!) The Economist, among other heavyweights. Yes, I repeat, The Economist.

That's not all. The way she phrases it is, well, ahem, charming:

Palin told FOX News on Friday that she reads the same newspapers and magazines as everyone else, "including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal and The Economist."

Sigh.

Memo to Palin's handlers: Heckuva job. Next time, don't make her say that she reads "the same papers as everyone else" and WSJ and The Economist in the same breath. Especially in a do-over. Also.

Here is more:
http://tinyurl.com/4nf9w6

Steve Salerno said...

Again, Eliz--not that I want to reopen this dialog, but--I would caution against a knee-jerk linkage between "Christian fundamentalist" and "dumb." I think Mitt Romney was a pretty bright guy, and he's a fundamentalist Mormon, which strikes me as being even farther out on a limb. And let's face it, Catholics, if you take the religion literally, believe some pretty weird stuff, and the religion boasts some 1.1 billion members (roughly one-sixth of the world's population), including some pretty bright people. In fact, I thought the previous Pope was an exceptionally bright guy. I kinda go with Bill Maher here--that among the very religious, they "wall off" their faith, and that has nothing to do with their intellectual capacity in other areas (though I do believe that faith corrupts their ability to apply logic in certain areas). It's really an emotionally driven phenomenon, and I'm not sure you can argue with emotion anyway.

Anonymous said...

They don't come realer than Amy, she's a mess, plug ugly, and stumbling all over the place but she does what she was born to do--That woman can sing.
So she may not last long, did a short and painful life make Billie Halliday any less real?

Steve Salerno said...

Or are we saying that emotional people, almost by definition, are "dumber" than more cool-headed, rational types?

RevRon's Rants said...

"I do believe that faith corrupts their ability to apply logic in certain areas)."

Minor quibble here, Steve (surprised?). Perhaps that faith merely allows some people to recognize and even admit that their "logic" might have some inherent limitations, and that there might be a level of logic that they have yet to consider, much less fathom.

I don't think it's so much faith that corrupts logic as religion - every one of which is riddled with illogical events that were tacked onto the faith upon which the religions are founded. One need not accept without question the virgin birth or resurrection to be inspired and guided by Christ's teaching, any more than one need accept Siddhartha's birth by spontaneous C-section to embrace the path he followed and taught. While the path inspires, the machine built to propagate that path often corrupts and confuses.

Steve Salerno said...

Anon: I assume you saw the articles on Amy that made that exact comparison (Billie Holliday).

Elizabeth said...

That's not at all what I said, or meant to say here, Steve.

My point was that Palin was McCain's best available choice as a GOP woman with some experience in governance who also (here is that word again, LOL) adhered, staunchly, to the set of beliefs and values of the Christian fundamentalist base. I'm guessing McCain did not have that many candidates to choose from who'd represent these criteria -- a woman, fundamentalist, with some political/governing experience. Palin was his best (and clearly political) pick. That's what I meant by saying that he "had to choose her." Who knows, maybe he too wishes (belatedly) that she were smarter, but you gotta do what you gotta do (to win the election).

The New Yorker ran an interesting piece, about a month ago, discussing Obama's difficulties with securing the religious vote and McCain's troubles with shoring up the fundamentalist base. In light of those, Palin was godsent for McCain. Here is that piece, by Peter Boyer, titled "The Party Faithful:"
http://tinyurl.com/6x4f26

Another (very) interesting article on the subject from TNY is "The New Evangelicals" by F. FitzGerald, from June this year:
http://tinyurl.com/5jd4pw

Anonymous said...

I am with Stever. The debates are a joke. They are not even really debates in my view. It cracks me up when they say who won the next day. I vote for my high school debate team! We had better moderators and questions.

I think dogs are smarter than Palin. My German shepard sure is. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm being mean!

Elizabeth said...

The below is a humorous take on Palin and her real folksy ways:

RJ Eskow

I Can Fly This Plane Just Fine, Darn It!

Why, hello there, folks! May I call you "folks"? I'll be your pilot today. What? Am I "qualified" to fly this jalopy? You betcha! Why? Because I'm a mom, that's why. No, I don't know what all these switches and handles and whatnot are. I don't CARE what they are, to tell ya the truth. The important thing is that I'm ready, I'm willing, and (wink) I'm eager as heck to get the job done! THAT'S what matters.

Doncha think? O-kay then. Here we go!

Whoops! Whew. That's a lotta noise. And just a teensy bit of fire back there. But what the heck, right? It's fuel, and energy happens to be my specialty.

What? Who's that fella yellin' over the radio? Air traffic control? Well, who the heck cares? No, honestly, really: Who cares? I sure as heck don't, and I don't think my passengers do either.

What's my heading? What's my heading? We're on the right track and we know where we want to go, that's for darn sure.

No, I'm not going to give you my "bearings," or whatever it is you call those little numbers. Look here, Buster, I might not answer those questions the way you or the other pilots might like. But you know what? I'm going to talk straight to my passengers here, without the filter of any darned air traffic controllers or FAA or whatever the heck you all are calling yourselves now.


Full text:
http://tinyurl.com/3lzmpw

Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin has the country's attention - why else would a Vice Presidential debate draw 50% more viewers than the Presidential debate?

As much as the east coast elites and the Hollywood Celebutards try to crush Gov. Palin, the folks in flyover country hang on her every word. Obama is not the new kid on the block; he's just another old, tired political hack.

The media tried to portray Gov. Palin as a clueless ditz, but she did a pretty good job in the debate.

If you don't believe me, just go with Joe Biden to Wilmington Delaware to Katie's Restaurant on Union Street (as he mentioned in the debate). Katie's has been closed since 1990; but Joe hasn't figured that out. Just like he didn't quite understand the difference between Hammas (the terrorist group)and Hezbollah (the ruling party) in Lebanon.

And yet Palin is supposed to be the dumb one?

Cal said...

I just think that with McCain's age and health issues (it's really bad what the Vietcong did to him because it's painful to watch him move around), in this environment we need a VP who can at least give people some comfort that they know what they are doing or talking about if the President is incapacitated or worse. We already dodged a bullet with Quayle 20 years ago.

We've also already been through 8 years of a President who speaks a version of English that many people can't understand. The Vice President has basically been in hiding since 9/11 in his "undisclosed locations". We don't need any more of this. And we are supposed to be telling other countries how to run to be tough and run a democracy?

The current President hasn't had a real press conference since August 6th. The world, at least economically, is in such a seriously precarious position. How is the President able to not hold a press conference in this environment for two months? I think most people are starting to understand this, but only those on the inside know how close we are to utter economic choas. We don't need another President who is MIA for two months, and his Treasury Secretary has to take the bullets in trying to clean up the mess.

I hope Obama wins myself, but he has to hit the ground running if he does. And how effective his governing skills are an open question. It's one thing to chant "change", but what does that mean? Especially when you need the legislative branch to help you with "change".

If Obama wins, we don't need a repeat of Clinton's first year -- it was a disaster. Between the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, White House travel office, Zoe Baird nanny-gate, Vince Foster, Hillary's health care initiative and Nannygate fiascoes, he was lucky that the economy has turned around by '96. And this was from a guy who was a governor for 12 years. I also notice that Obama's economic team consists primarily of Clinton members. I just hope they realize the '90s are over!!

Steve Salerno said...

