Palin defends Dr. Laura
posted at 4:25 pm on August 20, 2010 by Allahpundit
Surprisingly, even some Palinistas in this morning’s Headline thread were iffy about it. It’s not the substance of the defense that’s at issue — her point is that Schlessinger’s being attacked even though she didn’t use the N-bomb with any intent to demean — but her decision to get involved at all. Particularly considering that Dr. Laura was notably critical of Palin when McCain tapped her for VP.
Adversaries who have been trying to silence Dr. Laura for years seized on her recent use of the n-word on her show as she subsequently suggested that rap “artists” and other creative types like those producing HBO shows who regularly use the n-word could be questioned for doing so. Her intention in discussing the issue with a caller seeking advice was not to be hateful or bigoted. Though she did not mean to insult the caller, she did, and she apologized for it. Still, those who oppose her seized upon her mistake in using the word (though she didn’t call anyone the derogatory term) to paint her as something that she’s not. I can understand how she could feel “shackled” by those who would parse a single word out of decades of on-air commentary. I understand what she meant when she declared that she was “taking back my First Amendment rights” by turning to a new venue that will not allow others the ability to silence her by going after her stations, sponsors, and supporters.
I, and obviously many others, have been “shackled” too by people who play games with false accusations, threats, frivolous lawsuits, misreporting, etc., in an effort to silence those with whom they disagree. That’s why I tend to defend people who call it like they see it while others stop at nothing to shut them up. I learned this valuable lesson when the partisan obstructionists in my state tried to shackle, bankrupt, and destroy my family and supporters, and my record, with endless frivolous litigation when I returned from the Vice Presidential campaign trail. In order to shake off the shackles they wanted to paralyze us with, I handed the reins to another, much like Dr. Laura is doing, so that these obstructionists who hated a Commonsense Conservative agenda wouldn’t win. I didn’t retreat; I reloaded in order to fight for what is right on a fairer battlefield. So, more power to someone with good intentions who refuses to be shackled by their detractors when they are falsely accused of being racist.
She ends by reminding people that Schlessinger’s critics had no problem with Rahm Emanuel calling people “retards” when Palin complained. The strategic goal here, I assume, is to rally conservatives against the JournoList-ish practice of rhetorically throwing right-wingers through plate-glass windows via bad-faith accusations of racism. But based on a sampling of opinion among several black Republicans, I don’t think that goal’s been achieved:
I spoke to Michel Faulkner, the former NFL player and Harlem preacher challenging Charlie Rangel for a House seat, and he was unsparing in his criticism: “Why Sarah Palin feels she needs to join in to Dr. Laura’s personal meltdown is beyond me. She’s sounding like she just likes to hear her own voice—and the voice that she has is no longer credible. It says that a leading voice among conservatives has joined the ranks of the entertainers—trying to shock us each day with more and more outlandish commentary. And at that moment that person is no longer fit to lead.”…
Nationally syndicated conservative columnist Deroy Murdock took an even stronger line. “Sarah Palin’s tweets resemble something scribbled by a ninth-grade cheerleader. Is it asking too much for a reputed American political leader to communicate in complete sentences? Palin’s gravitas gap is growing into the Gravitas Canyon,” said the media fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. “Even worse, she deploys her vacuity to defend an acerbic talk-show host who just detonated herself by tossing around the word ‘nigger’ on the air 11 times, as if it were a volleyball. The American right can do better than this. And it must.”
From PJTV’s Joe Hicks:
“When I first heard this stuff, what came across was an extremely lame white chick trying to school this other woman about the N-word. … So I’m certainly not one to try and defend Dr. Laura. She has a history of being a negative and nasty persona. But Sarah Palin’s comments? Well, this is confusing stuff coming out of a woman who would have been the vice president if McCain had won. … Palin seems to be as equally detached from the real world where people operate and where race is a really volatile topic.”
It’s worth noting that they were reacting to Palin’s two tweets about this subject yesterday, not to her more comprehensive Facebook post today, but I’m guessing their opinions won’t change dramatically once they see the latter. (Note to self: Do not use a micro-medium like Twitter to opine on explosively sensitive issues like race.) Exit question: Should she have stayed out of this?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
Take that up with socialist Glenn Beck. He could tell you a thing or two about boycotts.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 8:58 PM
***Oh my gosh……this tweetur by our gal Sarah will surely cost her the African-American vote…..oh, wait…mmmm.
99.999999999% of their vote goes to that thar DOTUS feller.
And what diff does it make anyway that Hillbilly from Wasilly ain’t a runnin’ fer anything sceptin’ gettin’ that new book a hers published and gettin’ sum more royalties, he he.
I’m just a hopin’ she gets it in gold so she’ll have somethun to fall back on when the Economy collapses, Obama declares Martial law, and Chinese tanks roll thru da streets. Until den……go Cuda go!!!
***this comment that follows preceeded post above.
“Hey Mammy where’s the jug, this un’s empty. I got’s ta post on HotWinds agin, they gots another Palin thingy.”
PappyD61 on August 20, 2010 at 9:03 PM
Yeah, that’s an important point. A private citizen tweets something about a radio talk show host and that tweet is analyzed and parsed and analyzed again as if it came on White House stationery. Hilarious.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 9:09 PM
Heard it. Disagreed then, too.
MadisonConservative on August 20, 2010 at 9:10 PM
So Van Jones and other Center for American Progress minions can organize their little groups of thugs, lean on Beck’s sponsors, Rep. Weiner can vilify Beck’s sponsor to make an example, and you’re all hunky-dory with that. Gotcha.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 9:13 PM
Can anyone stop those things (boycotts) and are they ever very successful?
Cindy Munford on August 20, 2010 at 9:15 PM
I don’t think they’re all that successful, and people can stop them by pointing out when little groups of thugs are doing it. In my opinion, the best boycott is flicking the on/off switch. Works like a charm.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 9:16 PM
This is like the equivalent to Mr. President butting in on the issue that he decided was worthy of a beer summit. It was silly and something he should have stayed out of. Same with Palin. Her facebook rants are making her look foolish.
scalleywag on August 20, 2010 at 9:27 PM
Exit question: Should she have stayed out of this?
======================================================
I dunno,sounds snafu’y to me,I guess
SarahCuda was just sharpening up her
Kodiak Claws!!(sarc).
canopfor on August 20, 2010 at 9:28 PM
Oh, but you read them, dontcha bud.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 9:28 PM
powerpro on August 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM
First Amendment may not be technically correct; but constraining you from voicing your opinion is not free speech. I hope Dr. Laura finds success in a new venue much like your example of Tammy Bruce- and then delivers a much deserved “FU” to the people who tried to censor her.
mad scientist on August 20, 2010 at 9:33 PM
I read Hotair posts about her rants. And mostly, they make her look foolish IMHO. She may be right about some things, and maybe this is one of them, but it just doesn’t seem like she should have jumped into it, that’s all. That was the question, wasn’t it?
scalleywag on August 20, 2010 at 9:34 PM
I know, why doesn’t Sara take Dr. Laura’s place as a radio show host, she’d be perfect for it. And then we can get on with trying to find a suitable candidate for the GOP in 2012, because we don’t have one of those yet.
scalleywag on August 20, 2010 at 9:36 PM
MadisonConservative on August 20, 2010 at 8:34 PM
Face it, you lost this argument a few hours back. Your responses are becoming increasingly absurd.
You just can’t let go, can you?
mad scientist on August 20, 2010 at 9:39 PM
The anal-retentives will never find “a suitable candidate”.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 9:40 PM
And your choice of candidates would be?
scalleywag on August 20, 2010 at 9:43 PM
I think that ball’s in your court.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 9:44 PM
I don’t like any of the ones in contention now. Look, we live in a world full of complicated problems, more than at any time in our history. It irks me to no end that people can really think that our only hope in getting us out of so many difficult situations is Gingrich, Palin, Romney, or Huckabee. Seriously…that’s it? That’s all we got? We need a g@#dam@ superhero.
scalleywag on August 20, 2010 at 9:47 PM
Color me surprised.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 9:48 PM
We need a friggin Patton, or a Churchill. We don’t need someone who chats on Facebook about a radio talk show host.
scalleywag on August 20, 2010 at 9:50 PM
Sounds to me like Dr Laura might have been right, haven’t heard the call. But I have to say I don’t get why they do that either. If they don’t want to be identified by that slur, why do they use it. It shows their ignorance.
wi farmgirl on August 20, 2010 at 9:50 PM
Get your friggin’ Patton or Churchill and you’d be b1tching about them too.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 9:52 PM
^ “We don’t need a guy who sits around painting pictures and smoking cigars and writing friggin’ books on ancient history…or one who likes to play polo and goes around saying any idiotic thing that comes into his mind…”
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 9:54 PM
I wouldn’t b1tch about anyone who could handle the problems we’re facing with the seriousness they deserve. I’d have nothing but respect and admiration for them. I just don’t think the ones throwing their hats in the ring are any more up to the task than the pantywaist we have in office right now. I’m entitled to my opinion as much as you are, so I guess we agree to disagree, but you need not insult me.
scalleywag on August 20, 2010 at 9:59 PM
In a word: Yeah.
