Sunday Morning Chuckles

This just keeps getting better and better...

Charlie, you're just wrong

I am not a fan of Charles Krauthammer's columns. I'll be honest about that. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the fact that his views are far afield of mine. His latest column is no different. And by no different, I mean not only no different from most of his columns cheerleading the right, but no different from much of what I've heard from the right in defense of Gov. Sarah Palin after her interview with Charlie Gibson. What is sad is that I thought Krauthammer could come up with a more compelling argument. Yet, his column falls flat. Much has been made of the whole Bush Doctrine gaffe, and whose gaffe it really was. Did Palin really not know what it was, or are there just too many versions out there? Did Gibson even articulate the correct version?

Krauthammer seems to take much glee in pointing out how he was the first one to use the term Bush Doctrine, back in June 2001. Well, well, pat on the back for you, Charlie. I see he's upset because no one bothered to check Wikipedia before the Palin interview so Gibson could give credit where credit is due. But once Krauthammer gets the back-patting out of the way, the rest of his column is a waste of space. Because he's wrong.

I can't take credit for this discovery because I stumbled on it while searching for information about the Bush Doctrine and Krauthammer. Another blogger -- Robot Pirate Ninja -- pointed out a portion of the interview that Krauthammer saw fit to just leave out of his column. One that, had it been articulated, would have made his whole column a bunch of nonsense. The portion of the interview Krauthammer omitted was this:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

I don't care if there are 50 versions of the Bush Doctrine. I don't care if Krauthammer was the first person to use the phrase, or the tenth. The bottom line is that Gibson pointed out exactly which version of the Bush Doctrine he was referring to, and Palin still had no idea. From Krauthammer's column: "A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine." Wrong. This is the Bush Doctrine that Gibson was referring to in the question. The one he clearly described by saying "enunciated September 2002." I would have bought this whole defense of Palin if she had said, "Well, Charlie, which version are you referring to?" or "Charlie, you know there is a more current version, let's talk about that." No, instead she gave a wrong answer, and then looked like a kid who just got caught cheating on a test.

What is more disappointing in all this is that people like Krauthammer keep trying to defend Palin. Oh, Gibson was condescending. He was mean. He looked down his nose at her. Never mind that the McCain campaign hand-picked Gibson to do Palin's first interview. Why should anyone treat Palin with kid gloves? Because she's a woman? Because she's a Republican? You know, if Palin can't handle Charlie Gibson's questions and demeanor, how can she handle the difficulties of being vice president (and possibly president)? And let's not forget that it wasn't just her answer to Bush Doctrine question that made people shake their heads.

I have said in a previous post, and I stick by it, that Palin is not the top of the ticket so we shouldn't be spending so much time talking about her gaffes, lies and scandals. But I think it is important to note that THIS is the person Sen. John McCain thought would be a good vice president for the country. This is how McCain puts country first. Out of all the other women (or men) McCain could have picked, he picked her. And in that respect, her gaffes, lies and scandals are important. If Americans can't even trust McCain to make a sound first decision in his campaign for the presidency, how can we trust him to make other more important decisions? Who would he chose as his Treasury secretary -- Sen. Phil Gramm?

At least Krauthammer and I agree on one thing: "Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what [the Bush Doctrine] is." All that huffing and puffing about versions of the Bush Doctrine and how Gibson was wrong, just to come to the conclusion that yes, Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is. Like I said, waste of space.

Maybe in Krauthammer's next column, he'll defend Douglas Holtz-Eakin's statement that McCain invented the Blackberry.

Be frightened Part 2

This is the Palin/Clinton skit from Saturday Night Live. I posted it because I thought it's pretty damn funny, but also because Tina Fey's impression of Gov. Sarah Palin is scarily accurate. Yes, there were some silly moments, but much of what was said is not far from what we've heard Palin say in some way, shape or form. In response to Amy Poehler's (who was playing Sen. Hillary Clinton) statement about diplomacy being a cornerstone of foreign policy, Fey said, "I can see Russia from my house." Palin told Charlie Gibson that "[Russia is] our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." Poehler said she's opposed to the Bush Doctrine, and Fey said "I don't know what that is." It was clear in watching the Gibson interview that Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is.

What scares me is that Palin, a candidate for vice president of the United States, can be parodied, and yet the parody is quite close to the truth. Do the American people really want a joke for a vice president?

Not enough money to pay the speechwriters?

Since the conventions wrapped up, I've been watching a lot more of the 24-hour news stations. Keith Olbermann played a portion of Gov. Sarah Palin's speech from Pennsylvania on his show tonight.



I've seen portions of her speeches played quite often lately -- earlier this week, it was a speech in Colorado Springs. But what has struck me as funny is, it's the SAME SPEECH as the one she gave at the convention. Did Sen. John McCain not pay his speechwriters? Or do they not have time to write new material for Palin? I don't get it. Why would you continue to give the same speech over and over, complete with all the lies that the media has already exposed several times over since Palin's speech at the convention? And not just the lies, but the same hokey insults, such as how Obama lavishes praise on working people when they are listening and talks about them behind their backs. It's like a bad comedic sketch, where you know you've heard the comedian's jokes a thousand times over and they just aren't funny anymore. You almost feel sorry for her -- talking about the chef she fired (the chef was reassigned to another job); the jet she sold on eBay for a profit (she didn't sell it on eBay and certainly not for a profit); the "thanks, but no thanks" line with respect to the Bridge to Nowhere (she was for it before she was against it); and how she's against earmarks (she hired lobbyists to get $27 million in earmarks for the town of Wasilla). It's one thing to give the same tired speech over and over, but to repeat the same lies and exaggerations everyone knows to be such? That's just craziness.

So I started to wonder why she'd do such a thing? It almost makes the McCain campaign seem amateurish. Yet, people are eating this up. Oh, Palin is injecting life into the campaign. She's just what the campaign needed. Blah de blah blah. But I think I figured out the secret. See, Palin is out there giving this lame speech again and again, and the rest of us are talking about it. Republicans, Democrats, the mailman in your town -- they are all talking about her. And what aren't they talking about? The issues. Where does McCain stand on the issues? Oh sure, we hear it brought up from time to time, but most of the news programs I've been watching and blogs I've been reading are Palin this, Palin that. McCain could probably take a dump on the sidewalk in some town, and the news that day would be, "Did you hear that Palin fired her gardener for planting petunias instead of tulips?" I remember right after Palin's speech, some political analyst said that the worst thing Obama's campaign could do was make this election about Palin. This Associated Press article states that anonymous Democratic strategists said something similar lately:

"Two Democratic strategists, speaking on condition of anonymity, complained that Obama should assign his own running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the task of countering Palin, rather than do it himself."

So true. Palin is the vice presidential pick, and while vice presidents do count in the sense that they are a "heartbeat away from the presidency" (I hate that phrase by the way, used WAY too much lately), they are not the top of the ticket. It's Obama and McCain. The more Obama, or anyone else on the left, focuses on Palin, the more this election becomes about her and takes the focus away from the person it should be on -- McCain. Palin is obviously a liar and thinks much of herself. She must if she thinks she can perpetuate this myth about herself as the Alaskan maverick. Let her lies speak for themselves, now that they have been shown as such, and deal with her when she lies and exaggerates about Obama's stance on issues or his record as a politician. Maybe conservatives think she's hilarious, with her sad insults about Obama's days as a community organizer, but all she does is make herself look like the elitist. It's clear who is the insecure one. I'd like to see Palin fade into the background where she belongs. Do we hear about Sen. Joe Biden every day? No. Do we hear the McCain campaign attacking Biden more frequently than they attack Obama? No. Let's shift the focus back to Obama v. McCain for a few days, huh? Please. I can't take hearing Palin's voice on the news anymore. And if I hear the joke about the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull one more time, I'm going to hurl. This is the United States presidential election, not Last Comic Standing, Sarah.

Breaking News: Sarah Palin is a Woman! Gasp!

Since Sen. John McCain chose Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, people have wondered why. What reason could McCain have to chose a veritable unknown (outside of Alaska) for the vice presidency? I must admit that when I saw the news, my reaction was, “Who?” In fact, I’m still asking that. Sure, she made a rousing speech in front of the Republican cheerleaders, but some things she said about herself were false or exaggerated. But let's put that aside for now, because the factual inaccuracies in her speech are beyond the scope of this post.

So, what was McCain’s reason? Well, she’s female, don’t you know? McCain hopes to win the support of more female voters by choosing Palin, specifically Sen. Hillary Clinton’s supporters who were disappointed when she wasn’t chosen as their party’s presidential nominee (or vice presidential nominee, for that matter). I don’t believe that was McCain’s only reason for choosing Palin, but the only person who truly knows is Karl Rove, and he’s not telling.

Yet, I thought to myself, “No self-respecting Democratic woman would fall for that trick!” The only thing Palin shares with female Democrats are the same lady parts. And just because Palin is a “Vagina-American” (see below at about 3:15) doesn’t mean all Vagina-Americans will automatically vote for her.



Those Resmuglicans are smoking something! That was until my conversation with my mother tonight. It went a little something like this:

Me: “So, did you watch McCain’s speech last night?"
Mom: “No, haven’t watched either of the conventions?”
Me: “So, who are you voting for? If you vote for McCain, I’m disowning you.”
Mom (chuckling): “I’m not sure yet.”
Me (astounded): “Are you kidding me? How can you not be sure?”
Mom: “Well, Obama didn’t pick Hillary for vice president. I’m still mad about that.”
Me: “So you’re seriously considering voting for McCain because he picked a woman for VP?”
Mom: “Yes.”
Me: (Faints.)

I didn’t really faint, but I was speechless. For about ten seconds. Before I then gave my mom a 10-minute speech about why Palin is not a woman who is for women. My mother is not an idiot. She reads the newspapers every day and listens to talk radio. She may not be well-versed in politics, but she is not clueless either. So to hear her say this made me wonder, how many other women are having the same thoughts? I’ve read that this was the McCain strategy -- try to win over Democratic women voters who were upset that Clinton lost to Sen. Barack Obama. I just never thought it would work, especially when I read letters sent in to newspapers by women who say, “It is a mistake to believe that the supporters of Hillary Clinton will rally around Sarah Palin.”

But here is my mom saying she doesn’t know who she is going to vote for, and one of the reasons she’s unsure is because McCain picked a women as his running mate. So, for those women out there who, like my mom, are on the fence, let me tell you what I told her.

Palin may be a woman, but many of the things she stands for do not help women. Palin is fiercely pro-life, stating that even in the event her own daughter were raped and became pregnant as a result, she would not want her to have an abortion. That’s right, ladies. If you or any women in your family were sexually assaulted and became pregnant, Sarah Palin wants you to carry your baby to term, because if the actual attack weren’t bad enough, you can be reminded of it again and again for 9 months. I’m not going to argue the merits of her position on abortion, because I’ve learned that it’s futile to do so. Those people who believe life begins at conception cannot be told otherwise, but I’ll just parrot what Sen. Joe Biden said today on Meet The Press: “I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.” Well said, Senator. It is inappropriate to impose your judgment on the rest of society unless you are ready, willing and able to accept responsibility for the judgment you impose. So, I would ask those Republicans, like Palin, who are pro-life, when a woman gives birth to a baby conceived after a sexual assault, are you going to be ready to adopt him or her, or does your concern for child welfare end the minute after you convince a pregnant woman to keep her baby?

Palin also opposes sexual education and supports abstinence-only programs. We have already seen how well that worked in her own family. How well can that work for other children in the United States? When your sons and daughters reach an age when they are facing sexual pressures at school and among their friends, is it good enough to tell them, “Stay a virgin until you’re married” and expect them to listen? A 2006 study by the Guttmacher Institute stated that 46 percent of 15-19 year olds in the United States have had sex at least once. The study also stated that a “sexually active teen who does not use contraceptives has a 90% chance of becoming pregnant within a year.” It is more important to make sure that teens receive sexual education in school, so they are more prepared to deal with sexual pressures, to know that using contraception is important, not only to prevent pregnancy but also sexually transmitted diseases. Abstinence-only programs don’t work as intended. A 2004 publication by Advocates for Youth, which studied abstinence-only programs in 11 states, showed that these programs had “few short-term benefits and no lasting, positive impact.” In addition, the publication stated that “[abstinence-only programs] show some negative impacts on youth's willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse.” And who ends up on the losing end of a teen pregnancy in most cases? The female. A woman can’t run away from a pregnancy. She either has to make the decision to have an abortion, have the baby and raise him or her or put the baby up for adoption.

And finally, Palin is the vice presidential candidate for a man who doesn’t support equal pay for equal work with regard to women. That was evident when McCain voted against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in Congress. Good thing he showed up long enough to manage that. According to McCain, women can secure equal pay for equal work very easily:

“They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else. And it’s hard for them to leave their families when they don’t have somebody to take care of them.”

Palin’s position on equal pay for equal work is unknown at this time, as is so much else about her. But according to MSNBC.com, a Palin spokeswoman said that Palin “actually opposes the trial lawyers’ effort to overturn the longstanding statute of limitations in America’s courts.” I’m not sure if that spokeswoman didn’t drink her morning coffee or she’s just not good at her job, but Palin might want to have a powwow with her, because opposing the trial lawyers’ effort to overturn the longstanding statute actually means that she stands in line with McCain. As MSNBC.com stated, “if we're reading this statement correctly, this means that Palin backed the Supreme Court's 5-4 majority decision that invalidated Lily Ledbetter's equal-pay lawsuit.”

Now, I’ve just listed three issues on which I believe Palin stands on the opposite side of women, but these are three important issues. Women, especially Democratic women voters, need to be mindful of these issues when making their decision to vote for a candidate who stands up for them (Obama) or one whose idea of championing women’s rights is to pick a female as his vice presidential candidate as a way to win votes (McCain). I’ll leave you with these words from Hillary Clinton’s speech at the Democratic National Convention:

“Whether you voted for me, or voted for Barack, the time is now to unite as a single party with a single purpose. We are on the same team, and none of us can sit on the sidelines. I haven’t spent the past 35 years in the trenches advocating for children, campaigning for universal health care, helping parents balance work and family, and fighting for women’s rights at home and around the world . . . to see another Republican in the White House squander the promise of our country and the hopes of our people.”

Mom, I hope you're listening.