Ron: Look, I very much appreciate the fact that people credit their peace of mind and even their very existence, in some cases, to their faith; I don't know what my wife would do without hers (especially given that she's married to me). If a person needs his/her faith, fine; just don't try to justify it on any intellectual grounds, b/c that's where the problems start, for me. I don't think it makes to make a logical case for why one's faith shouldn't be subject to the same critical thinking we apply everywhere else in life. Because I think that once you allow that exemption for faith, you're on a very slippery slope that opens the door for others to claim the same exemption for, well, whatever. I ask myself all the time: How can I claim to believe in Heaven and yet get all agitated over Rhonda Byrne's views on the LOA? To me, philosophically and logically, there is no difference. The reason I wrote SHAM is primarily that people are making money off this stuff, which in my view raises the bar a lot higher in terms of standards of proof. But in terms of the basic belief systems, there really is no difference. If you can help me see it otherwise, I'd probably be grateful. I'm quite sure my wife would.

Anon 5:12: You may be right about Biden, but that's a two-sided coin. Factcheck.org and other diligent research sources pointed out in the wake of the debate that Biden and Palin both took liberties (major and minor) with the truth. And I'm convinced that in Palin's case, her handlers told her, "If you get stuck for an answer, just make something up. By the time anyone sorts it all out, it won't matter anymore."

As several of our contributors have noted, this is a crippling flaw in today's political engagements--the fact that what happens in the moment has so much more impact than any clarifications that occur thereafter, so the incentive to wantonly distort the truth or even flat-out lie is potent.

Anonymous said...

Condi Rice would have been an excellent choice for McCain as VP. Of course Rice has the taint of W Bush on her. McCain had a host of better choices than Palin. The more debates Isee, the more I see how alike the two parties are.

Elizabeth said...

How can I claim to believe in Heaven and yet get all agitated over Rhonda Byrne's views on the LOA?

Indeed. (And it's deja vu all over again, no? Seems like we had this discussion just yesterday.:)

To me, philosophically and logically, there is no difference. The reason I wrote SHAM is primarily that people are making money off this stuff, which in my view raises the bar a lot higher in terms of standards of proof. But in terms of the basic belief systems, there really is no difference.

I would disagree with you on both accounts here, Steve. First, people are making money off religion, of any kind, big and small, and have been for ages. See the cadres of essentially unemployed healthy men who live off donations of the faithful. I'm talking about Catholic priests, of course, but they are no exception here among many other purveyors of religion as ideology for the masses.

I know, we've talked about it already and you maintained that selling the "faith" of various kinds, for profit, as SHAM does it, is different from the religious institutions which are voluntarily supported by the faithful. And I, in turn, saw little difference there (e.g. look at the uber-rich Vatican, ruled for ages by, well, idle men who benefited handsomely -- one could even say profited -- from selling a lot of weird ideology to masses of people, keeping them under their thumbs and convincing them to continue to support their peculiar lifestyle).

So monetary profits are not the main difference, IMO, between SHAM and major religions. Which brings me to the second point: the essential difference, the way I see it, is indeed philosophical -- and ethical.

In SHAM, the main focus is on YOU, or more precisely, ME -- my wishes, my desires, my fulfillment. In Christianity, say, Catholicism, the focus is quite the opposite -- it is pointedly NOT about me), and this negation of my needs, wants and desires cannot be stressed enough. It's God's will that we are here to fulfill, whether it means happiness or woes, or a little bit of each. Our own wishes mean, well, bupkus, and are, in fact, too often in collision with God's will, if not already an expression of devilish influences designed to subvert God's will.

While SHAM champions (not only, but mainly) the hedonistic aspects of life and pays so much attention to an individual's wish fulfillment; Christianity, specifically Catholicism (because that's what I'm talking about) stresses self-denial and self-transcendence, most vividly exemplified in the self-sacrifice of Christ. Which, btw, was a supreme example of following God's will to a complete negation of one's earthly self.

Religious teachings tell you, over and over again, that it (life) is not about you, at least not the egocentric you. If anything, you and your wishes get in a way of your spiritual growth. Your task and duty is to surrender to God's will and let it guide you wherever He wants you to go (which may be very, very different from the direction you have dreamed for yourself:). SHAM teaches us quite the opposite.

Anonymous said...

