Who Was Worse, Palin or Letterman?
Posted by Joe Rivett on 06.17.2009
Will the real douche bag please stand up...
Full disclosure: I didn't vote McCain/Palin and I don't watch Letterman
What Letterman said was wrong. The children of presidential candidates or politicians should stay out of jokes. It doesn't matter that Palin paraded her family (as did Obama). Children of politicians should be off limits to comedians that are on television. If it were a club situation with paying customers, that is different. Hardly anyone will hear it and they are paying money instead of watching it on free TV. I know there is the First Amendment so please I don't need a reminder. I'm not saying what Dave did should be illegal or he should be fired, all I am saying is that what he did was in poor taste.
If I were Sarah Palin's PR person I would have told her to say:
"I'm upset that Dave decided to include my daughter in his joke. If he wants to make fun of me, I'm fair game but I'm sure he wouldn't want someone making jokes about his child because he is a celebrity. I didn't think it was right for Limbaugh to refer to Chelsea Clinton as a dog and I didn't think it was right for John Edwards to discuss Mary Cheney's sexual preference."
Instead, Palin decided to get a political advantage by uniting the mothers of America to stand up against the sexualization of girls. She used her 14 year old to start a movement, just as she used her baby to act as if she has been a defender of special needs children. Just as children should not be used as jokes, they also should not be used for political advantage.
What also irked me was Palin's phoniness in standing up for mothers, as if fathers like to have their daughters sexualized. I know my daughter is only 18 months, but I would be mad as hell if someone made fun of her on national TV. This isn't a women's issue, it is a decency issue.
Palin's attempt to create a movement also made the comment get repeated several times which one would think you wouldn't want to happen if you were truly offended. The only guy that came out of this situation good was A-Rod. He was accused of being a child rapist and by him not responding, most people forgot that he was the one that knocked up Palin's daughter. It is sad when the sports figure knows how to handle himself better than our almost-Vice President.
I agree with most of this. I think Palin's best course of action would've been to appear on Conan, joke around some, and hit Dave in the ratings just as he's getting started.
However, I don't feel like Sarah Palin has used her son as a political tool. She has a son with Down's Syndrome. What's she supposed to do? Hide it? She's mentioned him a few times, but I hardly think she's gone over the line there.
Posted By: ScottyFlamingo (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 02:50 PM
Joe, you'd have to be a responsible parent to understand why Sarah Palin feels the way she does.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 03:04 PM
I agree with you on the fundamental point. You went a little off topic on the whole "using one's kids as political tools" though. Sarah Palin could have taken the high road on this, especially since Letterman knew he stepped in it big time. She didn't, however, and proved she's nothing but an attention seeking opportunist.
Posted By: Andrew LeCren (Registered) on June 17, 2009 at 03:10 PM
palin did use her daughter during the campaign. First when the issue of teaching sex ed and birth control in school came up, she stated that of was a parents responsibility and shouldn't be handled by the school. After that failed and her underage highschooler daughter got knocked up, she used it as an anti abortion platform parading her pregnant daughter in front of cameras with the father of the child, preaching "family values". When u make your children public figures they become fair game.
Posted By: condrab (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 03:11 PM
I agree with condrab, When you make your children pawns in your politcal game you risk the chance to them taking some heat for poor moves. Anyways the Presidents kids are always made fun of or tabloid material anyways.
Posted By: Captain_America (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 03:34 PM
Perfectly summarized Joe - they're both idiots and they're both wrong. Now we can all move on with our lives.
Posted By: Stevie J (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 03:48 PM
The jokes that have been made about Palin's daughters on national television are NOTHING compared to the at-home harrassment Bristol Palin received from everyone that knew her when her mother started using her pregnancy and 'engagement' as a political ploy.
It stings a lot worse coming from the mouths of people you see regularly than from middle aged talk show hosts. Guaranteed
Posted By: The Man (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 03:58 PM
1) Palin held up her daughter's "decision" to have her accidental baby during the election to get publicity. She willfully made her own grandaughter into the most famous bastard in America in order to mobilize/incite the right.
2) Palin LIED and claimed that Letterman's joke was about her underage daughter, which it was not.
3) Most of the suggestions in the previous comments seem to suggest that Palin has a sense of humor. I've never seen any evidence of this.
Posted By: KanyonKreist (Registered) on June 17, 2009 at 03:59 PM
"If it were a club situation with paying customers, that is different. Hardly anyone will hear it and they are paying money instead of watching it on free TV."
Yeah, like when Michael Richards went on a racist tirade at a local club. Almost nobody heard that. Really Joe, it took half a second to see the flaw in your reasoning.
This is in fact a decency issue. Sarah Palin has used her family as human shields, firing verbal attacks from over their shoulders and daring anyone to fire back so she can feign outrage.
Palin took a situation where even her detractors had to be somewhat sympathetic and found a way to look like a disingenuous, opportunistic b*tch. She's as deluded as Rod Blagojevich in thinking any attention is good attention. Ask her about issues of national importance and she makes a fool of herself and goes into hiding. Give her a platform to ramble about "values" and you can't shut her up.
At least Dave has the excuse of having an hour to fill five nights a week with his brand of "comedy". I haven't found him funny since childhood, and this is no exception. But he hasn't promoted himself as capable of running a nation.
Letterman told a dumb, misinformed joke and got egg on his face. He has apologized twice.
Palin called him a predator and won't back down, even after everyone else on earth acknowledged the intent of the joke. It's the VP debate all over again. She ignores the point in favor of being abrasive. Between her and Ted Stevens, Alaska is a national laughingstock.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 03:59 PM
Spoken like true liberals who hate family values...
Because a person shows that they have family values liberals will tear them apart.
I believe in free speech- and I don't think Letterman was "wrong" for joking around...but he should also be willing to accept that people will complain- because they have free speech too.
9 times out of 10 liberals will bitch if anyone says something against ethinic groups, homosexuals, and religions (outside of Christanity which liberals hate).
So it's only natural for conservatives to take the low road paved by liberals and attempt the same tactic.
Letterman has the right to say what he wants about anyone he wants too- but his viewers and general public have the right to say he's all fucked up and boycott his advertisers.
Of course none of this is ethical- and I would never expect Rivett to understand.
However I will bet anyone of you liberals that I can find ten times as much bitching about similar events from the left- and I also bet that Rivett bitched about less offensive comments made by people about Obama.
I'm still waiting for an unbiased article from Rivett or Zimmer...
How about how Obama blocked the Whitehouse guest list (just like Bush).
How about Obama screwing over the gays.
How about Obama adding another trillion in debt for heathcare- that he can't manage.
Or Obama lying about the 150,000 jobs the stimulus bill created.
Or Obama giving ALL the banking power to the Fed and that Tax Cheat- who already lost the trillions for the bailout and the stimulus.
Or the Billions approved for more war ( and as a soldier this rocks). Most of you voted against this shit.
You liberals ALL voted for a guy who has not kept one promise or idea he platformed for- and he has spent five times as much as Bush...in six months!
He's not transparent, he appointed lobbyist, he does not support gays or drugs, he's raising taxes, he's increasing spending.
But Rivett wants to attack Palin for standing up to someone who on a national television show said one of her kids was screwing a baseball player and got knocked up?
Don't liberals support single mothers?
Is that not a liberal cornerstone? Don't liberals defend single mothers?
Everything I say is founded on the one principal that you dumbasses prove everytime- you stand for nothing.
You eat your own. Because Palin's kid had sex and knocked up she deserves to be made of by David Letterman?
And then Liberals bitch about Palin getting news coverage?
Liberals have no concept of cause and effect.
You elected Obama, who does not know a fucking thing about handling money or military operations to solve the biggest economic and military problems in the last half century.
Way to go.
Write on that.
Posted By: The Spook (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 04:23 PM
I feel bad for A-rod, he would never do that to an ugly redneck.
Posted By: Liam O'Bama (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 05:01 PM
Last comment:
Rivett says: "The only guy that came out of this situation good was A-Rod. He was accused of being a child rapist and by him not responding, most people forgot that he was the one that knocked up Palin's daughter. It is sad when the sports figure knows how to handle himself better than our almost-Vice President."
So if a liberal, like Letterman, calls a conservative or anyone else, say a baseball player, a "child rapist" it is better to not respond.
So we should allow Liberals to say whatevery they want- even if untrue and disgusting- and NOT respond?
Imagine that people.
This is the world that people like Rivett and Zimmer want to have us all living in.
One where THEY get to choose who gets to speak and who needs to "shut up".
Do any of you liberals realize how dangerous to the line you all walk when you elect or listen to this nonsense?
Sara Palin was a vice-presidental nominee, and is popular at least amoung some Conservatives...
But she should not be allowed to defend herself or family from insults due to their political leanings?
Free speech is not one sided- its all sides...there are no options.
Shes a "douchebag" for pressing the issue of someone of televison joking about her teenage daughter being screwed by a baseball player only becasue she has a different political view.
That's the real reason why Rivett is attacking her.
Had Letterman said it about his 18 month daughter, and only becuase he disagreed with his political views, Rivett would be mad as shit too.
That is a fucking fact.
And if you had any balls Rivett you would think about it and respond truthfully.
Anyone of us would be pissed had it been said on TV to millions about any of our kids. Or to our face at a BBQ.
Letterman and Palin both have resources and reason to respond- and that's fine- but don't say that being silent is what Palin SHOULD have done.
You still would have called her out...you probably would have called her a coward.
No matter what a conservative does a liberal will attack- and vice versa...
We need to change that, it starts with admitting that what Letterman did was acceptable, but so was Palin's response.
Posted By: The Spook (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 05:24 PM
Bristol Palin has appeared on television and done interviews with her child. She's made herself a public figure. She's fair game now. You can't cry foul on a joke about her.
It was mildly funny, but it surely wasn't grossly offensive. If it was about Palin's younger daughter (everyone knew the joke was directed towards the daughter that likes to fuck), I could see what the "controversy" was about. Palin can't cry "wolf" in these circumstances. Right or wrong, politicians put their families in he spotlight, open for ridicule. You deal with it, much like celebrities with the paparazzi. It is what it is, and you know that going in.
Posted By: Greendale (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 05:34 PM
Sarah Palin has a long way to go before she can be taken seriously on a national stage. I knew who Letterman was referring to about the joke, and like has been mentioned on here, she put her family out in public on purpose so of course this is going to be the reaction. Now with that being said, I can understand her being angry. Nobody likes it when someone makes fun of their family, so she had a right to respond. I didn't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with was the way she turned this around into some phony crusade against sexual predators. It's blatantly disingenuous and destroyed any sympathy I had for her situation. If she had left it alone after the first reaction, she would have been fine. Is she not capable of just having a normal reaction and not trying to turn it into a political advantage...just one time?
Posted By: abrown1979 (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 05:48 PM
Honestly, the only one I'm disappointed in is Todd Palin. Letterman's always been a cuntybuggeryfucktoleybumshite, He's never been funny, and he's mostly stupid. Todd Palin, however, needs to beat the fuck out of Letterman for badmouthing his daughter...no matter the reason. Leatherman should be beaten within an inch of his life. Sometimes, violence IS the answer. Man up, Todd, and beat up David Leatherman...you might not be able to stop him from making crude jokes about your daughter to begin with, but I'll bet, with the judicious application of boots to ribs, that you can break him of the habit.
Posted By: Eminemanem (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 05:49 PM
What everyone conveniently forgets on here is that Sara Palin was right when during the campaign she said Obama would give terrorists Miranda rights. And he has. You libs can keep attacking her reaction to rape jokes about her daughter, but I will highlight her presience and foresight to alert the American public what a weak-willed foreign policy President we were electing.
For the record, I thought her reaction was a bit over the top. She played the victim card a little too adeptly, and made her seem no better than the hags in the NOW gang, who folded like the hypocrites they are when Bill Clinton raped Kathleen Willey and sexually harassed Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. So she should stop that.
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 05:58 PM
Just about the only thing I disagree with in the article is the JOhn Edwards part. He was asked a direct question and his statement was relvant to the response. Retarded and badly said...but relevant.
Posted By: AdamS (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 06:07 PM
In a real world, everything you say is true. However, if a comedian had made disparaging comments about Obama's daughters, Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have had the NAACP all over it, even if the joke was about their gender and NOT about their race! And you KNOW that's what would happen. So if Sarah Palin wants to contact an organization to assist in her fight, that's her right.
Posted By: swoltz (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 06:24 PM
Considering the joke wasn't about Sarah Palin's kid, she's worse. She took what would have been a worthless comment and turned it into something more to keep a spotlight upon herself and further the 'us vs. them' mentality that will eventually take us all down.
Posted By: Deathpool (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 06:56 PM
What I find truly bizarre is the fact that so many feel compelled that when the children of Political figures are brought out in the open they are fair game to be ridiculed or made jokes about!! Where is this rule mentioned anyplace in this country/Constitution? And what's more who made this rule up? It's a matter of common courtesy and respect for people and God knows this country anymore lacks anything that resembles it! So many people try and rationalize sick jokes and what they meant or who they were directed to under the guise of "comedy" when in fact society as a whole is sick to even be drawn to such arrogant, disrespectful and pompous propaganda! What kind of intelligence do we have in this country anymore that people can only seem to cut down the ones they don't agree with by trashing their families through the mud?? It is so disheartening to see American's argue or discuss who is fair game to batter and who is not..good gravy!! Grow up people and find something intelligent to discuss and stop trying to play God with people's lives!! As far as Sarah Palin trying to unite Mothers of America..SO WHAT if she did and even if it was for Political purposes, it shows she is a leader and what she will or will not accept from the "good ole boy" network! I can honestly say that she is one that has had more guts than a lot of others we have in the government today! How many times have you heard her berate the members of another's family in this country?? I'm waiting! If someone attacked my family the way hers has been attacked and abused you bet I would say whatever I needed to in order to get the point across to American's to lay off! By not doing this it's saying to American's..it's OK..this is the "normal" thing to do and it is NOT! Why is there so much hatred for some people that it comes out in personal attacks against them? It's because they are "scared" of her!! Very seldom have I ever heard or seen a rational discussion about Sarah Palin on an issue that the person/s didn't agree with her on, where they actually stuck to the facts with no condemning remarks and personal attacks on her! The "comedy" episode from Letterman on her and her daughter is one of the sickest derogatory statements any American could possibly make. And WHAT IF..she does become the next President of the US..what will the remarks be like then? I suspect that American's intelligence level will still not have progressed which is truly sad!! And one more thing..Sarah Palin is a lot of things but one of them is not being a phony!! And what do you expect her to do with her kids when she is trying to be a good Mother while still being able to serve her state and country..leave them home with Dad all the time or the babysitter or maybe stick them in a closet?? Get real!!
Posted By: Carol Dreeszen (Guest) (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 08:13 PM
Oh, and someone said Letterman is liberal? Please, that dude ain't liberal.
Now if we could only get some debate going on how stupid the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are, and how far too many people simply lump anyone who disagrees with them into one of those two catagories.
Posted By: Deathpool (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 08:16 PM
it was a nothing joke on the original show, and this brought into being the whole part of that show. It was a joke about a public figure, let it go. Palin just made it a million times worse with the "women and young girls everywhere have low self esteem and this evil man just made it worse" stuff and calling letterman a sex offender who can't be trusted with kids.
Posted By: Guest#9460 (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 09:56 PM
Oh, and someone said Letterman is liberal? Please, that dude ain't liberal.
Now if we could only get some debate going on how stupid the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are, and how far too many people simply lump anyone who disagrees with them into one of those two catagories.
I'll give that an amen.
'As far as Sarah Palin trying to unite Mothers of America..SO WHAT if she did and even if it was for Political purposes, it shows she is a leader and what she will or will not accept from the "good ole boy" network!'
First off. Use paragraphs. Noone wants to read that. You'll get TL:DR statements and get bashed for your childishness.
Secondly, so she proved herself to be a leader...and that's a good thing in and of itself? Here's a list of people whose only redeeming factors were the fact that they were 'leaders' of their peoples in a time of need...
Hitler
Idi Amin
Mussolini
Pol Pot
Stalin
Lenin
FDR
Cromwell
Theoneste Bagosera
Get my drift? Being a leader of the most easilly galvanized and quick to act on no credible evidence group of voters in the country does not give you carte blanche. In my opinion, it makes you less of a suitable candidate for office...
Posted By: The Man (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 10:11 PM
I would personally love to see a weekly column by the Spook, or by anyone that identifies themselves as a conservative. The doors have been made VERY open here at 411, but no one seems to accept the invitation.
There is a considerable difference between teeing off on someone that posts their viewpoints for all to see and posting your own viewpoint to be attacked...
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on June 18, 2009 at 11:45 AM
I would personally love to see a weekly column by the Spook, or by anyone that identifies themselves as a conservative. The doors have been made VERY open here at 411, but no one seems to accept the invitation.
********************************
Hi I'm Mark Radulich, have we met?
: )
Posted By: Mark Radulich (Guest) on June 18, 2009 at 03:55 PM
For those that would like a conservative viewpoint, clicking on "More Articles by Joe Rivett" where you will find a defense of assault weapons, bashing olberman, and a critique of Obama on the Sotomayor column.
Secondly, this opinion was neither Left or Right as it was about decency.
Posted By: Joe Rivett (Guest) on June 18, 2009 at 04:47 PM
Letterman was talking about her 18 year old daughter in the joke. Who, coincidentally, was knocked up while underage...by an athlete...
ITS A JOKE.
I hope Letterman tells it again and again. Sarah Palin needs to stay in Alaska and stop misinterpreting jokes by those in the mainland.
And to come out and suggest that Letterman is some sort of pedophile when HER KIDS GET KNOCKED UP WHEN UNDERAGE is just moronic. Thank God she lost the election. And I really hope Palin runs in 2012 and gets the republican nomination just to sabotage it and ensure another 4 years for Obama. What an Idiot.
