Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Besen: Sarah’s all dressed up and plotting
To fight her culture war, Sarah Palin needed a cultured wardrobe.
The Main Street hockey mom wasted no time trading up to 5th Avenue and found the attire much nicer at Saks. Dressed in her Sunday best, Palin pried herself away from Bergdrof Goodman and ventured into the “real America,” where she promptly announced her support for a U.S. constitutional amendment prohibiting gay people from marrying.
Cinderella then appeared on James Dobson’s Focus on the Family radio show. Dressed in her exotic new duds, she explained that the McCain/Palin dud of a campaign was on track because she was “putting this in God’s hands.” Well, if the Lord doesn’t come through, at least she has discovered the joys of Lord & Taylor.While all politicians have skeletons in their closet, finding a walk-in closet stuffed with $150,000 in new GOP-financed clothing was seen as obscene by voters already furious at Republican excess in a time of economic duress.
Scrambling to excuse the inexcusable, the Palin campaign said the clothes would all be donated to charity after the election. So, if you see a bag lady with a Gucci bag in December, you can thank Sarah Palin.
The great irony of wardrobe-gate is that most of Palin’s remaining fans are sexually repressed Evangelical men who are undressing the VP candidate with their eyes. The New York Times reports that her rallies are overrun with “dudes” who wear buttons that read, “Proud to be voting for a hot chick.”
As Palin brilliantly played the role of Imelda Marcos, her fellow Alaskan, Sen. Ted Stevens, stepped on stage as 2008’s Jack Abramoff. At the very moment the McCain campaign was desperately trying to distance itself from corruption on Wall Street, Stevens was convicted of failing to report tens of thousands of dollars in gifts, including extensive renovations on his house. Between Palin’s self-improvement and Steven’s home improvement, the image of the Republican Party has been solidified one week before Election Day.
On the cusp of a defeat, the GOP ticket has gone from avaricious to just plain vicious. McCain is using so many code words one might think he was running for director of the CIA. For example, he shamefully claimed that Obama would turn the Internal Revenue Service into “a giant welfare agency.”
Palin, meanwhile, mocks Obama as a socialist who sees this nation differently from true Americans and pals around with terrorists. (It was actually McCain who was endorsed by Al Qaeda this week)
With such a frightening portrait of Obama, is it any surprise that two white supremacists were arrested this week in Tennessee for plotting to assassinate the Senator? The McCain campaign obviously does not wish Obama harm. But, they have irresponsibly pandered to extremists and stoked the passions of violent, angry “patriots” to win their votes.
The specter of an Obama presidency has anti-gay forces in a swivet. Focus on the Family’s Dobson sent out a paranoid “hypothetical” letter from the year 2012 that said the election of Obama could lead to terrorist strikes on four American cities, Israel being hit by a nuclear bomb, Gay marriage in every state and hospitals refusing service to anyone over 80 years old.
Meanwhile, in California, a jowly Rick Warren of Saddleback Church, literally morphed into the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. In a video that distorted history and stretched logic, the phony “moderate” strongly urged voters to pass Prop. 8 because, “we should not let two percent of the population determine the change of definition of marriage…that has been supported for 5,000 years.”
Of course, this is roughly the same percentage of people who identify as Christian in China. Based on Warren’s mob rules philosophy and respect for historical precedent, he should find China’s persecution of Christians acceptable in the nation’s efforts to uphold and protect thousands of years of Asian history.
No sooner did Warren dehumanize gay people and demean their relationships – in the name of love – then new FBI statistics were released showing that hate crimes against gays increased in 2007, up 6% from 2006 even though the overall numbers of hate crimes slightly dropped. We can only look forward to more of Warren’s contrived compassion after his religion-based bigotry trickles down like a drop of blood into our lives.
With Republican losses likely, the Los Angeles Times reports that ambitions social conservatives are already plotting to take over the Republican National Committee. Like vultures circling the walking dead, these rapacious and repugnant culture warriors are already poised to foist blame on McCain – if he loses – for not being conservative enough.
Palin, it seems, is already laying the groundwork for a presidential run. With a huge portion of the GOP base and talk radio already in her pocket, she will likely get the nomination. Clearly, Sarah is all dressed up, because conservatives think she has someplace to go. What amazes me about her is that she is a filthy campaigner who is most comfortable in the mud, yet her designer clothes always look fabulous.
“Wayne” said: “I’m not going to respond to you any more.”
Hey, “Wayne,” that’s good news! Thank you. I hope you keep your word about that, because I really don’t care if you respond to me or not. I’m much more concerned about how your illogical comments might mislead others into thinking that Obama is the bad guy you want us to think he is (although most visitors here seem to see right through you immediately without any help from me).
Oh, by the way, when I was of draft age, I was in a religious order and exempt from military service. However, I have 4 brothers who served in the military (army, marines and navy) and in 3 wars. And my domestic partner is a navy vet. And, yes, they all served honorably.
You can remove your foot from your mouth now.
And, by the way, if “Wayne” really is an army brat and so much in favor of national defense, let’s hear him try to defend McCain’s adamant support for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That should be amusing.
———–
Not only am I an Army brat, I’m an Army Vet, who has served my country honorably, which is more than you have ever done, I’m sure. You wouldn’t know the first thing about valor or sacrifice, you spend all of your time attacking me instead of trying to articulate your own ideas. You are pathetic, and I tire of responding to your drivel. But, if you want to discuss DADT and it’s ramifications, and more specifically McCain’s position on the issue as compared to Obama’s continually shifting and backtraking on the issue then lets do so. McCain has said that he has consulted Military leaders and ask if they felt it was wise to remove the DADT policy, to which they replied in the negative. McCain passed the buck, and was wrong not to take a more strident stand against DADT. But Obama has promised to end DADT only to backtrack away to end DADT and now wants a Legislative end to DADT, which only a fool believes is coming any time soon, and would depend at least in part on what those very military leaders wanted to do. Neither candidate is perfect on the issue. Now if you want to now the truth of the matter, the army (and all the services) are starting to change their attitudes. Several people in my unit knew I was gay, but I pulled my weight did my job, and kept my head down. And there is an entire subculture within the military of gay service personnel (probably always has been) and it’s those people, the gay men and women who have served honorably, we are the ones making the real changes, it’s our service that has changed those attitudes, and DADT will end but it won’t come from politicians, it will come from those same military leaders that McCain went to, and asked thier advise. When those leaders have finally moved past thier prejudice, then and only then will DADT end.
Don’t ever accuse me or any vet of faking of faking thier service in the Military. I’m not going to respond to you any more. You are pathetic.
JohnM said: Can anybody really be that delusional to think McCain’s position on marriage is better than Obamas for our community.”
Actually, just about the only one on this site who promotes that illogical view is “Wayne” (not Besen) and any other names he writes under. He’s been johnny-one-note on the issue for weeks now, trying to sow doubts about Obama, and no amount of evidence or argument to the contrary discourages him. He ignores it all. He’s on a mission, and that’s to get McCain/Palin elected.
And, by the way, if “Wayne” really is an army brat and so much in favor of national defense, let’s hear him try to defend McCain’s adamant support for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That should be amusing.
Can anybody really be that delusional to think McCain’s position on marriage is better than Obamas for our community.
——-
I don’t know about “delusional” but the Connecticut Supreme Court just ruled that Obama’s “Separate But Equal” civil unions are in fact DISCRIMINATORY TO GAY PEOPLE. Maybe the Supreme Court is delusional too?
Can anybody really be that delusional to think McCain’s position on marriage is better than Obamas for our community. Well I guess so based on these posts.
Fact: Obama opposes Propostion 8 in California. Obama said he “opposes all divisive and discriminatory Constitutional amendments, state or federal.” This also includes the proposed amendments in Arizona and Florida.
Fact: McCain supports Prop 8 in California. In an e‐mail to protectmarriage.com, McCain said “I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a
unique institution between a man and a
woman, just as we did in my home state.”
Fact: McCain is “proud” to have led an effort to ban same‐sex marriage AND EVEN CIVIL UNIONS in Arizona. McCain said “I’m proud to have led an effort in my home state to change our state Constitution to protect the sanctity of marriage between man and woman.”
On discrimonatory constitutional state amendments to ban same sex mariage, O’bama supports us, McCain supports our hateful opponents.
On Defense of Marriage Act:
Fact: Obama supports complete repeal of DOMA. Obama believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same sex couples in marriages, civil unions and other legally recognized relationships. Thus our spouses and domestic partners would be entitled to our social security benefits.
Fact: McCain continues to defend DOMA. McCain voted for passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which denies federal legal rights and benefits to same‐sex couples, and he continues to defend that discriminatory law to this day.
On DOMA, Obama supports our position for full repeal, and McCain supports the position of the wacko conservative religious right to retain DOMA.
US Constitutional Amendment to Ban Same Sex marriage:
Fact: Obama voted against a federal amendment to ban same‐sex marriage. Obama sided with the vast majority of Democrats opposing attempts by the Republican leadership to bring
up a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same sex‐marriage
Fact: McCain recently said he would sign the Federal Marriage Amendment into law. When asked if he would sign the federal marriage amendment if elected President, McCain replied, “of course,” although he voted against the amendment in the Senate.
Any person who thinks McCain is better on marriage issues for the LBGT community than Obama is quite simply delusional.
Hey folks, how about we review what’s actually been said about marriage from both sides, huh?
Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.
This sounds good, right? Notice the specific use of the words “constitutional” and “legal.” It seems to me that he uses these words precisely to specify what he’s talking about so that he can come back later and talk about a kind of marriage that is non-constitutional and non-legal.
The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted — same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That’s only fair.
It’s what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.
Again he reiterates that that, from a legal standpoint, same sex couples are to be treated the same as opposite sex couples. This is a far cry from McCain’s stance, which basically “allows” us to spend thousands of dollars in lawyers fees to enter into contracts that garner us only some of the rights that opposite sex couples get with one document.
This is not a gift, McCain, we can do it already, and it doesn’t work out so well.
No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
Here’s the line that gets hisses and boos. Again, though, I think the wording here is again very deliberate. Notice how in the first sentence he says they don’t support redefining marriage “from a civil side” and how it’s up to people of faith how they define marriage. This is where that non-legal marriage idea comes in. This is where he’s reassuring the religious that the government isn’t going to come into their places of worship and telling them what to do, rewriting their holy books, etc.
This is good, because the government has nor right doing that. From the legal and constitutional standpoint, however, Biden rightly says that marriage is equal for hetero and homosexual couples.
The bottom line though is, and I’m glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that’s the case, we really don’t have a difference.
Here again, he repeats the stance of the Obama campaign; that homosexual couples are equal in the eyes of the law to heterosexual couples.
If you’ll remember, the Connecticut Supreme Court said the exact same thing a couple of years ago and left the legislature to decide how to make gay couples equal in the eyes of the law. They chose civil unions. The reports came in, civil unions were not garnering gay couples the rights they were promised by the courts and thus the courts revisited the case and determined that gay couples could not be denied access to marriage.
Honestly, the rest of the country should take this as a lesson, but this does show that civil unions are a stepping stone to marriage equality.
From the McCain side we have Palin saying
I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that’s where we would go. I don’t support gay marriage
From McCain himself we have opposition to a Federal Amendment banning gay marriage and support for an amendment to the Arizona Constitution banning gay marriage in that state.
The state’s rights issue is a strong point for the McCain campaign, except where does that leave me, who would like to get a greencard for my foreign husband? We’re married in California, but a state marriage does nothing for immigration, which is a federal issue.
In his tolerance, McCain assures us that we can definitely enter into contracts with each other. Well, thanks, I guess? Couldn’t we do that already?
George, I have stated my views about McCain’s positon on marriage equality as a States Right issue several times, and I’ve stated how McCains view is much preferrable to Obama’s stated position in which Obama advocates for the segregation of gay people into a “Separate But Equal” 2nd class marriage status. The Connecticut Supreme Court made very clear in it’s recent ruling that Obama’s policy of civil unions is in fact DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST GAY PEOPLE. I’ve made that clear in several of my posts. I don’t see how I could make my views any clearer. But I also make a habit of not sinking into a petulant attack mode when discussing my views with others. Maybe you should try it sometime. It’s called common courtesy.
Okay, Wayne-not-Besen, I’ll retract the “stoopid” comment if you’ll even ONCE actually defend your pro-McPalincomparison position instead of merely bashing Obama.
“You also said, “Disagree with the woman’s political viewpoints on Gay issues all you want (I sure do)”.”
To which I responded, “You DO??? You haven’t posted one WORD about her policies. You’ve merely wasted ALL of your time and effort slagging Obama and your version of his (supposed) policies.”
So go ahead and actally TELL us exactly WHAT it is about Mrs Palincomparison’s policies vis-a-vis “the woman’s political viewpoints on Gay issues” that you disagree with. You haven’t bothered to so far, most specifically on the ‘Palin calls for a Federal Marriage Amenment’ thread, but no where else as well.
As for “State’s rights”, please have the courtesy to address the Full Faith and Credit Clause and why it should not be applied to our marriages.
‘Thanks’ in advance, though I’m not holding my breath that you’ll bother to answer. You haven’t so far.
You could also actually debate the points I (and many others) have raised (eg. Biden paid for his ‘plugs’; Mrs. Palin sure as heck didn’t pay for the elite wardrobe; the Rethuglan wis to kick us out of the Constitution, etc.) Otherwise, you simply look/are evasive – avoiding the actual issues.
Remember, “YOUR ideas should be able to stand on their own merit” too, Wayne. We see no merit in them, and if you can’t (or, more accuratly, WON’T) support them, then I reiterate, it IS the hypocrisy.
To writers end paragraph.I can’t help it.But to say “A Wolf in sheeps clothing” (Sarah Palin)
Very well stated, Wayne (Besen)! I also agree with the L.A. Times. Christofascists are just waiting for a chance to become more influential in politics. Although I hope that Prop. 8 does not pass, I hate to think about will happen if it does pass: they will be crowing very loudly. Too loud for any reasonable person to stand. And after Prop 8, it will be a slippery slope down to prayer in schools and the abolition of the teaching of evolution. On the other hand, if (and when, I hope) Prop 8 loses, California will have a very, very vicious vulture, as in Prometheus, forever tearing out our hearts.
Poor Sarah! All dressed up and noware to go! RR!
Like many people I am very concerned about our national security and clearly the only person who can assure our national security is Obama.
National security (a nation’s use of military, economic and political power to maintain survival) versus ‘National Defense’ is a key issue of this election. (Note: Why some people are repeatedly capitalizing ‘national defense’ when they are simply in this context a noun preceded by an adjective is beyond me, perhaps they want to treat it as a god – which is in itself a frightening revelation).
Obama stands out as the only candidate with the intelligence, the calm and the energy to manage these complex elements of our national security. Unfortunately McCain is unable to make this claim.
There is now a majority of American voters who feel that way about Obama as well, they must be present on election day or our great nation will be in peril.
I am not ex-military I am in fact an active service senior military official.
Wayne, I to am an army brat and was lucky enough to have travelled to world with my father who served in WWII, Korea, the Golan, etc. I trust my point is made.
That said, I must tell you, as a student of history (I have a degree) what is happening in the US and to a lesser degree, to the US, it is reminiscent of how the Pax Romana came to an end. Broke, unable to pay it’s way, waging futile wars and of course, scapegoating others all while the empire collapsed. Sound familiar? It should. The Empire known as the United States (and let’s be honest, the US is an imperial wannabe) is collapsing on all sides. True, you may be able to salvage yourselves, but truth be told, America as a singular global power has come to an end. What started out as a benevolent and worthwhile nation has degraded into a nation that tears at its own flesh just to spite itself.
Elect who you will, that is your right and I will respect it, but sadly I fear if McCain wins, Americas’ last shread of ethical and moral capital will be spent.
This of course is but my opinion, but speaking as one of the ‘foreigners’ I would point out that in the end, their are more of us ‘foreign types’ on the planet than Americans.
Just food for thought.
If I hear anyone use the word “sexist” again to protect Palin from criticism, I think I’ll scream. $150,000 in clothing is irresponsible. I am a female, consider myself a feminist, and in no way consider a critique of the spending sexist. What is sexist is that the republicans refer to her as a “hot chick”, that they feel a need to dress her up in expensive clothing, and hire a highly priced make-up artists.
Wayne” (not Besen) acted coy about his presidential choice for a long time before he finally admitted in his comments on this site that he’s voting Republican.—–BS, I’m beginning to think you’ve become obsessed with me. You keep leaving posts on different threads attacking me instead of advocating for the issues you believe in. Don’t you find that odd, and a just little bit creepy?
I’ve also been very clear about my views, and when asked a question I give honest answers. I don’t see the problem with that.