Â
This week, the recent War of the Words between Sarah Palin and David Letterman is the subject of my ire. I mean, seriously, Sarah! As far as I’m concerned, as to the matter of her family being fair game for pundits and late night talk show hosts, the Thrilla from Wasilla gave up all rights to the universe for all time when she stepped out into the national spotlight at last year’s Republic National Convention. Â
I’m sure you’ll recall that night when we first saw Alaska’s Chief Executive on the RNC stage. She was all tricked out in her nicey-nice vice-president-elect outfit and her fire engine red high heels (see above), with cute husband and family in tow. Yes, family in tow, in their entirety – including unmarried, pregnant teenage daughter Bristol and infant son Trig, a Down Syndrome baby. Â
To my mind, the moment Palin dragged that baby out into the bright lights and loud noises and germfest free-for-all of the RNC—making him a political football that she could parlay in her so-called crusade for special needs children—all bets were off. If he had been a healthy baby boy, then he would have been sleeping in the hotel with a babysitter watching over him, not getting paraded in front of the world. N’est-ce pas?Â
Â
To recap: two weeks ago, Letterman cracked a joke about Palin attending a baseball game. “One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game: During the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.†The shitstorm began shortly thereafter, as the Palinator accused Letterman of promoting the rape of underage girls. He had, of course, been referring to Bristol, the unwed young mother, now of legal age. But Palin had been at the game with her younger daughter, Willow, now 14, so she chose to believe Letterman was referring to Willow in his joke.Â
Media madness ensued. Showbiz Tonight called it the Sarah Palin-David Letterman Smackdown. Even the National Organization for Women backed Palin in her outrage, which is pretty amazing considering she is the opposite of everything they stand for. And Letterman apologized on-air. Not once. Twice. There was even a “Fire David Letterman†rally outside his studio at the Ed Sullivan Theatre. Fully forty people showed up.Â
The last time I checked, there was a First Amendment that guarantees our rights to freedom of speech, and that seems to cover nutjobs like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly (who have been accused of everything from encouraging people to vote across party lines to sway elections in their favor, to encouraging right-wing violent actions like the recent murder of Dr. George Tiller). But somehow, Sarah Palin believes it does not cover late night talk show hosts like David Letterman, and she’s willing to try to raise a national debate about how he hates women and young girls.Â
The Price Point’s final word on the matter: Pot. Calls. Kettle. Black.
6 responses so far ↓
1 ferretrick // Jun 19, 2009 at 1:23 pm
You lost me in your final paragraph. Sorry, but this is a huge pet peeve of mine. Freedom of speech has NOTHING to do with this situation. Zip, zilch, nada. The first amendment protects us from the GOVERNMENT infringing on our right to freedom of speech. It has nothing to say about two seriously annoying people having a war of words that happens to take place in the national spotlight. Sarah Palin was not elected VP (thank God)-if she had been and she used her power to have Letterman arrested, that would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. If she used her power as governer of Alaska to have his show banned from Alaskan television stations, THAT would violate free speech and freedom of the press. Disagreeing with him in a public forum is not a free speech violation.
I also don’t buy that because she brought the baby at the RNC, that means anyone can say anything about her family and she does not have a right to take offense. What Letterman said was crude, offensive, tacky, and for that matter NOT EVEN FUNNY. He’s a prick.
That said, I agree Palin is a disgusting person who is just keeping this pot stirred for her own self-promotion. She’s not really THAT offended and she knows damn good and well Letterman meant the daughter who is of legal age. Hate them both and wish they would shut up and go away.
2 Beth // Jun 19, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I can despise Palin for what she stands for and her manipulation of the media, but that doesn’t make it okay that Dave slut-shamed Palin and her oldest daughter.
She has absolutely shamelessly used her children to gain attention and sympathy. I don’t think that means those children should be fair game for the talk-show circuit. I agree Letterman had a right to say it. Palin and everyone else had a right to call him on it. I don’t think he should be fired. But when even smart, supposedly progressive men throw around the word slut and joke about older men impregnating a teenager, that’s a problem.
3 Dustin L // Jun 20, 2009 at 11:35 am
Amanda Marcotte has an excellent post about this over at Pandagon.
I agree that Letterman is a sexist, but no more so than nearly any male comedian of his generation. And I’m not saying that’s okay, but if we focus on how sexist Letterman is, we’re having exactly the conversation that Sarah Palin wants us to have. As was pointed out before, she’s a master manipulator.
I don’t think that Sarah Palin’s actions have made her entire family fair game, but I do think that Bristol Palin’s choice to become the public face of the abstinence movement (despite the obvious hypocrisy of doing so) keeps her from being off limits by any reasonable argument. Letterman mocks public figures; Bristol Palin is a public figure.
I would also argue that if the joke was meant to slut-shame anyone, it was A. Rod. Which is not to say it was a good joke, but it’s been a long long time since many of Letterman’s jokes were good.
4 Michael // Jun 20, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Ferretrick nails it again. It was a lousy, tasteless joke (really, now–who thought that would fly?), and would justly have been dismissed with a quick put-down from Palin; her larger outrage is opportunism, and it focuses the misdirected anger of social conservatives who feels their personal values disrespected on all sides (remember Molly Ivins’ decent question–when was the last time you saw a good novel, film, short story with a sympathetic Evangelical at the center?). Result: a small, ugly, and dispiriting mess. So–tangent: WOuld we have reacted differently if the joke were really funny? I hate to admit that I think I might have–
5 Sam // Jun 20, 2009 at 3:25 pm
This piece articulates what has been missing from the reports of this story – that Palin intentionally brought her whole family on board as a political tool. Crying foul after the fact is trying to have it both ways.
Her outrage is phony. It’s more political opportunism.
6 Holly // Jun 21, 2009 at 8:40 am
As for the Freedom of Speech item, I stand corrected. However, according to the Wikipedia entry on Freedom of Speech:
The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as “the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression”.
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Semantics aside……do we really want to live in a world where we can’t say how we feel, make stupid crass jokes, be outrageous, be politically incorrect? I know I don’t. I defend David Letterman’s right to make jokes in poor taste, Rush Limbaugh’s right to rile up the right-wing populace, Howard Stern’s right to insult everyone of every race and creed, and Sarah Palin’s right to say she can see Russia from her back porch. Just because they say it doesn’t mean I HAVE TO LISTEN TO IT. However, I can, and I will comment on it when the need arises.
As far as Palin and the entire subject of rape in general, I quote:
“It is a fact that under Sarah Palin’s administration, Wasilla cut funds that had previously paid for the medical exams and began charging victims or their health insurers the $500 to $1200 fees. Although Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella wrote USA Today that the GOP vice presidential nominee “does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test…To suggest otherwise is a deliberate misrepresentation of her commitment to supporting victims and bringing violent criminals to justice,” the evidence from Wasilla’s budget records says otherwise.” – from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html
Should children be fair game for late night comedians? No. But the joke was not about a child, it was about an unwed mother who is an adult in the eyes of the law. Was the joke in good taste? No. But I heartily defend Letterman’s right to make the joke. And, given that we are talking about a woman who had no trouble exhibiting her special needs infant for political points at a place where any infant should not be exhibited, I just can’t find it in me to feel sorry for SP.
Her children, since God knows it’s not their fault they were born as her children, I do feel sorry for.
Leave a Comment