Posted By: mike (Guest) on June 18, 2009 at 05:39 PM
God, I love reading The Spook's comments. I've never encountered anyone this ignorant in real-life, so I'm glad the Internet exists.
This person claims he/she, apparently, knows EVERYTHING about being left-minded. Apparently, we ALL have the EXACT same beliefs and values, down to the letter. We ALL hate Christianity, we ALL have ZERO sense of family values, we ALL stand for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, etc. We are quite easily grouped and labeled by Spook, and MAN, is it funny to read. In gloomy times, I'm glad there is someone like Spook to make me laugh...
...with gems like this: "So it's only natural for conservatives to take the low road paved by liberals and attempt the same tactic."
So, when a liberal does it it's bad, and when a conservative does it, it's fine? I mean, that IS what I just read, right?
Keep up the good work, Spook. Always leave 'em laughing.
Posted By: Talon (Guest) on June 18, 2009 at 10:57 PM
But Talon, he's correct more than you, cumburp.
Posted By: Guest#6272 (Guest) on June 19, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Cumburp...wow, way to demonstrate your intelligence.
If you were being sarcastic, which was my initial thought, kudos. If not, I invite you to re-read my comment and find a single instance in which I discuss my personal beliefs on any one particular subject.
My comment was on the ABSURDLY arrogant nature of Spook's comments. But again, if that was sarcasm, well-done. I didn't see "cumburp" coming. Though that word makes me think you're not actually being sarcastic, but defending the ignorant Spook (ignorant not because of his beliefs, mind you, but because of his arrogance and assumption of ultimate knowledge of EVERYTHING ON EARTH).
Posted By: Talon (Guest) on June 19, 2009 at 01:16 AM
Come on Rivett, other than Zimmer, your the most left person on here.If your center then Maddow is straight.
By the way Talon, there is nothing ignorant about Spook.You just don't like it when the left is exposed for their hypocrasy so you call people stupid without one example of said ignorance.Makes cumburp pretty accurate and funny to me.
Posted By: John (Guest) on June 19, 2009 at 05:26 PM
Um, no. See, I have no issue with another system of beliefs. This is a problem I tend to run into on this site. But unlike Spook, I won't say something about conservatives as an entire group, because the real world doesn't work that way. All liberals don't feel the same about everything, same as all conservatives don't.
Also, dude, I never called anyone stupid. Please to be checking your facts before making assertions.
Spook IS ignorant, because he says everyone on the left feels the same way about everything. Read his comments, that's what he says. I have a problem with that, because it IS ignorant. Ignorant because it's NOT true.
But you just keep telling yourself that my problem is with someone believing something else, or pointing out when my side is wrong, or whatever. Have fun with that whole ignorance thing.
Posted By: Talon (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 01:12 PM
Oh, and John: How, exactly, do you say "...without one example of said ignorance," when my first comment had a direct quote from Spook, and a reason for why I thought it was ignorant?
I mean seriously, can the commenters in this politics section read? Because it surely doesn't seem like it.
Posted By: Talon (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 01:14 PM
Talon, your quote showing Spook is ignorant is comical.Thats why your cumburp
Arguement in its full context instead of you cherry picking:
"9 times out of 10 liberals will bitch if anyone says something against ethnic groups,gays,homosexuals and religions"
Next sentence
"So its natural for conservatives to take the low road paved by liberals and attempt the same tactic."
Full context.Shows the left hypocrasy.Going after a single mom is OK......if its a consevative whitey.
If you can't understand Spooks writing style then thats one thing.Its seems pretty clear to any rational person that you took half a argument and tried to run with it.Poorly might I add.
Posted By: John (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 06:39 PM
I didn't need context, because I'm not defending single moms, or going after Palin, or whatever. I wasn't a part of that conversation, dude. I just see a sentence that says it's fine when you do it and bad when we do it. That's hypocrisy. That's ignorance. The fact that you can't see that is hilarious.
My ENTIRE point is that Spook has no problem generalizing the entire left, and it's stupid. I wouldn't generalize YOUR entire side, because I'm smart enough to realize that...SHOCK...some of you may actually have DIFFERING beliefs on a subject! HOLY SHIT!
But sure, keep attempting to showcase your own intelligence while using the made-up word "cumburp." So far, it really seems to be working for you.
I understand his writing style just fine. His argument is chicken and egg. He assumes that the Left starts every single argument, or is first to commit every single offense on Earth. WE do something bad, so it's "natural" for you to do the same. As if arguments like this even HAVE a starting point.
Posted By: Talon (Guest) on June 22, 2009 at 12:23 PM
STAY CURRENT