McCain/Palin 2008: “Bitches Ain’t Shit”
Remember how John McCain giggled and chuckled when a supporter asked him, “How do we beat the bitch?” (referring to Hillary Clinton)?
(If you have problems viewing the embedded video, head over to YouTube to watch it.)
Well, his running mate, Sarah Palin, also thinks it’s pretty funny when somebody calls her political opponent a “bitch” and a “cancer.”
(If you have problems viewing the embedded video, head over to YouTube to watch it.)
[N.B. The woman whom the radio jerkoff referred to as a "cancer" and a "bitch" is a cancer survivor. All the same, Gov. Palin thought the whole thing was just too funny. See Sadly, No! for details.]
We already know all about McCain’s character issues. Regrettably, it looks like Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has some character issues of her own.
12 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Your email address is never displayed.
Do not paste an entire article or blog post into here: create a link to it (or at least create a tinyurl) instead.
The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
August 31st, 2008 @ 14:51
Nice. I’m sure all of those ‘Hillary-voter holdouts’ will really appreciate the Pork Princess Palin’s little giggle when they hear that.
The piece from ‘Sadly,No’, is right on. That picture is priceless!
August 31st, 2008 @ 19:44
Is it possible that anyone thought for a minute that even the most disgruntled of Hillary supporters would consider voting for McCain simply because his running mate is a woman? McCain’s politics are right-wing enough that I consider it prima facie unlikely that any Hillary supporter would vote for him, no matter what. To do so would be a very good example of “cutting off your nose to spite your face.”
As for Sarah Palin, she is an out-and-out wingnut:
* She’s virulently anti-choice, and would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape or incest.
* If it were up to her, American schools would teach creationism in science classes.
* She thinks gay people’s domestic partners should have less access to health benefits — while she did veto a bill that would have made that happen, she said she agreed with the bill and would not have vetoed it if she hadn’t been advised that the bill was unconstitutional and that it wasn’t worth a fight in court.
She’s free, of course, to believe whatever she likes. It seems highly unlikely to me, though, that any Hillary supporter would be embittered enough to consider voting for someone who holds these views. The McCain campaign is ostensibly being run by smart people, and I’m sure they know this.
And the giggling while a talk-radio host calls her opponent a “bitch” and a “cancer” is an indication of character issues, plain and simple. This isn’t something that happened while she was kicking back at her local VFW post sipping on a Coors Light with a few friends, either: she was on the public airwaves as the Governor of Alaska, laughing at this nasty stuff. Not so good.
August 31st, 2008 @ 23:22
Certainly any woman who values her equal rights would never support Sarah Palin, but there are a lot of woman who couldn’t care less. How many of those women were ‘Hillary supporters’? I think there are some. Few I hope, but there are some.
And don’t forget, just as men are, the majority of women in this country are just fucking stupid to begin with. How else could you ever explain 62 million people voting to re-elect George Bush?
August 31st, 2008 @ 23:25
>How else could you ever explain 62 million people voting to
>re-elect George Bush?
You’ve got a point there. One of the biggest mistakes America ever made was giving that guy another four years.
September 3rd, 2008 @ 13:29
There is no such thing as ‘women’s rights’. Our Constitution speaks of the rights of the individual.
Most women instinctively vote Democrat – which is admittedly – very stupid.
But enough of that. These are the four most whacked people ever to be selected to hold the two highest offices on the planet.
But the voters get what they deserve. They deserve these four losers.
September 4th, 2008 @ 19:17
You’re right, when the Constitution was written women had no rights.
And now, why doesn’t the great deep-thinker, the two-time Bush-supporting loser, Dank, tell us who he’s voting for this year?
And while you’re at, tell us about your new candidate’s view on the Iraq invasion and how that melds with your head being stuck up W’s ass the last 5 1/2 years there.
You voted for Bush twice asshole. Who’s the fucking loser?
September 9th, 2008 @ 06:54
Osama bin Laden
Obama and Biden
Coincidence? I think not.
September 9th, 2008 @ 22:35
chirp, chirp, chirp …
Poor Dank Hagny. He’s crawled back into his hole.
I thought for sure you would tell us all about Crazy Chuckie, your 2008 presidential choice.
Just because you’re now supporting Crazy Chuckie, — a ‘Baptist preacher’, who is adamantly against the Iraq occupation and whose very first objective if elected would be to implement Barack Obama’s Iraq policy — after you’ve had your head stuck up your boy W’s ass for 5 1/2 years, makes you now look like an unprincipled, simple-minded chump who lacks character, well, that’s all right. You don’t have to hide – Everybody already knew that!
September 9th, 2008 @ 22:47
Damn Filius, the first 2:22 of Crazy Chuckie Baldwin’s little speech there sounds like what you and I have been saying about Iraq for the last 5 1/2 years.
Since Dank went into hiding, maybe you can answer my question from 5 days ago; how does Dank’s new presidential candidate’s view on Iraq ‘meld’ with his?
Strong and principled isn’t he?
It’s funny how he hasn’t written a single blog story about his new Party and his new presidential candidate. Not a peep.
Not a peep from little bo peep.
September 10th, 2008 @ 01:59
I think the Constitution Party is so far to the right that it’d scare off most of his readers if he talked about it, even though most of his readers are wingnuts anyways. The Constitution Party is a frightening group of theofascists. They would make Bush, Cheney, et al. look like a bunch of kindergartners playing “tea party” with their Cabbage Patch Kids.
He’s still officially banned from commenting on this site (after he insulted my non-blog friends, who have nothing to do with my blog or anything I ever write about). I blacklisted the IP addresses he usually posts from so that his comments get automatically “disemvoweled.” One of them got through.
September 10th, 2008 @ 18:15
He had his chance to reply and what did he come back with? That Obama and Osama sound alike. He’s shallow, he’s petty, and he epitomizes what wrong with this country today; people, even those who ‘think’ they’re smart, are really quite stupid and simple-minded. Dank proves that more than ever now by his support for a candidate who is literally espousing Barack Obama’s call for withdrawal from Iraq and this is after he’s had his head stuck up George Bush’s ass the entire invasion and occupation.
All anyone as shallow as Dank Hagny can do when asked to explain his undeniable hypocrisy is to tell us a stupid and ignorant little riddle.
I called that years ago.
September 12th, 2008 @ 00:01
Chirp, chirp, chirp ….