Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Sarah Palin and the Confederacy of Dunces
For weeks now the liberal media has been waxing incredulous at John McCain's stunt of a running mate. Righteously they decry her unpreparedness for potentially holding the most powerful office on earth; aghast, they witness the irony that such a specter should act as a tonic on the Republican ticket.
More astonishing, though, is this incredulity itself.
The good senator's choice forthrightly assumes what the world already knew about the majority of American hearts and minds -- that they are apolitical, uninformed, and all too easily image-driven. A Sarah Palin would never go over in France, Israel, China -- or even Pakistan. She wouldn't be nominated to begin with. Just a few decades ago, she arguably wouldn't have stood a chance here at home either.
The US presidential race today resembles not so much the nation exercising its constitutional right to elect competent leadership as an arena for Odysseus-like campaign strategists battling to conquer, as an astute comedian recently put it, "The United Stupid of America." According to The Economist.com's Global Electoral College, which polls the hypothetical US president if world citizenry were to vote, "Barack Obama would stroll into the White House." Nearly everywhere on the planet -excepting Georgia, the sole pro-McCain country -- the Democratic contender is favored by a landslide. Yet those privileged to actually put their name to the American ballot may very well allow Ms. Palin to wink her way to the doorstep of that White House.
Let's take a moment to imagine the Palin Presidency scenario: would shortcomings in foreign policy experience truly undermine her capability as Commander-in-Chief? She will be surrounded by an army of advisors and can appoint a foreign-relations-savvy deputy at her side. Foreign policy wasn't the incumbent president's strongest suite, and he managed to install two whole new governments in the turbulent Middle East. And to give credit where it's due, Sarah Palin has shown extraordinary poise in face of the weighty rôle thrust upon her thus far. Who's to say President Palin can't just as unblinkingly stare down Putin if he "rears" too close? Zardari already loves her -- other pivotal allies will rally around. If anyone is worried about her gift for speech, again, by the benchmark of the last eight years, she will positively breeze through international summits and public addresses.
But the heart of the matter lies not in whether the Alaskan governor is or is not qualified to run for vice president: it's about the direction we're headed for independent of her. If anything, the Palin phenomenon has emerged at the precise historical moment -- amidst two wars and a grim recession -- as a slap in the face to blink America awake. That a people, contrary to their first-world counterparts, would accede the platform to leadership so thoughtlessly does not reflect on the nature of the object, but rather on their subjectivity in this process. This is beyond the partisan coin-flip of "America Decides 2008," more than the individual merits of McCain or Obama, or the question of Sarah Palin becoming the novice heroine of a tale so fantastic J.K. Rowling will have to pen a new saga in her name.
This is a chance for a deeper, longer look at how adequately education and media are equipping citizens of the United States of America for intellectual survival in the increasingly competitive, globalized, multi-polar world of the century that lies ahead. The next Mr. (or Ms.) President needs to put country first by bringing change we need in classrooms and on airwaves -- the first step where real nation-building starts. Otherwise, we will end up looking back wistfully on these elections as the good times.
- Posted in
58 Comments so far
Show AllIts the Vulgar generation.
Since Clinton's scandal--since tv shows like Survivor and Big Brother came along, no surprise a "its cool to be dumb" mindset would take hold and after Bush we get another one in the same mold. Abu Ghraig--vulgar.
Bailing out Wall Street billionaires and telling poor people, them's the breaks--that's vulgar.
Relax. Palin will be returning to AK after November 4, 2008.
Absolutely!
.Possibly, but that is not the real issue, wouldnt you agree? I see a genuine paucity of leadership here in America that scares the beejesus out of me.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
Jonathan Swift
That book was pretty darn funny too....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The point is not whether or not Palin will be sent packing but how amazingly ignorant Americans are relative to the rest of the world. Take a trip anywhere; I just did. It will be highly apparent when you return, real culture shock.
Oh believe me. I know "conservative" America as I live in South Carolina which is unlikely to go Democrat even in this condition. I'm not culture shocked as I've learned to grow up in these kinds of areas and be immune to these fundie types.
Come on now, Palin wouldn't ever become president. It's not like McCain and her would bump uglies on the Oval Office's desk, resulting in a heart attack for the poor old fool who chose her as a running mate. Well, even if they did it wouldn't be anything like that nasty Clinton doing a secretary. They're Republicans, and for them to unite the pres and the vp positions in such a manner is something that the repub's would call 'good government' after all who better to step into your shoes than the person you're shagging.