It’s like she spouted off without listening to the segment, which is very disappointing.
Dr. Nutball belted it out ELEVEN damn times! No matter what point you’re trying to make, you don’t yell it ELEVEN damn times!
Mamma Griz won’t be ready for prime time until 2016 at the soonest. She charged way to hard into this and outstripped her cover and lines of support.
I’m a Palin backer, but I think she made a serious mistake jumping into this without properly surveying the battlefield first. It’s so Obama-esque, ala the Cambridge cops thing, the Ground Zero Mosque, that Ag drone he threw under the bus, ObamaCare, etc…
Strategic setback, tactical defeat for Palin.
The Force is with you Sarah Palin…but you are not a Jedi yet. (Not to say Obama is…he’s more of a Sith puppet than anything.)
SuperCool on August 20, 2010 at 10:00 PM
Exactly.
scalleywag on August 20, 2010 at 10:02 PM
Yeah, right. The only problem is you don’t know how anyone’s going to handle it until they get the job. It’s great to be a Reagan fan or a Churchill fan after the fact. Sooooo easy.
I’ve seen that same phrase used to describe just about EVERYthing Sarah Palin has ever done or said, or failed to do or say, and that’s no exaggeration. EVERYTHING.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 10:09 PM
Versus being compelled to support people they disagree with by their checkbooks? You bet. I boycotted every sponsor that dropped Beck, and will continue to do so. He can say what he likes. If we’re not free to choose to spend our money the way we wish, in a way that we feel is beneficial to the country, what are we free to do? By your logic, giving money to presidential candidates is suppression of free representation.
MadisonConservative on August 20, 2010 at 10:11 PM
Saving a drowning nut.
Probably a bad move for our Sarah of Alaska.
Dr. Schlessinger has been strange and has been really changing for the worse.
I met a girl at 17 who was adorable but wasn’t very kind to me. I saw her again at 27 and she was a mess and under attack by some “friends” who called her Cruella DeVille and leather face since some manic problem caused her to totally mess herself up. I tried to inflate her ego and defend her and it led to untold trouble. All on my head.
IlikedAUH2O on August 20, 2010 at 10:12 PM
As Lenny Bruce said way back during the Kennedy Administration:
“The word’s suppression gives it its power, its viciousness, its violence… If President Kennedy got on TV and said:… ‘.Nigger nigger nigger, nigger nigger nigger nigger!’ till nigger didn’t mean anything anymore, till the word lost its meaning … “, the word would have been deflated and its power destroyed.
Quoting Black comics to make a point that they overuse the word was the point of the radio Doc.
If we are not allowed to quote or comment on what other people say, speech becomes castrated and absurd.
If this is Palin’s point, it defeats AG Holder’s weasely slander about a nation of cowards on Race.
profitsbeard on August 20, 2010 at 10:13 PM
So Van Jones’ only alternative to boycotting Beck is to support Beck with his checkbook? Uhhhh……yeah. LOL
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 10:13 PM
And for the record, I’ve never listened to Dr. Laura. Ever.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 10:14 PM
Considering that you’ve now argued that not supporting a media figure with your checkbook is “constraining free speech”. Lovely dichotomy.
MadisonConservative on August 20, 2010 at 10:16 PM
You’re flailing, Madison. Van Jones could, uh, simply not watch Beck.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 10:18 PM
So, what are you trying to say here?
You can’t be a Palin backer unless you think she’s perfect.
Or
Anyone who thinks she makes a mistake isn’t a real Palin backer, but a detractor posing as one.
I thought she was doing pretty well, better than most pols at this stage in their national prominence (Obama being the exception, due to 100% positive press coverage and ZERO vetting.) but I think she made a mistake here.
Can she recover? Yes. I think she’ll learn from this and won’t make the same mistake again, but it still doesn’t change the fact that, in my opinion, she botched this one.
SuperCool on August 20, 2010 at 10:19 PM
I’m just saying what I said. I’ve seen each and everything Palin has said or done described as an epic mistake.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 10:21 PM
No, Palin shouldn’t have stayed out of it. Palin isn’t all about what’s PC, she’s about doing what she thinks is right. I’m glad she stood up for a woman who’s getting nailed for doing the right thing — apologizing when she was wrong.
A private citizen, likable and popular though she be, should be able to stand up for a person or a cause without others calling her stupid … and likewise, an acerbic but astute and surprisingly soft-hearted radio personality, unlikable and unpopular as she is to those who never listen to or read her (boy, they have that in common, don’t they?), may want to go another route so she no longer has to worry if an advertiser is going to take up the pitchfork thrown around so long by the hateful left.
