Would the Real Sarah Palin Please Stand Up?

Some observations from Sarah Palin’s latest Katie Couric, CBS News related trainwreck:

1) Is this a joke? Seriously? She couldn’t name a news paper? Not even the ones owned by Rupert Murdoch (New York Post, The Wall Street Journal) or the conservative alternative in D.C., The Washington Times? What kind of conservative is she? She couldn’t think of a magazine? The National Review? The Weekly Standard? The American Spectator? The American Conservative? I don’t even READ these publications and I know about them. She couldn’t name something safe like The New York Times or The Washington Post? USA Today? No, she just says she reads “all of them” or whatever people give her. Is this performance art at this point? Thank God you can train and memorize for a debate, because when it comes to a TV interview this woman is a walking, talking nightmare.

2) She’s a pro-life conservative, but … she calls herself a feminist, she’s cool with the gays (no judgments even though she calls it a “choice), she has no problem with most contraceptives (stopping short of the morning after pill), is for evolution being taught in schools, that man is partially responsible for global warming, and doesn’t have a home church, only going to a variety of churches sometimes, a la our current president (who doesn’t go to church) and her running mate, the other original maverick. She’s already pissed off the intellectuals. Now she wants to leave the churchniks with some doubts? Who ARE you, Sarah Palin? And you’re pro-Union (an issue not addressed in the interview)? WHO ARE YOU??? Dorothy, we are not in Kansas anymore.

Would the real original maverick please stand up? Because I could have sworn she was being sold as a hardcore faith-based, intelligent design jockeying, pray-the-gay-away churchnik and in the body of a pretty n’ tough “hockey mom.” I’m getting conflicting messages!

10 thoughts on “Would the Real Sarah Palin Please Stand Up?

  1. I gotta ask you Snob…do you think this women is pulling a fast one on us?I mean, do you think she’ll shut it down tomorrow at this debate? Per the <A HREF="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/01/why-sarah-palin-is-a-bett_n_130742.html“ REL=”nofollow”>Huffinton post she’s an awesome debater b/c of her ability to give great NON-answers. Let’s face it a lot of American voters are dumb. Well maybe not dumb, but no exactly critical thinkers. LOL

  2. I actually feel she should do okay in the debate. I think Sarah Palin is a very simple woman living in a diffcult world. I also think she should not be Vice Pres. but this will be left up to the voters come November. And we all saw how they voted for Bush “Twice”.

  3. All I can is, what’s with that Maoist red dress? She often wears it to interviews and campaign stumps. You aren’t supposed to wear the same outfit two days in a row. Palin isn’t exactly a beat dog. I’m anticipating that she’s going to come out swinging at the debate. Biden shouldn’t underestimate her. She’s a wild cat with sharp claws.

  4. Snob: tsk, tsk. Your inability to understand Sarah’s complex outlook on a range of topics just proves how multi-faceted she is. The skill she shows in changing positions sometimes within in the same interview is sheer brilliance. I don’t get what you don’t get. Mavericks are so misunderstood…draven7: Red looks ravishing on her and it’s so….American.

  5. She calls herself “The new energy, the new face, new ideas”????? I suppose she gets those new ideas from her phantom newspapers she couldn’t name.

  6. [ Sarah Palin just went “full retard”. You never go “full retard”.Posted By: scooter86 | October 01, 2008 at 07:17 PM ]I just copied that from a comment on Politico.com regarding the latest Sarah Palin / Katie Couric clip. It’s got to be the funniest analysis I’ve read all day! I am still convulsing with laughter.

  7. Hi, Danielle!I think we need to do some religion-decoding here.As regards your idea that Sarah was “a hardcore faith-based, intelligent design jockeying, pray-the-gay-away churchnik”: that would describe a normal Southern Baptist or something similar: a Calvinistic fundie or evangelical.But Sarah’s home church in Wasilla was Assemblies of God, which is mildly pentecostal, and not Calvinistic but Wesleyan Holiness in ancestry. That’s a very different flavor of pop Protestantism.One of the big differences is that where Calvinistic evangelicalism and Calvinistic fundamentalism tend to be highly judgmental and intolerant, Wesleyan Holiness is generally more mellow, accepting of the idea that we are all weak and not always successful in our struggles to do the Bible thing.Calvinism, because of its judgmentalism, strikes me as a lot more likely to produce preachers like, say, Jerry Falwell (originally Baptist Bible Fellowship; eventually Southern Baptist), who are rigidly disciplined themselves.Wesleyan Holiness, because of its mellowness, is more likely to produce preachers like Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker (who were, in fact, Assemblies of God), who slide into some serious misbehavin’ of their own.If you think about Sarah’s own out-of-wedlock first pregnancy, and her daughter’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and Sarah’s comfort level with both, it makes a lot more sense in a Wesleyan Holiness context.

Leave a Reply

Back to top
%d bloggers like this: