David Letterman’s sexually offensive jokes about Sarah Palin’s daughters (and herself) were distinctly bereft of class. Sarah Palin’s immediate acceptance of his apology was, on the other hand, quite classy. (Of course, Letterman didn’t apologize for the line comparing her to a “slutty flight-attendant,” but merely for the joke about Alex Rodriguez having sex with her daughter.)
Personally, I’m not fond of these scenes where an entertainer or a public figure is ganged-up-upon and put through the mill for making a poor joke or a politically-incorrect remark. Of-course, when the public figure making the remark is a conservative, or is even perceived (rightly or wrongly) as being one on some level, a blow-up of this sort rarely ends without heavy consequences, like a firing or the end of a public career. It is, as ever, the double-standard in these matters that infuriates. David Letterman’s remarks were literally drops in the bucket; Governor Palin and her family have endured a level of personal attack, of brutal and sometimes outright bizarre vindictiveness that would never be tolerated were it focused on a liberal female politician and her family.
Palin would be more aware of this than anyone, and her decision to immediately accept Letterman’s rather self-serving speech as an adequate apology—so almost certainly sparing him further grief over the matter—is all the more classy for that.
June 16th, 2009 | 11:50 am
The site “Conservatives4Palin” (http://www.conservatives4palin.com/) is running a “webathon” to help Sarah Palin retire the enormous financial debt she has incurred as governor of Alaska from numerous frivolous ethics violation complaints. These complaints, like the Letterman comments, are designed to drive pro-lifers like Palin out of the public square. Spread the word about the webathon.
June 16th, 2009 | 7:50 pm
First of all, Palin didn’t immediately accept his apology, she waited until this second apology. And the joke wasn’t about “public displays of sexual exploitation of girls,” (public? more than one girl?) it’s intended humor depended upon a reference to one girl’s having gotten pregnant (a girl whose parents are using her pregnanacy for political mileage by trotting her out as a spokeswoman for a choice she didn’t make). And what in the world does any of this have to do with ‘our U.S. Military women and men”? Palin’s statement wasn’t classy, it’s was politically opportunistic, and in its incoherence reminiscent of the sort of rambling comments she made during the campaign, for which she was unkindly mocked, yes, but which served to show just how unqualified she is for political office.
But that demonstrated unpreparedness was apparently alright with the First Things, and it was alright that she grossly exaggerated Obama’s slim relations with William Ayers last year and stirred up hatred for him, and alright at the convention that after signaling that she was a Christian, she mocked him for serving his community. First Things kept silent.
And you guys wonder why the Religious Right gets no respect.
June 17th, 2009 | 9:11 am
I see Ken’s point. First Things and other conservative publications have staunchly defended Sarah Palin. Rightly so. Here’s the problem with the treatment of Sarah Palin: the blasted double standards. She wasn’t educated at Brown, Smith, Vassar or Berkley. She opposes abortion. Her convictions are anti-left oriented, and that fact drove a steel nail in the coffin of the McCain-Palin ticket. Is she awkward-yes. Of that, I have no fear. It is the government’s looming control over the private sector that ignites great fear in me.
June 17th, 2009 | 10:34 am
Agree w/ Ken and Karen. Come on First Things! You are supposed to be smart and savvy. Palin saw an opportunity to put herself back in the spotlight and talk about “those Hollywood/Manhattan liberals” and, you betcha’, she took it. I bet she was sooooo excited when she saw the opportunity to glam.
Face it, Letterman and Palin used each other for mutual advantage.
June 17th, 2009 | 12:31 pm
Karen, some of the media’s attitude towards Palin probably does stem from their cultural and ideological differences with her. Does that excuse us as Christians from criticizing her? She may be a snide, lying, vindicative, ill-prepared candidate but she’s our snide, lying, vindicative, ill-prepared candidate, is that it?
The woman’s campaign last year was deeply shameful, and so was the Religious Right’s support. Do you folks really not see what you did with your witness to the gospel? You tossed it right out the window.
June 17th, 2009 | 10:49 pm
Sean, thank you for the post. Letterman’s comment was bereft of class. Johnny Carson would never have attempted to pass such a degrading insult off as a joke worthy of an audience.
The insult was interesting given the circumstances under which Letterman’s own child was conceived. Will he use the same words when the time comes to explain to his child those circumstances?
Ken – Palin and McCain were running against a man who supports abortion on demand, taxing the U.S. taxpayer to fund abortions around the globe, and the creation of human embryos for destruction to harvest stem cells. How exactly is that “witnessing the gospel?” Please explain that moral calculus (without being snide, lying, vindicative (sp) or ill-prepared).