The losers are the people who don’t know Dr. Laura yet but need her wisdom. Over the last 30 years, they often stumbled upon her radio show and liked the no-nonsense help they heard. That’s going to be tougher to do online, I think.
(If you want to opine about what’s PC, talk about Obama jumping in the Mosque jello or Biden promising the Dems they’ll hold the House and Senate … then talk to me about Palin being vacuous. Sheesh.)
Dr. Laura made a bad call and she apologized. She is not melting down and it does not negate her service over the past 30 years to women, men, children, service personnel, gays (yes gays! If you don’t know that, you’re not a listener), adoptive parents, and women who were encouraged to abort but didn’t, and live the blessing of that choice every day. She is a strong conservative voice who is getting treated badly for something that was just not that terrible … and that’s why Palin defended her.
eucher on August 20, 2010 at 10:25 PM
So now you are obligated to buy products from private companies regardless of their willingness to do business with people you despise?
I guess my disdain for Progressive insurance’s agenda, and my choice to do business with their competitors pegs me as the same as Van Jones, eh? Same goes for my refusal to do business with Men’s Wearhouse after they pulled their advertising from Beck’s show? Same goes for my refusal to do business with Pizza Hut after they fired multiple drivers for lawfully concealed carrying and using those lawfully carried weapons to protect their lives?
Please, continue to opine from thy cardboard pedestal. Extra points if you tell us we’re wrong to discriminate in which businesses we give our money to. Keep drinking deep from the bottle of Diet Collectivism.
MadisonConservative on August 20, 2010 at 10:30 PM
And by the way…if this is your attitude about consumer’s rights, it’s pretty despicable. Maybe you get free cable or satellite, but plenty of people detest paying 50+ a month for networking, and having no right to complain if it sucks. By your logic, they should just shut up, change the channel, and keep paying.
Seriously, if you call yourself a fiscal conservative, then tell people they are unAmerican to discriminate about whom they give their money to, you’re a liar.
MadisonConservative on August 20, 2010 at 10:34 PM
ROFL…WHAT??? Unless someone’s got 100 heads, they’re going to choose which channels to watch. Olbermann’s not on my list of essential viewing, therefore his mug doesn’t appear on the TV here. I don’t plan to initiate a boycott of Olbermann and MSNBC for polluting my sacred cable access.
Man, are you ever flailing.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 10:41 PM
Of course an individual doesn’t have to patronize anyone he/she doesn’t wish to patronize. I’m sure though that you might recognize that an effort by Color of Change to intimidate Beck’s sponsors into dropping him isn’t quite the same thing.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 10:44 PM
That’s your choice. Boycotting is a legitimate form of activism. If companies want customers, they will listen to those who control their revenue streams. According to you, willfully denying them your dollars is tantamount to communist subversion. How about doing it by default when you don’t watch MSNBC, don’t watch their commercials, and don’t buy the sponsor’s products or services? Really, it’s just like Van Jones, as you say.
MadisonConservative on August 20, 2010 at 10:56 PM
So it’s okay if an individual does it. Just not a group of individuals. That makes sense.
MadisonConservative on August 20, 2010 at 10:57 PM
Yeah. And you’re the one who called me a “collectivist”.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 10:58 PM
So Van Jones trying to force Glenn Beck off the air through intimidation is OK. Alrighty then.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 11:00 PM
If I don’t watch MSNBC, I’m being neutral. I’m not actively trying to get MSNBC taken off the air because I don’t agree with their politics. I’m just not watching MSNBC.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 11:04 PM
And you said I was flailing.
Telling a company you’re not going to give them your money because of their political connections is “intimidation”?
Got it.
MadisonConservative on August 20, 2010 at 11:04 PM
Take it easy guys, go to bed.
wi farmgirl on August 20, 2010 at 11:06 PM
So once you actively make that choice, rather than passively, then you’re “intimidating” their sponsors. And if you actually encourage others to do that, so that the boycott might have a significant impact, you’re…what…terrorists? Gangsters?
“I’ll buy your stuff if you stop supporting this media figure. Otherwise, I won’t. Don Corleone sends his fondest regards.”
MadisonConservative on August 20, 2010 at 11:07 PM
Oh, you are. Mightily.
Yes, it is.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 11:08 PM
I’m doing no such thing. I’m simply not watching MSNBC.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 11:09 PM
Oh…and by the way…I guess you’re entirely against the “Buy American” slogan. That’s just one big jingoistic boycott, isn’t it?
MadisonConservative on August 20, 2010 at 11:09 PM
Kay. You’re wrong.