What is so sad, is that the first woman candidate on the Presidential ticket had to be someone who is so not qualified, so crude, so unpogressive, so offensive and crude in her remarks. Doesn't say much about the "greatest nation" on the earth that a person of Governor Palin's stature is acting like a rabid dog. I hope, fervently that she will be back in AK after 11/04/08, but who knows. That election 8 years ago was stolen and the one 4 years ago looks more and more like it was also stolen.
If one can vote early as we do here in Georgia, I suggest you do. AND, say a few prayers that better times will be ahead with Obama Biden leading the way.
DeColores,
Rockerbabe1
RB,
The first woman VP candidate (for a major party) was Geraldine Ferraro, way back in 1984.
Fortunately for American women, Sarah Palin is not the first woman on the Presidential ticket, just the first woman to run as a Republican Vice Presidential candidate. In 1984 Geraldine Ferraro ran for Vice President on the Democratic ticket alongside Walter Mondale.
Rockerbabe1 October 9th, 2008 1:23 pm, if Obama gets elected and does a decent job -- and I think he will -- we'll have a woman president in 2012, and it may very well be Hillary.
We are replaying 1932, updated for our modern era, and that led to about 40 years of more-or-less liberal progress in this country until the election of Nixon in 1968. (Even Eisenhower had been a New Deal Democrat until drafted by the GOP to run in 1952, and he was a liberal by today's standards.)
Not to be overly optimistic, but these things tend to go in cycles from liberal to conservative and back to liberal, but the change back to liberal leaves the country better off -- integration, abortion rights, civil rights, etc. -- even when it shifts back to conservative.
Although I agree that we do need to "look at how adequately education and media are equipping citizens of the United States for intellectual survival", I was brought up with the same flawed education and media as everyone else and I was still able to see right through Sarah Palin. What's everyone else's excuse? The problem is people choose to remain ignorant and they don't want to look up facts for themselves. They identify with whoever seems to be most like them, which is why Palin's fake "folksy" personality is working so well. The dumbasses of America are allowed to vote and turn the tide of this country. It makes no sense.
You are absolutely right. The same sort of people who can't for the life of them find Iraq on a giant world map, much less tell the difference between an Arab, an Iranian and an Afghan, seem to be the most vocal about going to war against "them". Being an American with a Pakistani dad, to me this is particularly disturbing and smacks of outright racism.
Is that it? Does this ability to look past a candidate's obvious flaws come from deep-seated prejudice? It sure does seem that way, more and more every day.
I'm just grateful there are still people such as yourself (and most of the other people whose posts I read here on a daily basis) in this country, people who understand that "my (country/race/religion/socio-economic class), right or wrong" is unjust and wrong.
Peace
-Jameel
nimblehuman October 10th, 2008 12:00 am: Jameel, I have also been appalled by the stunning ignorance of 'my fellow Americans' and my family goes back generations here. I have had long arguments with regressives who don't know the difference between a Persian and a Pakistani, or a Muslim and a Sikh; have no idea of the long history of Mesopotamia and its contribution to civilization; can't find North Korea on a map; think the Christian Bible was originally written in English, and yet insist to the point of obnoxiousness that their opinions on what to do in the Middle East and Asia are valid.
Perhaps that's changing as it has become obvious that 'drunk (on power) and stupid' is no way to run a country.
After eight years of total disaster and failure on the part of the Crawford Dauphin and Reichsmarshal Cheney, America might be finally waking up.
I bet on November 4th, Bill Clinton walks up to the podium, grins, winks and says, "Gotcha. Congratulations America, you've all been Punk'd!"
Then Obama and McCain will unzip their human skins, revealing The Grouch and Count Chocula.
The much debated Palin will then morph into her true form, Glenda The Good Witch, and float back to the land of Oz humming "Somewhere Over The Rainbow" while all the happy midgets running the Electoral College dance around her.
Finally, an unamused China will demand payment of all debts owed by the US. Unable to take out a large enough loan, the sideshow will close and we will become United States of China!
See you at Wu Fong's Eggroll Shoppe. (several convenient locations in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan)
- Insurgent
You sure it's not Kang and Kodos?
Wu Fong's Eggroll Shoppe, great combos starting at 30 American Yuan.
:P
Stupidity and Evil have been the KEY characteristics of the US presidency for the last 8 years. By that precedent, Palin is 'ready'!
Open the debates--that should be the call for those of us that believe we not only DO NOT want to hear another word from Palin, but we should have had a chance to hear OTHER VP candidates.
WE HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF THAT OPPORTUNITY.
Here are some things you can do:
1) Check out and help: Coalition For Free and Open Elections--http://www.cofoe.org/
2) Check and help: Open Voting Consortium:
http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/
3) Watch this video on the corporate elections: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiTh1jdsdkc
4) Read about the SECRET debate contract. call on the Commission on Presidential Debates to make public the secret debate contract negotiated by the Obama and McCain campaigns.
http://www.opendebates.org/makecontractpublic.html
5) Sign the "open debates" petition: http://www.opendebates.org/yourrole/petition/
6) Contact these national debate "sponsors" to let them know that you object to the rationing of political speech and the disregard shown by the CPD for the opinions of the majority of American voters!
Anheuser-Busch Companies
800-342-5283
E-mail-- http://contactus.anheuser-busch.com/Contactus/email.asp
Bartle Bogle Hegarty (BBH) New York
212-812-6600
E-Mail Bruce Wellington: bruce.wellington@bbh-usa.com
The Howard G. Buffet Foundation
402-556-6641
Sheldon S. Cohen, Esq.
Farr, Miller & Washington
Email: sscohen@farrmiller.com
EDS (an HP Company)
Email-- https://www.eds.com/ssl/forms/contact/index.aspx
http://www.eds.com/
International Bottled Water Association
703-683-5213
Email: ibwainfo@bottledwater.org
The Kovler Fund
617-514-1624
Email: kennedy.library@nara.gov
Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF)
650-854-9400
202-347-5270
YWCA USA
202-467-0801
E-mail: communications@ywca.org
7) Organize Protests outside the Democratic and Republican headquarters in your community, at corporations that sponsor the debates, at radio stations, newspapers and media outlets not covering third party candidates.
8) Write letters to the editor, to blogs, to public forums, and to your friends and family members.
9) Check out the Citizens Debate Commission, created to replace the corporate "Commission on Presidential Debates"--http://www.citizensdebate.org/
10) Watch the third party debates online
Please join us for a third party candidate debate and money bomb (date to be announced as we approach the 10,000 pledges mark, location to be in New York City). All of the major candidates will be invited to participate. The event will be broadcast via www.BreakTheMatrix.com
Thanks for some action steps.
In addition to real debates among an actual range of positions, we also need:
- the elimination of "corporate personhood";
- the elimination of corporate money from politics;
- instant-runoff voting;
- proportional representation;
- verifiable paper-trail voting;
- and "public budgeting", in which government spending policy is directly influenced by polling the people about budget priorities.
i believe Maine and Arizona have both set up a reasonable and formally legal way around the current absurd structure of legalized corporate money in politics, whereby candidates in these two states can get ballot access simply by gathering enough signatures, and then they get public funding to match whatever their corporate-backed opponents spend - so the more money raised and spent by the corporate candidates, the more money the public pours into the non-corporate candidate's campaign.
More importantly, we also need people organizing in their real lives, not just in the shadow world of party politics and "representative" candidates, to exercise popular political and economic power against whoever is in office carrying out anti-people agendas, with the long-term strategic goal of disempowering the parasitic corporate rulers that dominate our economic and political lives, and instituting some form of genuine political and economic democracy.
Word.
webwalk October 9th, 2008 3:37 pm, I agree with your comments and most of your reforms, but would expand on them a little; read my comments in brackets below:
In addition to real debates among an actual range of positions, we also need:
- the elimination of "corporate personhood";
[and the return to state-by-state corporate enfranchisement.]
- the elimination of corporate money from politics;
[and limiting the campaign season to six weeks before the election, as they do in some countries, with a major debate of all the candidates each week, as Canada had recently; five parties, including the Greens, were represented.]
- instant-runoff voting;
[I would also make Voting Day a national holiday and institute some basic national laws governing federal elections -- no more confusing 'butterfly' ballots, etc.]
- proportional representation;
[Why not a parliamentary system? Much fairer than what we have now. Also, I think we should allocate senators by population -- every state can have a minimum of two, but beyond that there should be a senator for every million people in a state's population. This would more accurately represent the will of the people, and give a better chance for third parties to have a voice. It's time we junked our present archaic and undemocratic two-senators-per-state model which was only instituted at the behest of slave owners. This is so crazy that Alaska with a population of about 650,000 has equal representation in the US Senate to Illinois, with a population of 22 million. Hypothetically, there could be only two people living in Alaska, and that state would still have two senators.)
- verifiable paper-trail voting;
[Or a return to paper ballots, hand-counted before witnesses instead of inside machines with proprietary codes.]
- and "public budgeting", in which government spending policy is directly influenced by polling the people about budget priorities.
