Sarah shows her true colors again. From Ben Smith at Politico (posted yesterday, December 3rd):
Speaking to the conservative talker Rusty Humphries today, Sarah Palin left the door open to speculation about President Obama’s birth certificate.
“Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?” she was asked [ . . . ]
“I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue. 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.
[ . . . ]
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.”
So because someone questioned whether Trig was your child or your daughter’s, it’s okay for you to whip up the birthers? Even though you know damn well Obama was born in the USA? Even though you remember, as I do, that during the campaign Obama stood up for you and asked his supporters to lay off Trig’s maternity?
I see the way your mind works:
- You’ve been wronged
- You must get even with those who wronged you
- Failing that, it’s okay to lash out at random targets
Let’s shorten that up, Sarah. Two wrongs make a right. That’s what you’re saying.
Good Christian thinking, there.
I wouldn’t worry so much about this if it were just you, but your supporters love the way you think. They, like you, believe in getting even. They, like you, believe two wrongs make a right. They, like you, have the moral maturity of five-year-olds. And there’s a bunch of ’em.
God help us all.
Update: from Daily Kos (posted today, Dec 4th):
Just 15 minutes ago, Sarah Palin issued a press statement — er Facebook post (same thing) — backtracking:
Stupid Conspiracies
Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask… which they have repeatedly. But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.
That doesn’t sound like much of a backtrack to me. Actually it sounds like more of the same. Sarah is not one to change her mind. Sarah is really pissed about that Trig stuff. And Sarah is still all about getting even.
Or is getting even all that Sarah’s about?
Paul, please forgive me, but I get my knickers in a twist laughing over the birth certificate issue.
Do you remember the Dems constant hue and cry about GWB stealing the Florida election in 2000? It turns out that when all, repeat all, the disputed ballots in Florida were recounted (BDO Siedman did it), no matter what protocol was used (hanging shard, dimpled shard, etc.), GWB won. So why didn’t the Repubs ballyhoo this to the high heavens? According to one of my sources, a pretty astute political advisor, it was to the Repubs benefit to let the Dems chase this red herring. People look really silly when something like that blows up in their face, especially during an election. Besides, it diverts lots of effort, money, time, and commitment. Then when it all goes bust, the true believers get discouraged and go into a deep funk for awhile and sit on the sidelines. That is right where you want the opposition during an election.
Could it be the Dems are playing the same game with the Repubs? Naw. We all know the Repubs are too smart for that. Yeah, right. Or could it be the old truism about what goes around, comes around, is true in politics?
P.S. WIll the Big S prove to be a similar distraction?
Dick, Florida’s presidential vote in 2000 was so close it required multiple recounts and eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court for resolution, delaying election results for a month. Democrats were bitterly disappointed, but I don’t recall any birther-like loons on the left calling for the nullification of the 2000 election because of it. I’m not sure how you can draw any equivalence between the Democrats of 2000 and the lunatic racists of the present-day birther movement. Democrats did, after all, accept the fact that GWB was president, and in fact Democrats in congress gave him pretty much whatever he wanted, including the Patriot Act restrictions and funding for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The more I think about it, why the hell are you even saying anything so preposterous?
Oops, sorry. I miscommunicated. The reason I’m laughing so much is that there is as much truth in the birther movement as there was in the GWB-stole-the-election movement, i.e. zilch, nada, nothing. The Repubs are chasing a red herring, which is probably to Obama’s advantage, if played right. Anyway, that is what I was trying to communicate.
There were a few hundred gallons of printers ink spilled in the GWB-stole-the-election controversy, especially in the Sacramento Bee. At times, the argument got hot and heavy, but you’re right that it was not as rabid as what we are now seeing in the birther-movement. But again, I see this as working to Obama’s advantage, if played right. I fully expect to see a similar repeat when the next Repub president is elected. I don’t know who that will be, or what the controversy will be centered on, but it will be there. What goes around comes around. Geez, Paul, I hope that isn’t preposterous. LoL.
All the best for the coming year.
Ever since the media adopted its quest for balance in all things, they’ve been forced to create equivalencies where none exist, and I think regular people like you and me are falling into the same fallacy, because that’s all we hear on the news any more: oh, ha ha, look at those loonies on the right; oh, ha ha, well just look at these loonies on the left.
Most recent example making the rounds: Al Gore slightly misquotes some climate scientist, saying the scientist predicts the complete summertime melting of the Arctic ice cap by 2031 when in fact the scientist actually said 2032; the New York Times runs a front-page article accusing Gore of playing fast and loose with scientific data to support his outlandish claims about global warming, and doesn’t get around to mentioning that Gore misquoted the scientist by just one year until the 18th paragraph. What could possibly be the motivation behind such outrageously misleading reporting? Balance. Rush Limbaugh is obviously full of shit; Al Gore must be depicted as equally shit-filled. The truth can only be in the middle, so let’s just smirk at those debating on both sides of the issue and meanwhile do nothing whatsoever.
To create balance where none exists is to dismiss the argument. If scientists who believe humans are causing climate change can be put in the same category as climate change deniers, we don’t have to face the issue. There are as many people who hate Sarah Palin as there are who love her; therefore there’s no point in challenging anything she says. Some Democrats think the Supreme Court colluded in stealing the 2000 presidential election; some people think Obama is really a Kenyan; they’re just all crazy!