I think there is a big difference between religion and faith. Religion is public and should justify itself logically or emotionally in some way. Faith is private, personal, ideosyncratic, between me and my god if I have one.
I don't feel I have to justify or talk about my faith to anyone. Religion is for show, my faith keeps me going.

Found a nice page on William Blake and 'Jerusalem'




http://tinyurl.com/4dfo6r

Anonymous said...

Faith has nothing at all to do with belief.
Faith is a leap, the leap of faith, bridging uncertainties.

Belief is about certainties, a clinging on for safety, comfort.

The trick is to be flexible, keep your beliefs while they serve and discard them when they are outmoded. New ones will be along, like buses, to be discarded in their turn, just use them as tools to get you where you want to go.

Anonymous said...

Interesting nature lesson in 'Daily Express' Sat Oct 4 that could equally apply to faith.

Q. How does a spider make the first crossing between two vertical sufaces when making a web? Does it jump from one to the other trailing the web as it goes or does it climb down and walk across the intervening space and back up the other side?

A. Neither, the first thread of a web straddling two high-level surfaces is made by expelling the thread and leaving it dangling until the wind carries it across to the other side.
Once one thread is in place, the spider can trot along it and make the rest of the web. Whether the precise location of the web is up to the vagaries of the wind or whether the spider is so sensitive to breezes that it can ensure its initial thread lands exactly where it wants it, is an open question.

I'd say it depends on the spider, how smart and experienced it is.
Robert the Bruce is famed and remembered for learning from spiders whilst he was in captivity.

RevRon's Rants said...

Steve, I think you know that I'd never imply that one is required to put aside their logical, reasoning mind to follow their faith. "Truth" can only be real if it stands up to every scrutiny. Spiritual laws aren't on some dimension apart from physical laws any more than ultraviolet light is on a different dimension from infrared; we invented the concept of the "metaphysical" in a ludicrous attempt to try and quantify something we cannot logically explain. Better that we just admit that we haven't come up with the explanation yet, but intend to keep trying.

Faith is the "aspirin" we take to help us cope with the headaches of unanswered questions. We don't know how it works, but we keep taking it because it helps us. It doesn't demand that we quit seeking the answers; on the contrary, we become obsessed with finding out why it works, even as we keep taking it. And little by little, we do learn how it works.

Religion is the dance we perform to reinforce and celebrate that faith. It demands that we dance certain steps in order to conform and "properly" celebrate and reinforce, and doesn't abide subversion or (for the most part) variance. In the process of living our religion, we all too frequently lose sight of the faith upon which that religion is founded. We bemoan the headaches, try to tell ourselves that they don't exist or have no power over us. We dance furtively, while the aspirin sits in its bottle, needing only to be taken to bring us relief. Not blissful ignorance; just a sense of knowing that the answers are there if we keep looking.

Of course there will be those who seek to profit by selling others on a new and "improved" dance. They've always been there. Seems like I remember some historical figure showing us how to deal with people who sell trinkets (dance steps?) as being necessary for our spiritual growth. I see no difference between the SHAMland hucksters and the money-changers in that old story, or between the Christ's reaction to them and Steve's penning SHAM. And lest this step on a quick to umbrage fundamentalist toe or two, I'm not implying that Steve is equivalent to a messiah. Teachers have, through their actions and words, offered us lessons throughout history. Trying to live up to those lessons is the highest praise we can offer those teachers, if doing so is important to us.

And on that note, I'm gonna go get more coffee... this pontificatin's tough work, by gosh (especially when you first wake up!).

Anonymous said...

Right on, Revron,

Try this one:

I dig ditches.--A sentence.
Subject, verb, object.

If the subject, (the 'I') is gone, it also negates the object (the thing done to 'ditches') for balance.
Leaving only the verb, (dig) the 'doing' word.

Because of the way our language is constructed, the use of which builds ourselves and our world view, we are conned into thinking the subject and object are most important. Not so, I contend. The verb is where the action is, only the verb, the 'doing' is important.

Works for me with faith too.
'I believe in god'

Once 'I' am gone, 'god' is also gone, leaving only the faith.

I've done a lot of bowing and chanting to I-don't-know-quite- what. My teacher told me to just do as I am told and to quit being picky. I did as I was told because I had faith in the teacher. It's the 'doing' that is important. A few years on I just had faith, the important bit, the bit that does the work.

There's another consideration for the the spider too, If the spider is a novice, all that matters is that the web gets made, any which way, and dinner is caught.
It's the gnarled old-timer spiders who are going to nit-pick about where the wind is coming from and how fast, to build a perfect web-- the purpose, after all, is to feed yourself if you are hungry.

Elizabeth said...

Steve, isn't Palin a perfect SHAM (vice)presidential candidate? I'm reading up on the weekend developments in the Palinland -- and marvel. It's SHAM through and through.

Palin embodies the power of positive thinking unencumbered by reflection or self-awareness, possesses unbridled ambition straight from the LOA ("believe it and you can achieve it," no matter how absurd "it" may appear), and seems to live in a strange kind of a perpetual NOW (not of the National Organization of Women, but that of Tolle&Co.).

She has no sense of history and no vision for the future, and she seems unperturbed by their lack. That's part of what makes her so "real," I suppose. She does not even realize that she lacks them, and if she were told so, she would likely, in a true SHAM fashion, shrug it off, feeling emboldened by this deficit rather than embarrassed. Her mind appears to be an empty vessel, ready to be filled by whatever phraseology her handlers consider useful for her at any given moment. But, again, she does not seem to mind it (pun unintended); in fact, she seems to champion it -- as if ignorance and lack of substance were virtues to admire and aspire to. So real. Somebody said that she wears her ignorance like a beauty queen tiara.

She seems either incapable of shame, or rushes to cover it up and extinguish by her resolute insistence that everything she does is just god darn peachy (now she says that her shameful flabs during TV interviews were, in addition to being the fault of the hostile media, her efforts to give Tina Fey continuing employment...). No shame, no regrets -- those require courage and reflection (and the capacity for and courage of self-reflection). She has none.

Stunning. And dangerous, as her special blend of ignorance and unstoppable ambition is probably the worst combination for anyone in politics (or any position of power).

As unbelievable as it sounds, I think she has managed to make George W. look like a benevolent college professor.

Elizabeth said...

I revise my assessment expressed earlier in this thread.

Yes, Palin's pick is all about the base -- but choosing the dumbest female Republican candidate is no accident (or a necessity dictated by a lack of somebody more suitable). Watching her recent public appearances for the faithful, I'm convinced that McCain knew very well what he was doing when he chose her. Palin is exactly what the base needs and craves, as evidenced by her shameless -- and successful -- pandering to the lowest possible impulses in the recent days. (Base, indeed.) Calling Obama a "terrorist," by association, impugning his motives and patriotism, gloating over the enthusiastic responses of the crowd yelling "kill him!" and "off with his head!" -- this is the GOP vice-presidential candidate, ladies and gents. Are you proud yet?

She can't string a coherent sentence on her own, but she can wink, betcha and darn ya, and say the vilest things in between with an ease suggesting that she either does not fully comprehend what she is saying, or that she very well does -- and revels in it. She looks and sounds as if she was born to do just this. Beyond disturbing.

Saying that Palin is a pitbull with lipstick is a grave insult, indeed. To pitbulls.

RevRon's Rants said...

Until the last few days, I wasn't so much disturbed by Palin as amused, a la Tina Fey's parody. Palin simply appeared to be a buffoon who was sucked into a whirlpool beyond her control. I even felt compassion for her (and was soundly denounced for it).

However, in the last week, I have seen her in very different light. Rather than belabor this thread with the entirety of my "epiphany," I'll invite you to read my current take on Palin and the "Get Out Of Integrity Free" ticket. Here's the link:
http://revronsrants.blogspot.com/