Applesauce » Listen to the giggler

Listen to the giggler

August 30th, 2008 at 12:27pm Pat Cunningham

Here’s a recording of Sarah Palin giggling like a schoolgirl as a radio talk-show host refers to Alaska State Senate President Lyda Green as “a cancer” and “a bitch.” (Incidentally, Green is a cancer surivor.)

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/AKkydrUnBZE" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Entry Filed under: Uncategorized

18 Comments Add your own

1. Peter Gunn | August 30th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Pathetic little WingNut, Isn’t she

But remember, God is on her side
Just ask her
2. LD | August 30th, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Apparently she’s edited her own wikipedia article and called herself “a politician of eye-popping integrity.” That’s a big internet no no.

Here’s her own contributions as user Young Trigg

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=Young+Trigg
3. Leatherneck | August 30th, 2008 at 9:09 pm

What great progressives you are, going so far out of your way to prevent a woman from becoming Vice-President.
4. Pat Cunningham | August 30th, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Correction, Leatherneck: The goal is to prevent an UNQUALIFIED woman from becoming vice-president. Pinheads, not progressives, would support a woman’s candidacy just because she’s a woman. And only a pinhead would expect progressives to do otherwise or would criticize them when they don’t. Connect the dots, Leatherneck, and you’ll find yourself appropriately categorized. In any event, progressives don’t support right-wing extremists like Sarah Palin, no matter their gender or race or religion or sexual orientation or whatever. You apparently know nothing about political progressivism.
5. Veritas | August 30th, 2008 at 11:36 pm

I need to learn more about McCain’s VP pick to determine whether the decision was wise. But I would no more expect a woman to vote for her just because she’s female than I would an African-American to vote for Obama solely because he’s black.

I find it curious, however, that so many Obamans are incredulous that any American (like me) who is proud that America nominated a black person for president can chose not to vote for him. And I have observed a great deal of pressure on blacks, regardless of party preference, to support Obama simply due to his color. It’s a strange sort of reverse racism, I guess.
6. Henry | August 31st, 2008 at 6:31 am

Wow, that is some high level discourse there. I noticed there was a comment about her weight thrown in for good measure. Wingnuts sure are a pathetic bunch.
7. Leatherneck | August 31st, 2008 at 8:16 am

Yes Pat I know all about political progressivism and don’t need a lecture about it. You are not the only one who is a student of history. I know about Fightin’ Bob LaFollette and Frances Willard and TR’s Bull Moose Party, which won handily in Rockford in 1912. I am excited about Sarah Palin. She has a “can-do” attitude in the progressive tradition. Her record is that of a reformer and a conservationist. (conservation-iST, Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot would be proud). Liberals are going to try to tear her down because they are jealous. They were going to criticize anyone McCain who picked, male or female. Did you honestly expect McCain, the Republican nominee, to pick for VP a liberal like Barbara Boxer or something? I mean really…Palin is not a pro-abortion liberal. So what?! This doesn’t make her unworthy of support from women. As I pointed out, many women can think for themselves and they look at the person, and they care about issues other than your liberal dogma.

And don’t tell me that you are interested in weeding out “un-qualified” people. Maybe I missed it, but you never once questioned Obama’s qualifications or called him a “gimmick”.
8. Henry | August 31st, 2008 at 10:37 am

That’s right Leatherneck. Palin does nothing to persuade independent or conservative Democrats (women or men) to vote McCain/Palin. As you say, women care about the issues and on the issues she is very, very conservative. It’s a cynical gimmick and shows the kind of neanderthal thinking wingnuts are famous for.
9. Leatherneck | August 31st, 2008 at 11:09 am

Henry you don’t get what I am saying. What I am saying is that not all women are pro-abortion liberals! That is a myth and a stereotype. Many women care about other issues such as taxes, national security, etc. (not the women you saw at the Denver Nuremberg rally, but again, that is not representative of all women)

Yes, Palin’s youngest child has Down’s syndrome. That is a fact, not a rumor. And it is a testament to her character and it is something to which many voters can relate to, those who have a child with special needs.

Why do you liberals insist on name-calling and rumor-mongering and engaging in the politics of personal destruction and partisan divisiveness, the exact OPPOSITE of what Barack Obama is all about?!
10. Pat Cunningham | August 31st, 2008 at 11:25 am

“Denver Nuremberg rally.” That’s funny. Oh, how jealous the right-wingers are that Obama can draw such large, enthusiastic crowds! They just can’t deal with it, so they paint Obama as some kind of Nazi. Pathetic. Truly pathetic. These extremists are to be pitied. They have completely taken leave of their senses. They’re stuck with a weak, inarticulate, flip-flopping candidate and his astonishingly unqualified running mate, so they flail away at Obama as an evil alien who poses a grave threat to America. They pretend he’s the rebirth of Hitler. Funny. And pathetic..
11. Leatherneck | August 31st, 2008 at 11:59 am

You know what I mean by “Nuremberg” rally: The production was over the top! The audience took leave of their senses! They should have kept it in a convention auditorium like all other acceptance speeches… because it WAS like all other acceptance speeches. (in terms of content)

I am still waiting to hear you support the argument that Palin won’t draw any women votes because 100% of women voters are pro-abortion liberals like yourselves.

In any post, you said you would pull down any comments that feed into nasty rumor-mongering about Palin.

Well how about pulling down Henry’s comment above?
12. Pat Cunningham | August 31st, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Leatherneck: I’ll give you $100 if you can show me where I ever said that “100 percent of women voters are pro-abortion liberals.” Man, you can’t even read.

However, you’re right about Henry’s comment. I’ve edited out his offending line. And I’m editing out of your comment the specifics you mentioned about Henry’s comment.
13. Leatherneck | August 31st, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Thank you Pat for keeping it on the up-and-up.

Regarding the women voters, I am just paraphrasing what has been said - this assumption that “women won’t vote for McCain Palin when they find out that she is …(gasp) a pro-life conservative”. My point being that women are don’t vote as a bloc, just as you have correctly said that Catholics don’t vote as a bloc. Some are liberal, some are conservative. Probably 50/50.

I agree with Chuck Sweeny that picking Palin will turn things around. As the great JFK said: “The torch is passed to a new generation”.
14. Milton Waddams | August 31st, 2008 at 3:23 pm

What you paraphrased was being said about Hillary’s women voters, not women voters in general. So the majority of the voters for Hillary probably are “pro-abortion liberals,” or at minimum are at least intelligent enough to vote based on issues not because she’s a woman.
15. Henry | August 31st, 2008 at 6:47 pm

Good job Milton, that was what I was trying to get across in my earlier post. And Pat, if you found my post to be out of bounds regarding Palin rumors, why have you allow all the ‘Obama is a Muslim’ stuff? I don’t see a difference.
16. Pat Cunningham | August 31st, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Henry: The reason is that the “Obama is a Muslim” stuff penetrated the mainstream media and became part of the national political conversation. When that happens with the stuff to which you refer, I’ll get into it, and you can, too. Hey, Henry, it’s my damn blog, and when I can’t run it the way I want to (in conformity, of course, with the Register Star’s reasonable family-newspaper strictures), I’ll walk away from it.
17. Henry | August 31st, 2008 at 10:35 pm

I know it’s your blog and you call the shots. I now understand why you did what you did. From what I saw, the story may have legs and look forward to having a robust discussion with our brothers and sisters on the right.
18. Pat Cunningham | August 31st, 2008 at 11:16 pm

Let’s put it this way, Henry. I’m monitoring the situation, and the time may come when the subject at issue becomes a mainstream controversy.