June 18th, 2009 | 8:07 am
Diane, of course I didn’t say that Obama’s pro-choice positions witness to the gospel. I said that Palin’s conduct, and the Religious Right’s implicit condoning of that behavior, compromised — nay, negated — its witness to the gospel. They’ll know we are following Christ by our love, in other words, and if we don’t love them when they’re our ideological enemies, they won’t listen to us at all. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
June 18th, 2009 | 9:51 am
It’s not so much that Letterman’s comments were offensive – they were, it’s that they weren’t funny. And, it’s not so much that Palin stood up for her daughter – the right thing to do, but that her history of opportunism sullies even her motherly instincts.
My wish: let us please get this woman off stage. I would like to see the GOP as a credible party, leading an intelligent debate, but Gov. Palin is not helping.
June 18th, 2009 | 10:45 am
Richard writes: ” I would like to see the GOP as a credible party, leading an intelligent debate, but Gov. Palin is not helping.”
I feel the same way. And if Palin’s chief concern was her daughter, why didn’t she make one simple, low-key statement and leave it at that? Everyone was in her corner on this one anyhow, even her critics. No, she had to bring it up a couple more times, in language she knew would be controversial, keeping her daughter in the news in Letterman’s ugly scenario. What 14-year old girl would want that? I can’t see that this woman’s actions on the national stage have had one shred of intregity.
June 18th, 2009 | 11:02 am
What political mileage are you talking about? What choice didn’t she make?
June 18th, 2009 | 12:11 pm
Bristol didn’t choose abstinence. Not long after she gave birth, her parents trotted her out as a spokeswoman for abstinence, on a short tour sponsored by The Candies Foundation (a group that sells a tight t-shirt with the slogan, “I’m Sexy Enough to Keep You Waiting.”).
June 18th, 2009 | 3:22 pm
So, what you’re saying Ken is, because Bristol isn’t perfect she’s a travesty as a spokeperson for abstinence. IOW, for instance, a reformed smoker is a lousy spokesperson for quitting smoking. I wasn’t aware that abstinence was a one time only deal. If we are sinners, then I guess we better not be speaking out against sin then, eh?
I suppose you also have proof that the decision to be a spokesperson could not possibly have been Bristol’s?
June 18th, 2009 | 4:35 pm
I said nothing critical of Bristol, Smmtheory. She’s a kid, she made a bad decision. We all make bad decisions, even when we’re a lot older and wiser. If as an adult, after having remained abstinent for awhile, she wanted to speak out for abstinence, I’d respect that. I really doubt it was her idea now – how comfortable did she look at the convention? And if it was her idea, her parents should have told her that to do so was unseemly. I won’t doubt her motives, but she’s preaching what she didn’t practice.
But her parents knew the pregnancy could hurt Sarah with the Right, so they decided to take the offense. Read up on these people, if you haven’t. This isn’t an isolated incident. They never do evince any class.
June 18th, 2009 | 11:34 pm
Okay, so no proof that it wasn’t Bristol’s decision to be a spokesperson for abstinence. No proof that at 18 she’s incapable of making her own decisions and not do everything that mommy and daddy want her to. Heck, it’s a wonder she got pregnant at all considering how she just always does everything at the behest of mom and dad!
But that last paragraph…. that just makes me think you’re a left winger trying to pose as a right winger.
June 19th, 2009 | 8:01 am
No proof on either side of the argument, but extremely high probability on mine, given what we’ve seen of the Palin’s, given which party stands to gain from her actions, given her youth, and given that she told Greta van Susteren that “everyone should be abstinent, but it’s not realistic now,” contradicting the very message she was supposedly delivering
And I’m a pro-life Democrat with an evangelical background and pro-life Republican friends, getting more cynical about the Right every day.
June 19th, 2009 | 10:44 am
When your left wing poses as your right wing you may find yourself walking around in circles.
June 19th, 2009 | 1:20 pm
So, as a Democrat, you actually have a stake in not seeing her as the next Republican presidential candidate… that explains quite a bit I think.
June 19th, 2009 | 2:45 pm
It’s unfortunate that when some people run out of arguments, they resort to attacking motives without evidence.
Palin’s shamelessness explains my opposition to her, and as I indicated before, I’d like to see a strong GOP with thoughtful, appealing arguments, not kneejerk cries of “socialism.” Palin would hardly give Obama a run for his money, and would further marginalize the party and the Religious Right. There are reasons to believe she actually hurt McCain last year.
Rereading Sean Curnyn’s original post, my first thought is that he’s correct that there’s a media double standard in regards to liberals and conservatives, but I’m not sure that’s the case in regards to offensive comments like Letterman’s. Don Imus is no conservative. But he was fired because his tasteless remarks reflected on a black female athletes in general, and not on a single individual or family as in Letterman’s joke.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact