(I’m in a bad mood again. Consider yerse’f warned.)
I saw a headline a few days ago that made me twitch. It was where Palin said we (meaning the US) need to stand beside our North Korean allies.
Now, I’m not a history buff. I couldn’t tell you the time frame of the Korean War. But I could tell you which side we (meaning the US) are allied with. It ain’t the North.
I assumed I had mis-read and since I wasn’t interested in a blood pressure increase, I didn’t read further. Today I came across this article: (bold text is my doing)
Why Sarah Palin’s North Korea Flub Matters
Sarah Palin provided prime material for news outlets and comedy programs when she said on Glenn Beck’s radio show Wednesday:
“But obviously, we’ve got to stand with our North Korean allies.”
If she hasn’t already, I’m sure Palin will say that the “elitist,” “lamestream” media is doing her wrong, and that she is once again a victim of “gotcha journalism.” And Palin’s small but passionate group of supporters will undoubtedly argue that Palin made an honest slip of the tongue, something that could happen to any of us. Her supporters are right. Saying “North” instead of “South” is something that any of us could easily do.
But here’s the thing: Any of us did not stand up two years ago and claim we were qualified to fill a job that is a heartbeat away from the American presidency. We haven’t written books, made speeches, endorsed candidates and spoken to the (mostly right-wing) media as if we were policy experts. And we haven’t been scouting office space in Iowa for a 2012 presidential run.
That’s the real story about the Palin flub about North Korea that the media isn’t covering. It’s not that she misspoke, but that anyone cared what she had to say on the issue in the first place.
Sarah Palin, with her reliance on spouting talking points, simplistic approach to issues and complete lack of experience beyond a half term as governor of a state the size of Columbus, Ohio, is not competent to be discussing North Korea. (Columbus, Ohio’s population is bigger than Alaska’s, 769,360 to 698,743.) And shame on any media outlet that treats her opinions as if they’re worth anything.
The real damning Palin quote in the Beck interview is the one in which she worries if “the White House is gonna come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea’s gonna do.” Putting aside her usual butchering of the English language, she takes a complicated problem facing the United States (and the world) and reduces it to a talking-point political attack on the president.
Her comment reveals that she has no understanding that we are dealing with a North Korean leadership that may not be rational and may even be self-destructive. And one with the firepower to kill legions of South Korean civilians. To her simplistic, politics-driven approach, it’s only about how the Democratic president isn’t tough enough. (As an aside, she is talking about a president who has increased troops in Afghanistan, stepped up drone attacks on the enemy, and taken out more Taliban and al Qaeda leaders than George W. Bush ever did, but I digress… )
Personally, the fact she baled out of her job as governor just half-way through her term tells me she got a case of the big-head and wanted more. To hell with her obligations to Alaska. She’d ridden that boat as far as she thought it could take her then jumped to another.
I sincerely doubt the Republican Party is insane enough to nominate her to run for President in 2012. I know they have slid backwards a lot lately but, surely, not that far back.
As y’all know from previous posts, I full support the right of Free Speech. I support Palin’s right to open her mouth and continue to prove she is an idiot. What I don’t support is this “pot calling the kettle black” mentality and here I will digress some.
What the fudge are they doing calling themselves the Tea Party for? They injure the original Tea Party folks. The original one, which happened in Boston harbor in 1773, was an early act of rebellion by the Colonists against Britain and Big Corporations. (read about it on Wikipedia) Basically it was about taxation without representation.
Now we have these
idiots Americans who call themselves the Tea Party as a response to the way they think America is being run. Thing is, they started this group at the change of government, putting total blame on a brand new President and NOT on the previous administration. Um, wha…? They protest the acts of this new administration, blaming it for the unemployment, the recession, and for not acting quick enough to do what they want. Um, wha…? The original Boston Tea Party-goers did something. They stopped bitching and they did something. Granted, that something got everyone in trouble (the 5 ‘Coercive Acts’) but they did something at least. What has the current Tea Party done? Caused a huge rift in an already crumbling political party, brought all the nut cases out from all sorts of closets, and made us the further laughing stock of the rest of the world. (please, please, stop calling them “tea baggers”. makes me gag)
We can’t act as a nation with so many directional pulls. On the one hand, McCain (bless his twisted heart) says the repeal of the DADT push by Obama is ‘politically driven’ (duh, it’s Washington. what else fuels the crap there besides money?). What is Palin’s comments based on? Sheer love for this country or sheer love of the power and big-head case she has? No, it is also politically driven but for some reason, for her it is allowed. Oh, that’s right, she’s a Republican and therefore exempt. Riiiiight.
One last thing and then I will shut up. Maybe.
I think that when a person holding a political office decides to run for another office, they need to quit first. While H. Clinton was running against Obama, who was looking out for the state of NY’s interests in the Senate? While Palin was joy-riding with McCain, who was looking out for Alaska? And after losing, they all go back to their original jobs and proceed to represent their constituents against an opponent they lost against. It ain’t right. Not right at all.
Let’s say Lorna wanted to work for FedEx. But first, she needs to show that FedEx delivers better than the USPS and UPS and how she, as a future employer of FedEx, would be a good representative if hired. Meanwhile, she is still delivering mail for USPS. How far do you think that would last? And how happy do you think USPS would be when she returned, unhired to FedEx, to get back to work for a company she ignored and/or mistreated?
So why would the state of Alaska, NY, and all those others even WANT them back?