According to the huffy folks over there at The Huffington Post, "Chase Whiteside and Erick Stroll of "New Left Media" set out to determine just what was it about Sarah Palin that impelled her supporters to stand in massive lines for hours for the chance to meet her at book signings." These are the same guys who interviewed people during a health care rally over the summer and made it clear to those of us in the know that we should be afraid. We should be very afraid. This situation is similar in that folks have no idea what so ever as to why they support Sarah Palin, but I think that most of us knew that. With the health care reform thing, I think that we were holding out hope that people really knew their stuff. We were greatly disappointed.
Here's what I'd like to know even though I suppose that there isn't any real way of knowing this. Would Sarah Palin have the supporters that she does in the freakishly cultish droves that she does if she were not as attractive as she is? I mean, let's face it, she's a PILF (Person I'd Like to F......). She could be a MILF; when she was governor she was definitely a GILF; but if you shed the occupations and the maternal responsibilities, she's just a person that most would LF.
And she's very nice. She seems kind. Dimwit or not, as long as someone is nice and tolerable, we're pretty much OK with them, at least for short periods of time. And if they're in politics, I suppose we want to believe that they know what they're talking about. Even still though, in order to believe that, we have to have the assumption that people know what the politician is talking about in order to believe them. Such is not the case with Sarah Palin supporters who were "waiting in line at a Borders bookstore in Columbus, Ohio." Yeah, they had no clue.
When pressed on her policies, her stances, her position on various issues, they were all flummoxed to come up with an answer other than nervous laughter. (Which, incidentally, is also Sarah Palin's reaction when she is pressed on her policies, her stances and her position on various issues.) Let me give you a sampling of some of the people that were interviewed and some of their responses to various questions posed (or just their response to a microphone shoved in their face).
This person here said that Sarah Palin makes her "proud to be a woman". A woman? Really? Huh. Ok, then. Good to know.
Some folks, like this lady, said that Sarah Palin "stands for what America is". When pressed for a wee bit o' elaboration, I give the woman credit for coming up with an answer (not necessarily for the content of her answer, but an answer none the less) and stating "Freedom. Our Liberty. The right to speak." All answers said with that intonation like the interviewer was a complete idiot. Oh, and just in case you're confused, let's just assume that she meant "freedom of speech" when she said "The right to speak." I'm simply clarifying. That's all.
Kudos to Jethro here for using the word "epitome". Kudos retracted from Jethro here for saying that it doesn't matter if the Republican Party backs Sarah Palin because she's "gonna git the presidency". Good Lord, sir. If you are right, I will be first in line at the Hemlock Supply Store the morning after her election to our nation's highest office.
I found this lady very interesting. The question posed to her was "What are some issues of hers that you agree with?" That sounds like a very open ended question to me. It's not leading. It's not picking out some obscure factor that only ten people have ever heard of and only focusing on that. It's leaving it up to her to decide which issues that she agrees with that she'd like to share with the group. It proved a little more difficult than that for the woman, as she immediately went on the defensive and seemed to be a little suspicious of the question itself. Then again, maybe she was just suspicious of the guy asking the question. He looks too normal. Anyway, she responds with "I'm not sure where you're going with that. What issues?"
What issues? With all due respect, ma'am, the issues is what issues. You know, the issues that you agree with. It's not a trick.
I like this guy who assertively states that President Barry wrote two books and described in those books "exactly what he was going to do." When asked what those things were, he replied, "His Marxism. Leninism. You know. Socialism." Um, sir. You're kind of going to have to choose one of those. All contain and employ some similar elements, that I will agree with, but they're not exactly one and the same. (Really, am I going to shoot down a guy who can utter something other than the term "socialism"? I don't think I am. At least he's thinking!)
This woman has a problem with all of the "czars" in America. She states assertively, "I'm an American. We don't have czars in America." Well, see, that's where you're wrong. We do have folks that are called czars in America, but I don't know why as that is not their official title. I will grant her that it is a ridiculous term to give someone who is holding a government appointed post. That I will concur with. But it's not like they have the totalitarian powers like the czars of yore did. Oh, and by the way, President Barry isn't the first President to appoint a czar. The czar appointing in America has been going on since at least 1973 when Richard Nixon, a Republican, first appointed the nation's first drug czar. So we do have czars in America, but they're not the fault of President Barry, nor the Democratic Party. As long as she's clear on that, I'm good with her czar opposition. Still not clear on why that is grounds to be a Sarah Palin supporter, but she's a proud American and I can't argue with that. The reasons? Oh, those I can argue with, but certainly not the premise.
This man worries about the election in 2012. Not so much who will be running against who in the election, but whether or not there will even be one at all! That's right. He's wondering if there will even be a Presidential election at all in 2012. He claims to know that there is some "backroom talk of martial law" and that the one scenario that would absolutely do it is if "an atom bomb goes off in the United States". Hmmm. It's a little hard for me to figure how that would result in martial law as opposed to us just bombing the country who bombed us clear back to the Stone Age. That seems to be the more logical route to take as opposed to not holding a Presidential election. I wonder if that's his scenario in general for martial law taking over the land or just as long as President Barry is in charge.
I'm going to wrap it up with this guy again. He might be my favorite commenter of them all. He looks somewhat like a doofus, but he seems to really believe that he knows what he's talking about. Aside from that, however, he also seems genuinely concerned and while his talking points are far from accurate, I appreciate the concern for the well being of this country (I assume that's what he's concerned about anyway). He reminds us here that the state that Sarah Palin did govern WAS (after all) right across the street from Russia. And while he knows that she probably didn't have to deal with those pesky Russkies, he knows that she probably had some boundary issues with them and all. Of course. You know. With the street and all. That might require a bit of negotiating from time to time. Sure.
Just in case he was really persuasive and now you're scratching your head a bit, I'm going to let you in on a fairly well known secret. Ready? Yeah, there's no street separating Russia and Alaska. We prefer the term strait. As in "The Bering Strait". Behold!
Tomato. Tom-ah-to. He was close. God help America. The video of these folks is below. It's long, but it sure goes by quickly. You know. Due to the amusement.
No comments:
Post a Comment