MadisonConservative on August 20, 2010 at 11:10 PM
^ When you say, “I don’t like MSNBC’s politics and they have no right to be on the air; therefore I’m going to organize a boycott of MSNBC’s sponsors to make sure they’re driven off the air” it’s a tad different from simply not tuning in.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 11:10 PM
You’re passively boycotting the network. You’re choosing to deny them viewership. You’re discriminating. Exactly what people do with sponsors, except in their case, you consider it intimidation. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
MadisonConservative on August 20, 2010 at 11:12 PM
One’s active, one’s passive. That’s the difference. If you don’t watch, you don’t care whether they’re on the air. If you did care about them being on the air, you’d watch, and support the sponsors.
MadisonConservative on August 20, 2010 at 11:13 PM
So Van Jones was just doing his civic duty in trying to get Beck’s sponsors to dump him. And not only Van Jones, but various other assorted moonbat outfits, many of whom are supplied with Soros money and who have the backing of the White House. That’s not “tolerance”, that’s not “celebrating free speech” and “private property rights”; that’s intimidation and trying to squelch viewpoints you simply don’t agree with. Period.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 11:13 PM
What happy horse merde. I can’t believe that some people actually believe that Palin didn’t listen to the clip. Several times, actually.
Palin knows that Dr. Laura has a pretty wide following across the country. She knows this more than her critics. So she stood up for her and is going to take the criticism of the “usual suspects”, most of whom will never vote for her anyway. Meantime, she’ll get loyalty points and more unhinged attacks on her by the Left, which only serves to strengthen her candidacy in the long run.
victor82 on August 20, 2010 at 11:15 PM
You got it. I DON’T CARE. I’m neutral. I’m not actively trying to shut down MSNBC.
ddrintn on August 20, 2010 at 11:15 PM
Just as conservatives who boycotted the sponsors who dropped Beck, yes. Same for conservatives who boycott sponsors of Bathtub Boy’s show.
Freedom of assembly.
No viewpoints are being squelched, any more than Laura was squelched. Broadcast networks are businesses. If they’re not delivering what the majority of their customers want, they go out of business. If your employee is causing your business to go badly, you make a business decision. Customers have none, zero, absolutely no obligation to support any business if that business makes it a point to support something that they stand against. If you disagree, explain their obligation, and where it comes from.
MadisonConservative on August 20, 2010 at 11:20 PM
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand she should have just stayed out of it.
On the other hand, I am more than a little tired of this double standard where there is a “word” that white people are not allowed to utter, yet blacks can use it routinely. No white person is allowed to speak this unspeakable word, yet blacks shout it out on TV, video, music and on the street!
What is freedom of speech? I think this whole thing about how this unbearable word, regardless of how offensive it is, has gotten so out of proportion that nothing good is going to come of it. Nothing good at all. When you boil it all down, it is still just a word. A word. Offensive, yes, but still a word. It has become this thing that is so dreaded, so powerful, so supposedly destructive when uttered( by a white), it is worse than yelling fire on a crowded theater (but only if you are white).
No, it doesn’t even matter now whether a white person uses this word with the intent to harm or humiliate. It doesn’t matter whether the person speaking the unspeakable word is a racist. No, only that the word came from a white person’s mouth. If that word, that sound, those letters are formed and the sound of the unspeakable word comes out of the white person’s mouth, it is like the earth trembles and the sky turns red! “A white man has spoken the unbearable word! Stone him! He must pay!” Comes the shout from the mob!
Well, if the unspeakable word is so unbearable and racist, than why are not other words?
It will be no wonder if someday we do not find ourselves with a list of illegal words. Words if spoken may land a person in jail. Words if uttered may cause a person to lose property and wealth.
The unspeakable word is offensive, just as many other words, actions and people are. But there is this thing called freedom. There is also this idea that the best way to handle offensive speech is to rise above it.
No, that’s just way too simple. And it would require effort, a little virtue and some character. It’s far better, quicker and easier to just play the offended victim.
JellyToast on August 20, 2010 at 11:21 PM
Then why do you care if people make their buying choices known to those companies?
MadisonConservative on August 20, 2010 at 11:21 PM
Twitter = tactical opine / Facebook = strategic opine
I agree with AP: no insertions on white hot national topics via tweets. If you want to say something, articulate well on Facebook so that you can’t be taken out of context.
That said, of course she should have gotten into this if she wished to engage in a teachable moment for critics who didn’t understand (or chose not to listen in the first place) the reasons for her leaving the governorship in Alaska.
