Talk:Sarah Palin

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics USA.svg

This United States politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes

Not sure if this changes the importance of the page or just proposes changing it. Palin isn't nearly as "important" as she used to be.

Archive 1

Biden vs Palin tonight -- predictions?[edit]

Biden will obviously outshine Palin in knowledge -- and Palin will be properly frightened, and it's bound to show. It's not clear to me how the pundits score these debates, but there is little chance anybody will actually believe Palin the winner.

The spin the newsies put on her anticipated performance is interesting. Some say Biden will clean her clock, but some say she'll do really well, maybe by common folk identifying with her. Heightening expectations or lowering them; i wonder. My question -- which spin will serve her the best?

And should they let Palin be Palin if they want her to look good?

It has even been suggested (by the Right) that Biden had better try not to be himself. I have noticed that, kind of like McCain, he sometimes smiles at odd times. Anybody else notice that?

So ... how about some predictions? I'm on record (Biden will win handily), anybody else willing to predict?

-- RemBeau 13:42, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Expectations for Palin are so low that simply not dribbling on the floor will be seen as a success.--Bobbing up 14:54, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
She can't dribble though. tmtoulouse 14:56, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
Quick response with the funny TM!--Bobbing up 14:58, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

I predict Palin will be decidedly mediocre, giving vague answers and mostly attacking Obama. She'll have no serious gaffes; if she's asked a question she can't answer, she'll answer a question that wasn't asked. It will not be a great performance, but it will not be the knock-out blow we're looking for. In fact, with expectations so low, it will be tantamount to a small victory for her. No real effect on the polls. Of course, I hope I'm wrong and she says something unbelievably stupid. If nothing else it would make the night interesting, and I'm predicting it will be somewhat boring. DickTurpis 15:07, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Over here (UK) someone called her a liability on BBC R4 News - whatever she does tonight, mind you they also slagged Biden quite a bit! SusanG  ContribsTalk 15:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
I predict that it will at least be more interesting than the Obama/McCain snoozefest debate. But just like every two-party debate, we won't actually learn anything or gain any advantage in the political process. JazzMan 15:13, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
One can only hope for a major malfunction, but I agree with DickTurpis. Expectationa are terribly low, and she will give brief answers to questions unasked. Honestly, I would have thought she would have 'bowed out graciously' by now. Speakerface with 4 M's and a silent Q 15:15, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Biden is known for saying some silly/stupid things when he talks extemporaneously, and their is a worry (right or wrong) that he has to treat Palin with kid gloves to avoid being seen as beating on a poor woman. Palin will be instructed to keep things laconic and focused as well. I think both campaigns are telling the veeps to answer as short as possibly and just agree with the presidential candidates. To me that means this has all the potential to be extremely dull. tmtoulouse 15:19, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Another problem is that this isn't a debate in any real sense of the word. This is a question being asked by a moderator, a response, then "on to the next question". The "other guy" does not get to directly challenge the answers of the first responder. I'm not even clear if he or she gets 2 minutes of his own on teh same topic.
one thing the Alaskian governor is good at is making you think she has answered you, and making it sound lovely to the "common man". Question is, who are the "un-decideds", and how will they see it.

Well, it's over. I think my prediction was right on. I hope I'm right about the polls. DickTurpis 23:25, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Yah, well, Dick, Ah'll just haff to git back to yah on that! Sarah Palin 23:32, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
Andys snooze fest = Biden won. Ace McWickedcast ye the first stone 23:37, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
DickTurpis winz. That said, I felt Biden's heartfelt "emotional moment" about his family went over very well. Also I'm pretty sure I talk like Palin. :(--Bayes 23:58, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
P.S.: this "facebook page" is teh awesome. I personally like Levi's comment.--Bayes 00:05, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
W/Bayes, yeah, I thought Biden pwned by holding that back until he used it - it totally cheapened all of Pwnlins "kitchen table" garbage. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:06, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Post-debate reactions[edit]

My post debate analysis is thus: Plain did better than expected, but if the bar hadn't been so low, she wouldn't have come over so well. While she was certainly more coherent than she was in her Couric interview, her answers were still a mess of ramlbing run-on sentences. I guess voters don't care much about that, but I found it off-putting. I would like to see some of the transcripts, as this method of speaking works much better when you hear it than when you read it. I'd like to try to parse her sentences, or remove the punctuation and see if anyone can figure out where it goes when you put it back in. Her folksy style sort of irritated me, and much of it came off as very contrived and rehearsed. I swear, if she used the word "maverick" one more time I was going to throw something at the fucking TV. Maverick always seemed to me to be one of those words that others use to describe you rather than you use to describe yourself. Also, as I figured, she flat out did not answer several questions. The art of the modern debate is not to answer the question asked, but to answer the question you wish you were asked. Palin did this often, but was too obvious about it too often. The trick is to make people not notice you're doing this. With her it was obvious much of the time. I recall one of the last questions being about her biggest weakness (probably the most cliche job interview question out there), and I believe her answer was something like "I didn't veto every budget".

Biden, on the other hand, gave what I thought was the best performance of the four candidates so far. He was clear and concise, he showed he was knowledgable and had a grasp of the issues, and actually answered most of the questions. Lame of an answer it was, he alone at least named something when the question came up again of what the 700 billion bailout would mean doing without (true, his answer was 90% what he wouldn't cut, but the other 10% was more than Palin, McCain, or Obama gave). Palin seemed to think that 700 billion was insignificant and wouldn't mean sacrificing anything. There were a few accusations he could have responded to better, like the diplomacy without preconditions issue that Obama handled pretty well, I thought. While I'm sure much of what he said was rehearsed, he made it seem less so, for what it's worth. I have little doubt he intended to work the tragedy of his wife and daughter into an answer somewhere, but when he did, it certainly came off as sincere. I don't think even the most cynical pundits are saying his chocking up there was not genuine. DickTurpis 10:19, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

// ... saying his chocking up there was not genuine.
No doubt genuine, but is it appropriate to even bring it up?
// Plain did better than expected,
Much, much better. Gibson and Couric definitely helped her to set expectations low.
// Her folksy style sort of irritated me,
Yeah, me too, but i was well aware that might work very well with most folks, and with her it may be genuine. When Biden tried it, it was obvious.
Most of us here care about things like run-on sentences (even tho we do them ourselves), but you know that tags us as elitists, fair or unfair.
// Biden, on the other hand, gave what I thought was the best performance of the four candidates so far.
True. Biden and McCain (old buddies apparently) have knowledge and experience Obama and Palin couldn't have, and McCain is a poor debater and speaker, so it would be expected.
// Palin seemed to think that 700 billion was insignificant and wouldn't mean sacrificing anything.
What did she say that leads you to that opinion?
// The art of the modern debate is not to answer the question asked, but to answer the question you wish you were asked.
Name ONE politician that doesn't use that device?
The thing that got me about the maverick discussion is how they BOTH wasted time on it. Is that really an issue that voters should care about? Zheeesh!
-- RemBeau 13:16, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Student-body vice presidency[edit]

Did anyone else get the sense that they might be watching the Wasilla High School student-body vice presidential debate last night from listening to Sarah Palin? --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 12:04, 3 October 2008 (EDT)


Article page: // Although it appears that she has not been a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, her husband has been, and she did provide a recorded welcoming to an AIP convention.[20]

How is this controversial?

-- RemBeau 14:11, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

I think it has something to do with wanting to secede from the Union, which may not seem particularly weird, but it is a a little out of the mainstream - especially when put side-by-side with a bid for national office... ħumanUser talk:Human 15:38, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
Well yes. Presumably somebody who might become president of the USA should be expected to at least have some commitment to keeping it in one piece. Or have I misunderstood the nature of the office?--Bobbing up 15:53, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
I think there actually might be something about "preserving the Union" in the oath of office, but I didn't bother to look it up. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:02, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
To many of us who support the USA, trying to dismember it seems pretty treasonous. (Esp. after that big, nasty war that was fought about it.) On the other hand, the lower 48 do subsidize Alaska quite a bit. Maybe if they left, we'd be able to renegotiate. As for preserving the Union, they are only technically supposed to protect, defend, etc., the Constitution of the United States, which says nothing about states leaving, one way or another. Researcher 08:17, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
She was born in Idaho, so she may believe in Alaskan independence and still reconcile that with being American or whatever. (Egad! I just defended her!) Totnesmartin 08:38, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
Then again, she flew back to Alaska from Texas while in labor, in order that the newly-minted Palin would be a true-blue snow-machine-riding, hockey-haired, meth-cooking Alaskan. (And thus a full citizen after secession) Or something like that. PS, I thought it the oil fields that subsidized Alaska more than the lower 48? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:01, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Thank you Sarah Palin TV ad[edit]

Did anyone else see these ads from Our Country Deserves Better PAC? At first I thought that they were a parody and were thanking Sarah Palin for ensuring the election of Barack Obama. But, they're actually for real. They are really thanking her. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 07:19, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Are they on the utoobz somewhere? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:19, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Here. --Gulik 19:25, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks! ħumanUser talk:Human 20:02, 25 November 2008 (EST)
That was a riot. It's on their webshite, too. I can see why you thought it was parody, I'm still not convinced it's not ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 20:05, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Oh my God! That was horrible! If that ad is for real, it's one of the worst examples I've ever seen. Must... go... lie down... --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 20:08, 25 November 2008 (EST)

So they aren't still running it, are they? "The Our Country Deserves Better PAC has one objective: to defeat Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election." Phail. Epic Phail :) ħumanUser talk:Human 20:19, 25 November 2008 (EST)


I don't suppose any Sarah Palin fans out there want to start updating this to recognize that the election is over?--Bobbing up 11:39, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I dun chopped and changed some tenses myself so that it no longer reads as though the election is still going on. Somebody with better knowledge of US politics might wish to consider if it's all still relevant.--Bobbing up 13:42, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Might want to add this too. DogP 21:02, 17 February 2009 (EST)
Yes, or better yet, add it to our abstinence only articles, wherever they are? And the birth control ones? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:30, 17 February 2009 (EST)


I mean, seriously, it might be funny and true but it's a bit tasteless right? ArmondikoVd hominem 09:30, 17 February 2009 (EST)

And childish. And, not actually that funny. I say get rid. Bondurant 09:52, 17 February 2009 (EST)
Funny (even if only mildly) and true, so why get rid of? I won't comment on the "taste" issue... ħumanUser talk:Human 16:24, 17 February 2009 (EST)
Well, besides insulting someone it's completely unfair to label Sarah Palin a "cunt" (which is what the article is doing in linking to it) and then deride others for using ad hominem attacks like that. She does enough damage to herself as it is without us having to do something that silly. ArmondikoVd hominem 09:24, 19 February 2009 (EST)
It's an insult to fine vaginas everywhere. TheoryOfPractice 09:31, 19 February 2009 (EST)
Fairly pointless insult so I've zapped it. If anybody wants to fight for its re-instatement let's hear it.--Bobbing up 09:50, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Pro-life feminism about rape[edit]

It also remains inconceivable to some True FeministsTM that a "feminist" can hold the position that women are legally, morally, ethically, intellectually equal to men while still saying that if raped, they must have the rapist's child. That's hardly an equality.

The word "must" means nothing in this context, because there is no option not to have the child. The only option is between keeping or killing the child.

Now the question is... if the child is female, then what is at stake? Privacy (bodily?) rights of one woman and the right to life of another woman. Where does the feminism come in? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A woman cannot be forced to have a child. -- (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The people who promote these views should have the courage of their convictions, and adopt the children in question. (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

SP and guns debate[edit]

Mention should be made of the shooting.

Could SP and team have pleaded the Thomas a Beckett excuse? Or was her plug and the shooting two different expressions of the same 'negative outlook'? (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


We might consider moving this section to a Fun space article. One does not yet exist for our subject, bizarrely, and I'm not sure this section belongs in Main space. On a related note, call me crazy, but I think this article could become an entry point if we work really hard on it. Rand0 (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


So, Skeptics with a K did a segment on their last episode about Trig Trutherism, a minor but vocal conspiracy theory surrounding Sarah Palin's son, Trig Palin, and allegations that he is actually the son of her daughter, Bristol. It was revived in 2011 with a paper by Northern Kentucky University professor Dr. Bradford Scharlott, in his paper "Palin, the Press, and the Fake Pregnancy Rumor: Did a Spiral of Silence Shut Down the Story?"

There doesn't seem to be a mention of it here -- I think I can write something up on it, but the Sarah Palin page looks a bit full. Should there be a brief section here about the Trig Truthers, or do you folks think it deserves its own page? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep it here. Can't imagine it's large enough to merit a page. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 02:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for another quote[edit]

I just found what I think is the ideal description of Sarah Palin's behavior:

“Sarah Palin is the bold selfish woman whose ignorance is accepted in the electorate as the ideal proletarian response to the utter aloofness of the political establishment.”

It's my translation from this comment in a German newspaper (and it may be a bit faulty in both accuracy and style).

Should we put it on top of the page?--Sophophobe (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

As nice a suggestion as that is, I don't think it can compete with John Cleese for the summary quote. But I'd say it has a place in the section with quotes about her. As long as you can truly vouch for the translation of course. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not an exact word-by-word translation, because I think it reproduces the message better, but I couldn't go so far as to call it accurate. Someone else better check it before we put it up here. --Sophophobe (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Palinism UD quote[edit]

The Palinism UD quote is just holy-fuck levels of sexist (and pointless). Can we please focus on criticizing her without resorting to that kind of schlock? (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed it about a billion years after the fact. Better late than never right? MyNameIsMudd (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo can we cut the sexual insults?[edit]

Shit like that Christopher Hitchens quote isn't really cool, can we keep it to shit like "what the fuck she says so much dumb shit what a wingnut?" without the "I wanna fuck her and somehow that reflects poorly on her" stuff? (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the quote was made in good taste either. It's removed. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)