Many have had a field day with the David Letterman fiasco regarding his jokes about Sarah Palin and her daughter(s). Key to the debate is the point that Letterman and his writers clearly screwed up in their innuendo about Palin’s daughter.
It is obvious the joke in question was meant in reference to Palin’s oldest daughter, age 18, who became pregnant before marriage and while still a teenager. But Letterman and his writers inadvertently were referring to the daughter at the ballgame in question, who is 14, getting “knocked up by Alex Rodriquez.”
Palin rightfully pushed back against the joke. And she continued pushing. While Letterman initially tried to diffuse the situation with more humor, Palin clearly wasn’t satisfied.
She went too far in attempting to reframe the context of the joke, such as suggesting her youngest daughter should stay away from David Letterman. However, the situation was precipitated by Letterman’s inadvertent mistake and Palin was correct to fight back.
As an added touch of grace to the situation, both Letterman’s eventual apology and Palin’s acceptance of it, shows that in such situations a good fight must ensue before a true resolution can be find.
Palin necessarily stood up for herself and her family in order to get to that point. She should be commended.
[EDIT: Jim Lukaszewski just chimed in and he takes Letterman to task. You may read his response here.]
Like this post? Buy the book!
Ron
1 year ago
It would be interesting to find out if the original question by a radio host the day after the joke was planted, or if it came from the host himself. Was it a deliberate political push-back or the natural reaction of a mother? It’s hard to tell since most of the criticism of her is about her family, her church, her childhood , and who she is as a person. There is practically nothing about her politics or record as a Governor.
Melanie
1 year ago
Palin went way too far when she said that he was suggesting rape of children. It’s particularly absurd that she makes those remarks when she has a child who got pregnant at 17.
There had been numerous jokes about her daughter before, why suddenly so p.o.’d? And what about the gross jokes from Limbaugh and McCain about Chelsea Clinton — as Huffpost’s Shannyn Moore asks, shouldn’t they, too, apologize to their (direct and clear, not inadvertent) target and the rest of the female population, as well?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannyn-moore/top-10-reasons-sarah-pali_b_215468.html
As a mother, I would defend my kids, too. But I never would have taken them out of school and put them on public display the way she did. That seemed sociopathic to me. Obama did not do that to his kids.
And to Ron: What planet have you been living on? The criticism of Palin was primarily about her inexperience and utter stupidity — she couldn’t answer the simplest of foreign policy questions, for example.
Melanie
1 year ago
Totally off point, but Bob, I like your new theme!
Ron
1 year ago
Melanie, your example from the Huffington Post editorial only shows that she and her kids have been getting dragged through the mud from the beginning. Had you and Shannyn Moore had been reading something other than left-wing sources and TV entertainers, you would have noted some outrage earlier.
On a side note, governors are always weak on foreign policy, as senators are weak on executive experience. That’s just life on planet earth.
Bob
1 year ago
I guess I will interject.
What negates the HuffPo article above is two things: 1. In any given instance public figures can rightfully take issue with just about any joke or criticism they want; and 2. It strategically made sense to go after a major network figure like Letterman because the timing was apparently right and much traction was gained from doing so. This wouldn’t make sense at most other times and in most other situations. Simply in terms of time and resources it’s logistically impossible to go after each and every criticism or bad joke. An advisor of mind said leaders have six shots to fire. By the time they hang their hat on more than about six issues, they begin to lose effectiveness. It’s strategic to know when to take issue with something with this much visibility; in most cases, it is pointless to do so.
Keep in mind this is irrespective relevant political ideologies or qualifications, which I take few positions on anyway. It is the job of politicians to do what they do. Comedians and talk show hosts have every right to make tasteless jokes about anything they want (I’m a fan of tasteless jokes); conversely, people have the right to fight back. In this instance, Palin’s pushback was successful. Her timing was on the mark and she managed the traction gained to the point of getting a response she could live with. To me, that’s strategically impressive. And again, this irrespective of her performance elsewhere on other issues.
At the same time, I don’t think that dismissing “left-wing sources” is helpful. The problem with such sources is not so much their position but rather how their stance influences their worldview. Too often partisan pundits — people like Rush Limbaugh — and sites — like the HuffPo — are blinded to divergent perspectives regardless of validity of such points of view. Such attachment to ideology ultimately blinds one to wider possibilities and outlooks.
But hey, most people do it and it makes for good ratings and pageviews, so what do I know?
Ron
1 year ago
Dang it Bob, you sure know how to take the fun out of a good argument. We were just getting warmed up.
Melanie
1 year ago
Even though I believe that there are two sides to every pancake, no matter how thin, I do not believe that the difference between being a liberal or a conservative (as those terms are commonly employed in this society) is simply a matter of holding different, but equal positions on various matters. Research shows that people are drawn to belong to one group or the other more on personality type than on weighing the pros and cons of the positions. Conservatives tend to be followers who blindly obey their authoritarian leaders, who in turn want to impose their intolerant views on everyone else. Liberals tend to be more “live and let live,” less fearful of strangers and people who aren’t exactly like themselves.
So, Ron, don’t mind Bob. Bring it on!