If it has to be said, the First Amendment is applicable to Sarah Palin as well. She gets to enjoy it along with the rest of us, and her efforts will rise and/or fall as the public marketplace of ideas dictates.
An aside: For the record, I personally felt Dr. Laura had NOTHING to apologize for, and understood the point she was trying to make, but that there were some faint souls who couldn’t handle the adult conversation that she was trying to hold in the first place.
Um, NO WE DON’T, especially when such talk is only used as a means to beat up on a group of people for whom the only retribution demanded is eventually MORE racism, but in the other direction. This becomes an even louder HELL NO when the referees in such dialogue include Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Enough already!!
Just live your lives in the way that Dr. King described in his Dream speech. Or not. Your life, your choice, and everything else will come out in the wash. The only caveat is that you are only guaranteed equal opportunities, not equal outcomes.
itzWicks on August 21, 2010 at 12:35 AM
Ah, yes. Freedom of assembly (association). Unless I happen to own a Christian bookstore and don’t want to hire a gay person, or an atheist, or a Jew, or a Muslim to work there, who doesn’t share my beliefs. Then it becomes discrimination, right?
Too freakin’ funny!
JannyMae on August 21, 2010 at 12:49 AM
I really enjoy those of you who get MadisonConservative spinning so fast and loose in trying to defend the outrageous things he says! Kudos to all of you!
JannyMae on August 21, 2010 at 12:51 AM
Palin, Dr Laura & n****r?
Too good for Allah to pass up.
Ugly on August 21, 2010 at 12:57 AM
At least those idiots have learned to cut their comments off before they post a link! :-)
Most visitors outside of the handful of cultists over there are not big fans of Willard’s.
gary4205 on August 21, 2010 at 12:58 AM
Sarah Palin doesn’t just talk the talk, she walks the walk.
There are few people ANYWHERE that you can say that about these days.
gary4205 on August 21, 2010 at 1:13 AM
i have the strength within to stray out of this dead thread on a controversial topic.
i have the strength within to stray out of this dead thread on a controversial topic.
i have the strength within to stray out of this dead thread on a controversial topic.
i have the strength within to stray out of this dead thread on a controversial topic.
i have the strength within to stray out of this dead thread on a controversial topic.
i have the strength within to stray out of this dead thread on a controversial topic.
i have the strength within to stray out of this dead thread on a controversial topic.
i have the strength within to stray out of this dead thread on a controversial topic.
i have the strength within to stray out of this dead thread on a controversial topic.
i have the strength within to stray out of this dead thread on a controversial topic.
i have the strength within to stray out of this dead thread on a controversial topic.
i have the strength within to stray out of this dead thread on a controversial topic.
i have the strength within to stray out of this dead thread on a controversial topic.
i have the strength within to stray out of this dead thread on a controversial topic.
i have the strength within to stray out of this dead thread on a controversial topic.
eh on August 21, 2010 at 1:20 AM
but do you have the will?
but do you have the will
[repeat as needed]
There Goes The Neighborhood on August 21, 2010 at 1:44 AM
Recover?! Recover from what? A tweet sticking up for Dr.Laura who was pointing out the double standards of a word? See, this is what happens when a conservatives gets involved in a nontroversy. Republicans fold like a cheap suit. They get their panties in a bunch over this? Really? The only thing keeping the GOP in the game at this point is the the suicidal detachment of the Dems.
Dr.Laura overreacted. She should do what Democrats do in similar situations: absolutely nothing. Keep your job. Let it pass.
Palin critics are just trying to set the controversy bar as low as possible for her. “Recover…” Unbelievable.
Dongemaharu on August 21, 2010 at 1:56 AM
Good for Palin
Today I caught Mitch Albom, local progressive talk host, sticking up for Dr Laura, and he is hardly a Dr Laura supporter. I give him a hearty thumbs up for decency and common sense.
Dr Laura got trapped by the N word, which was inserted, possibly as bait, by the caller. Dr Laura made the mistake of speaking the word, which would not be out of context for the way she throws callers’ explanations back in their faces to make them hear what they have just said.
Unfortunately, she is not allowed by genetics to speak the word-which-cannot-be-enunciated.
Dr Laura finally took the bait from her enemies while she was on an advice roll, and it is a shame. They tried boycotts. They kept her off television. And now the dog pack took blood
Mitch Albom, and his side kick both refused to join the dogs. Detroit has some class acts too.
Good for Palin. The dog pack can try to put a hurt on Palin for her remarks, but they should think twice. The more they hit Palin for not joining the feeding frenzy, the more they promote her integrity
They could make her a legend if not careful
entagor on August 21, 2010 at 3:02 AM
Relax.
