Yes, it's like the old days. Sarah Palin everywhere in the media, on twitter, just everywhere. Only much, much crazier. We always knew that she would not just go away, despite the fact that many people were convinced that she would just quietly fade into obscurity. But she won't. You have to deal with it, America, or "dill" with it, as Sarah Palin would say in her very own way of pronouncing the "American language."
Actually, the Washington Post observed today that the US media actually has no clue any more how to deal with Sarah Palin, how to think of her, how to interpret her actions:
What is the central Palin storyline right now? Let’s just say the nominees are more diverse than those for the Oscars. Some are downright contradictory. Others simply reveal a Palin-esque lack of focus by the media. In no particular order:
- She’s backing Trump
- This is a big deal
- Meh, don’t be so sure
- Her endorsement speech was nonsensical, “post-apocalyptic poetry”
- Her endorsement speech was full of “substantive, logical reasons”
- Hey, her son just got arrested on domestic violence charges
- She blamed the arrest on her son’s military service
- No, wait, she blamed it on President Obama
- Her support for Trump legitimizes him as a conservative
- Her support for Trump delegitimizes her own conservatism
- She could be Trump’s running mate
- No, no, she’ll get a different position in his administration
- What was up with that sparkly sweater, anyway?
This is the thing with Sarah Palin: She is confusing absolutely everybody, because she is just an "image" of your imagination. From years of experience, we all know very well that only very few people recognized Palin for what she really is: The big fraudster from Alaska, the crazy woman who constantly gets away with outrageous actions. and who is also very successful in completely messing up her family. But for all others, she is just whatever they want to believe. This can go from "saviour of the nation" to "insane, unhinged, dangerous woman."
Anyway, I am starting to get a bit of the good old "Palin fatigue" after reading so much about her during the last few days, so let's focus on the one thing that really saves us when it comes to Sarah Palin: COMEDY!
There are cartoons, but there is more: "Salon" created an excellent "Rap-Remix" of Sarah's already infamous endorsement speech, it is more than obvious that her speech really should have been a "rap" in the first place.
Here is another nice cartoon:
Andy Borowitz at the "New Yorker" proved again that he is one of the nation's most gifted satirists:
Palin said that Obama insured her defeat in 2008 “just like he has defeated so many other great Americans,” and that her family had paid the price.
“I can’t help thinking that, if I had been elected Vice-President, Bristol and Willow wouldn’t have gotten into that drunken brawl and Track wouldn’t have threatened his girlfriend and whatnot,” she said. “Thanks, Obama.”
OK, let's get serious for a moment again. "Salon" again did an excellent job in calling out conservatives in their latest article. The right-wingers are just as confused as everyone else. Is Trump a liberal or a fascist? Both, actually, according to "anti-Trump" conservatives:
It’s no mystery why the National Review and their supporters hate Trump. He’s vulgar and embarrassing and he does an even better job of exploiting the right-wing rubes and their racism and their provincialism and their ridiculous sense of oppression than they do. They are, in other words, haters. And Trump dismissed them as the haters they are with ease during his press conference Thursday night where he called the National Review a “dead paper” that almost no one reads anymore.
This impression is driven home by actually reading the issue. The editors can’t quite seem to decide what their exact objections to Trump are. Is it that he’s driving the right too far in the direction of fascism or that he’s a secret liberal in disguise? Both! Whatever you need to hear! The strategy is argument through overwhelming. They’ll throw everything they’ve got, even contradictory stuff, at the reader and hope the sheer volume of words impresses them enough to vote for Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush.
The everything-and-the-kitchen-sink strategy produces some hilarious contradictions. The main anti-Trump editorial, written by the editors, darkly warns that Trump isn’t the racist that his followers think he is. “Trump says he will put a big door in his beautiful wall, an implicit endorsement of the dismayingly conventional view that current levels of legal immigration are fine,” they write, even trying to get the reader to believe that Trump’s mass deportation plan is “poorly disguised amnesty”.
But then, in the writer round-up, we’re hearing a different story. “Not since George Wallace has there been a presidential candidate who made racial and religious scapegoating so central to his campaign,” David Boaz sniffs, adding that America “aspired to rise above such prejudices and guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to everyone.”
So which is it, guys? Is Trump offensive because he’s too nativist or because he’s not devoted enough to keeping the foreigners out? Whatever will make you not vote for him, I guess.
Well, yes, what is it?
Nobody knows. We need many more Trump-speeches and Palin-speeches to find out. Live on ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and C-SPAN. The world depends on it!
ONE MORE, FOR GOD AND AMERICA:
EVEN MORE COMEDY:
This is very, very funny: