WTF Is She Talking About?

palin claims that if obamacare passes "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

really? well, in honor of abraham lincoln, the de facto founder of the republican party, i hereby challenge you to a "spot resolution challenge". what is a "spot resolution challenge"? the "spot resolutions" were a series of bills authored by lincoln that challenged president polk to point to the spot on american soil where blood was spilled, the alleged justification for the mexican-american war (here is the wikipedia entry).

in my version of the challenge, i challenge the former governor to point to the spot in the president's health care bill where it specifically authors "death panels" and/or where it calls for eliminating health care for down syndrome babies. point to the spot. show me where because a) i don't think i support a bill that authorizes "death panels" but b) my BS meter got up when reading her claim. so, in fairness, point to the spot. my BS meter goes down and you win the day.

on a side note, it seems like the parents of down syndrome children would WANT some form of government health care that protects parents' ability to get the necessary medical coverage for their children without the fear of rising premiums or cancellation of coverage. but thats just me, you know, here in the land of reality.

More Palin Thoughts

so sarah palin's lawyers have now threatened to sue anyone who dares disagree with her in public. sounds like how scientology deals with their critics.

one refrain that i have constantly heard from her side is that she despises attacks against her family and that influenced her decision to step down. i can understand that, but seriously, can anyone actually point to an attack leveled at palin's family? sure, david letterman made an off-color joke about one of her kids, but i recall john mccain doing the same to a certain chelsea clinton. so, aside from that, who has been attacking palin's family? the blogger who photoshopped a different head on trig's body? how is that an attack on trig? speculation that bristol is actually trig's mother? that rumor has about as much credence as the obama birth certificate story (someone from the MSM ask palin this: since she is so sensitive to rumors and accusations thrown at her that she claims are untrue, then does she feel obama would be justified in suing bloggers who claim he is not a natural born citizen?). what else? who has actually attacked her family? is it "attacking her family" to point out that bristol's advocacy of abstinence-only education is remarkably hypocritical? plus, doesn't bristol being an adult and taking on a public role in her new role as the spokesperson for the abstinence-only crowd, make her a legitimate target for people who oppose what she (allegedly) stands for? and, lest we forget, palin, more than any other politician that i can think of, thrust her family into the spotlight and made them a part of her campaign and public image. she relies on them as props and tools to further her own ambition, so is it not a complete double standard for her to rely on them to serve her needs yet claim them off limits for any commentary? look, the obama's are very protective of their daughters, and rightfully so. the palin children should be afforded the same luxury, and they have. NO ONE HAS EVER ATTACKED TRIG. OR WILLOW. OR TRAPP. OR WHATEVER OTHER WEIRD-ASS NAME HER OTHER KIDS HAVE (whoops, i just attacked her family!). the only palin child that has faced any sort of criticism is bristol, and that was of her own making.

i just don't get it. are pitbulls this thin skinned? are pitbulls this deranged that they think every form of criticism, legitimate or not, is part of some nefarious plot to destroy her family? are pitbulls quitters? i guess we know the answer now.

Palin

i don't claim to be no political expert, but i think i have a pretty good understanding of how this politics thing works. despite being the astute observer of politics that i am, i was quite baffled by sarah palin's announcement yesterday that she is stepping down as governor of alaska to...well, its kind of unclear what her next step is. some are speculating that there is a major scandal on the way (could be true). others think she just isn't interested in the job of governor (could also be true). she might be retiring from politics (god i hope this is true, but unlikely). or she could be prepping for a presidential run (unsure if i want this to be true or not). and, as the dude on CNN just said, depending who you ask, this is either the smartest - or dumbest - political move ever. depending on who you ask.

here is my take. barring the scandal scenario, i think this could prove to be a shrewd move. allow me to explain. right now, the republican party is essentially leaderless. none of the republican senators or representatives really commands the national spotlight. there is no governor, save for palin, that really commands national attention either. the power base of the republican party right now is in the media with rush, beck, hannity, and the rest, but despite being popular and influential, none of them can really be considered the leader of the republican party, politically speaking.

this is where palin comes in. i think nominally she was the de facto leader of the party, but from alaska it is very difficult to really command the national spotlight. now freed of the encumbrance of being governor, palin is free to tour the country for the next 3 (!) years and act as a steady opposition to obama's policies. what form her opposition will take is unsure but i think this is what she is doing. she is attempting to position herself as the leader of the party, and as we all know, when it comes to republican presidential primaries, the front runner normally wins.

i wonder if it will pay off for her. i personally don't think its a sound strategy. she could have waited a year and announced that she isn't running for reelection. but this will give her the time to do her homework on domestic and foreign policy and if she devotes herself to full time campaigning for 3 (!) years, she could emerge as a much more polished (read: comprehensible) candidate.

time will tell.

Sarah Palin STILL Does Not Understand What the First Amendment Means

since i didn't blog during election season, please consider this my make-up post for all the sarah palin bashing i missed. this is her latest statement regarding the whole miss california broo-ha-ha, which i admitedly have not been following all that much because i really don't give two shits what a contestant for miss california, or any beauty pagent contestant (with the notable exception of that miss teen USA south carolina a few years back) thinks about anything, let alone gay marriage:

"The liberal onslaught of malicious attacks against Carrie Prejean for expressing her opinion is despicable. Carrie and I spoke soon after the attacks started; I can relate as a liberal target myself. What I find so remarkable is that these politically-motivated attacks fail to show that what Carrie and I believe is also what President Obama and Secretary Clinton believe - marriage is between a man and a woman. I applaud Donald Trump for standing with Carrie during this time. And I respect Carrie for standing strong and staying true to herself, and for not letting those who disagree with her deny her protection under the nation's First Amendment Rights. Our Constitution protects us all - not just those who agree with the far left."

-Governor Sarah Palin

oy. where to begin. for starters, let me say that i think it is wrong for pagent judges to punish someone for their personal views. she was asked a question about gay marriage and she answered truthfully. there is nothing wrong with that. i don't really know how these things are judged, but it would seem to me that the context of a statement is not the criteria under which it should be judged.

now on with the palin bashing. its amazing that this woman was a heartbeat of a heartbeat from being a heartbeat away from the presidency. she clearly has no idea what the first amendment means. to help her out, allow me to reprint the text of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." i would like to invite the erstwhile governor of the great state of alaska to please explain how miss california is being denied her first amendment rights to freedom of speech.

it seems to me that she got herself into hot water because of her first amendment protections, not in spite of it. the first amendment has to do with congress restricting the freedom of speech, not perez hilton. this is the twisted logic of the republican party these days. they clearly have absolutely NO IDEA what the constitution says or means. those parts about due process and protection against cruel and unusual punishment? optional. equal protection of the laws? for everyone but the gays. that part in the preamble that talks about providing for the general welfare? clearly not universal health care, but the part in the preamble about providing for the common defense? that part is all that matters.

this isn't the first time palin has used some weak-ass first amendment defense to shed some crocodile tears. even though i am loathe to help the republicans with anything, my advice to her before 2012 is this: please read the constitution at least once. it might help.

someone needs to buy these people a clue.