The sun will come up in a few hours and Sarah Palin will still be a force to be reckoned with.
It permeates her.
carbon_footprint on August 21, 2010 at 3:51 AM
Grizzly Marm.
AshleyTKing on August 21, 2010 at 3:52 AM
The unwritten rule that only blacks can use the n-word seems fair enough. I’m not in favor of any kind of reparations, not even affirmative action, but after slavery and Jim Crow, let’s just give them this one. I don’t understand why some blacks would want to use such a demeaning word themselves. I don’t have to understand it.
I know it’s wrong for me to say it, so why would I be concerned about the double standard that certain other people can? Why would anyone want to be able to say such a hateful word in polite conversation?
Having said all that, I’m not sure if this is such a gaffe for Palin. For some reason I can’t understand, I’ve heard a lot of white conservatives make the same kind of argument about the double standard on the N-word, and I have a feeling she’ll get a lot of silent sympathy for her remarks.
RightOFLeft on August 21, 2010 at 4:05 AM
My comment got eaten, which I should probably take as a sign to go to bed already and leave it alone. but…
I don’t think is such a gaffe for Palin. Based on the common complaints about the N-word double standard, A lot of conservatives will be silently sympathetic to her remarks. Personally, I don’t get it. Some double standards make sense.
For a race that has endured so much suffering, I think it’s fair that they own the one word in the English language that best captures the sentiment that caused all the trouble. They own it, they can do what they want with it. I don’t get why blacks would want to use such a demeaning word, but it’s their word now, so it’s not for me to say.
RightOFLeft on August 21, 2010 at 4:13 AM
What I find so amazing about this whole thing is, that the caller was more offended by Dr. Laura pointing out how the unspeakable word is used repeatedly on HBO than she was about the unspeakable word being used repeatedly on HBO!
All the outrage should be directed at HBO! Why is no one talking about that? Oh No, but Dr. Laura is a racist because she was telling us about the racism on HBO? So, pointing out racism is more racist than racism or something??
JellyToast on August 21, 2010 at 6:56 AM
Now we’re in sophistry land.
If you don’t know the difference between “boycott sponsors” and “not watching”, I can’t help you.
By the way, I’ve listened to Limbaugh, Levin and Beck on occasion. I haven’t patronized all their sponsors. Am I boycotting them?
ddrintn on August 21, 2010 at 7:28 AM
MadisonConservative, I see your point about how her First Amendment rights were not taken away from her by the government, and technically you are correct. However, I feel you are being a little obtuse (as a few others) on this point. I also feel that ddrintin is right, but unable to articulate his point effectively (your usual style of trying to win arguments through syntax contributing). So let me try to clarify…
Dr. Laura’s First Amendment rights were never taken away. On that we both agree. We also both agree that sponsors have every right to refuse sponsorship for whatever reason and a private business can let her go for their own reasons. They have that right. We agree.
Here, is where we disagree (perhaps). While her First Amendment rights were not TAKEN away, her freedom of speech was still restrained. Why? Because she GAVE away some of her rights when she signed up for the job. It’s the same as everyone. She is NOT free to say anything she wants because she will also suffer consequences for it from her employer. Everyone must give up some of their freedoms to an employer in exchange for monetary compensation. That is and always has been part of the employee/employer contract. In fact, I give up some of my free speech to post on HA because of their right to limit what I can say. It’s part of the whole “your rights end where others’ rights begin” thing.
So, Dr Laura’s statement of “…taking back (her) First Amendment rights” is very accurate indeed. She had given them away and is now taking them back. Not a hard concept. I cannot think for Palin, but it would be intellectually dishonest to ignore the possibility that she thought the same thing when she posted her support.
I’m not saying your points are not valid at all. I am saying you are arguing the wrong case. Are you at all capable of humbling yourself to admit, with this new revelation (I assume it’s new out of respect for you as the alternative would show you to be very dishonest in your debate), that Palin and Laura’s statements about taking back their rights could be accurate?
Furthermore, what is your view on the more important matter of the racism that restricts the words one can use based on their skin color? I think it is bigotry in its finest and I stand with Palin on this issue as well. Why can’t I say the “n-word” but Blacks can? Do I want to say it? Not at all and that is not the point. The point is that if we cannot get over the whole “you don’t understand because you’re white” and “it’s different when [insert race] people say it” then we will never get beyond race politics or bigotry in general. Someone has to take a stand, and I don’t care what color the person is that does it. Why? Because saying it HAS to be a Black person to denounce its use is just another subtle way of saying “you can’t because of your skin color.” Skin color shouldn’t matter for anything, period!
Pattosensei on August 21, 2010 at 10:00 AM
Sarah should take Romney’s strategy and hide and come up for air once in a while…ha. I thought the race card has exceeding its purchase limit? Guess not.
MestizoMaverick on August 21, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Lighten up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtqqMchhUkw
MT on August 21, 2010 at 1:48 PM
You make sense.
AshleyTKing on August 21, 2010 at 6:32 PM
I really can’t believe that people on this comment site would waste a whole bunch of time bashing Palin when she isn’t a candidate for ANYTHING. I enjoy (and find refreshing) Palin’s posts on FB. Anything to keep the TV shut off…
psychocyber on August 21, 2010 at 8:43 PM
Thank you very much.
Believe it or not, this is the first time I think anyone has actually acknowledged a post of mine. Course I don’t post much either. I do read a lot though (been here since 2007-ish I think).
Pattosensei on August 21, 2010 at 9:09 PM
No because she’s confirming what is the rule of the game; that it doesn’t apply to everybody (meaning the word), and who is the first individual that first said “this word, the N-word, is a bad word) and that shall not be used by a white individual, just by African Americans, and other blacks from around the globe. This is “our” word, not “theirs”.
I have never seen so much division in my life. Of course there’s been way worse situations which led out to a bloody war, where the African Americans have forgotten. Gettysburg.
They embrace Abe Lincoln and swear on his Holy Bible when it suits them and when it’s convenient. But when push comes to shove, Causasians and Latinos alike are shunned from using it. I mention Latinos in this pickle b/c I have not heard it on stand-up comedy. If someone did, please let me know.
The n-word is part of the American history. Point blank. Reality check. And I will say it again: Go to Gettysburg and see how many African Americans you’ll see, while doing tourism and educating themselves on what it came about to set them free. Limbs? So many that it reached a SECOND LEVEL of a building? Give me an effin’ break.
Sarah calls it as she sees fit. She identifies with Dr. Laura’s situation b/c she went thru the same crappola. Again, I want more men on the GOP hollerin’ about this and they’re just not coming through, or are not being loud enough.
What, they think that by ignoring the issue and have Sarah take the heat she’ll go away, so they can have a chance at 2012? They just make me sick.
I want Governor Palin to enjoy her family in AK and be quiet for about three weeks. See if hell breaks loose, and which men will step forward and pounce at the chance of being a fearless Conservative. Everybody knows what’s gonna happen.
I support her decision on her support for Dr. Laura. But this crap of men not manning up and just flying to Iowa and schmoozing babies and eating junk food while throwing the same M.O. to liberals is boring and it seems to come out of a script. We have enough of that already.
ProudPalinFan on August 21, 2010 at 9:33 PM
It’s funny, but I’m thinking the very reason most people this Palin should stay out, is the precise reason Palin knows it needs to be addressed – she REALLY has a knack for getting to root of the problem which so many overlook. It is a problem that race is still such a volatile issue and part of the reason it is is that people have bought into the manufactured outrageous outrage, such as this. The n-word isn’t a bad thing in and of itself, it’s the intention that went with it. The fear created by Political Correctness is essentially lip service to a cause that typically, those who feel bound by it have no intention to put forth effort to fix but want to seem that they do. Giving into it gives further cause to ‘victim classes’ to whine for special treatment, which ultimately perpetuates the victim status by emphasizing they can’t fend for themselves and in a backhand way is an insult because it is saying they can’t succeed without our help essentially saying they are inferior. I would say Palin’s greatest strength – from dealing with the media, to attacking Obama’s policies, to cleaning house when she was Governor – was cutting through the crap that too many people buy hook, line and sinker. Even the crap that many Republican have given into like it’s more important for the President to be learned than wise (aka have common sense). And those that politicians shouldn’t rock the boat for fear on scaring off the moderates. And in this one – that every utterance of the n-word, or any offense against what the PC Police decree, is a punishable offense because “there is no way we can understand their experience of it”. Sure, there may be part of it I can’t, but I know that it’s a case of being a ‘big fat baby’ when you are so offended by a word, regardless or the content. It’s essentially the “his hand is on my side!!” argument you hear from kids in the car on a long trip – being offended by the non-offensive because they want to get the one committing the ‘offense’ in trouble.
It’s par for the course for Palin – calling crap for what it is when it is having a big effect on what America is becoming. Honestly, I’m surprised at the amount of surprise Palin supporters are expressing on her decision to weigh in on this. Honestly, I’m more surprised and disapproving on her ‘retard’ comments, where I think she actually gave into the crap she’s calling on this one.
miConsevative on August 21, 2010 at 11:01 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4