[This one would be difficult to implement and has its drawbacks. One problem would be if the public were temporarily seized by some panic -- say 9/11 -- and, as happened, were sold a bill of goods on attacking another country -- such as Iraq -- and the majority voted to put all of our money in the hands of a president -- say Bush -- to defeat Iraq to the exclusion of other federal programs, such as the VA or Social Security. Aside from that, who would do the polling, who would be polled, and how large would the sample be? Several states had a referendum on gay marriage on the ballot in 2004 and they all passed -- that would be a poll of the public, but it didn't work out for the progressive side. I think this idea would be impractical and impracticable to implement.]
A couple months ago someone(I can't remember who) proposed the theory that bad VPs are asassination insurance and maybe impeachment insurance. Think of Spiro Agnew, Dan Quail and Dick Cheney. If you want to get rid of their presidents, well if you hated Nixon, Bush or Bush you will just grit your teeth and wait it out because the next in line is unthinkable.
If John McCain manages to grab the brass ring he will sleep well in the safe knowledge that no lefty in his right (or left) mind would pull the triger on him. Now some crazed peticostal might be another story.
I think this is what's on the mind of 48% of Americans today. But education won't work, because, while you might be able to lead a stupid, ignorant, and arrogant horse to water, you can't make it drink. Media reform may be absolutely necessary, but seems almost implausible. Censorship is, of course, out of the question. Maybe you could enact some sort of "do no harm" rule to cut back the fake news and hypereditorializing that plague even the left-leaning networks. One thing that might help is a mandatory discaimer that flashes across the screen to tell you when they're shovelling crap through the tube at you--A big green banner that says "Real News Now!" or a big red banner that says "Get Your Fake News Here!" Perhaps a new regulation of what can be called "news and information" to prevent American knuckleheads from foolishly "learning" anything from the likes of Rush Limpbough or Glenn Beck. Perhaps the next census could include a component that could identify idiocy and possible demographic or media-usage correlaries that might be manipulated to improve Americans' critical thinking.
Think tanks are another thing. Just look at all the crap Sheldon Adelson has funded (drill here drill now, whatever his pro-iraq war initiative is called...) just for the sake of keeping anti-tax "conservatives" in office so that he can line his pockets a little thicker. And, all those pro-tax-cut "economic" think tanks who are hire and paid not to think but to say that tax increases hurt the economy despite thirty years of disproof--they're all just expert liars and they all need to get weeded out.
!!!Fake News Now!!!Fake News Now!!!Fake News Now!!!Fake News Now!!!Fake News Now!!!
Ursa
Right on Beersnob! The onion news is more believable the corporate media
Jeevee
ANYTHING is possible: Pray for Ralph Nader!
Yes, pray that he isn't able to do what he did to Al Gore.
I don't think Nader will be any more relevant this time around than he was even in 2004. Leave him alone already. You're beating a dead horse.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
Ummm.....
Have you read any of the other threads here on CD?
Nader may be a dead horse but his supporters have him running for the triple crown (or rather, the quadruple crown since this is his 4th shot at it).
.Should you take the time to read his speeches, his platform or his vision for this nation before posting a one line garbage canliner of a post, you might be surprised to find he speaks to and for you as well....try learning, it becomes a fun habit in time...
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee the pit vole
As I said - mean-spirited.
And I'll add - ugly.
You're in a downward spiral.
ardee October 10th, 2008 10:46 am, I have read his speeches and supported him with my time and money in 2000 when he promised to help build the Greens into a viable third party. This year, he's not even supported by the Green Party.
Yes, Ralph has some great ideas, but they are meaningless unless he can get elected to put them into effect. That's why I prefer the 'incremental progressivism' of Obama -- he knows how to pass legislation and deal with other people. Nader simply does not have that ability.
Any big game hunter can tell you that America is a tough kill. Twenty years of slipshod governance, declining education, deregulation and the nurturing of predatory profiteers (Ivan Boesky: Greed is good) had us stunned and weakened but not helpless. Another eight years of out and out assault by the dumbest, most vicious, most corrupt, most openly contemptuous administration conceivable has had the effect of subjecting our democracy to nonstop machinegun fire. Looks like with the financial meltdown they finally hit something vital. By election day we should be on our knees, off in the woods somewhere at the end of a trail of blood. We don't need another president. We need someone who knows how to field dress a moose.
Great metaphor, but the moose has been dressed. The question for us, being the moose, is how do you escape when you are being roasted on a spit?
The United States of America is a "tough kill" indeed...in the same manner as cancer.
The choice of Palin is being overanalyzed. It's much more obvious.
McCain needed someone who appeals to various groups that are not so thrilled with him ... the extreme god-delusionals and the Hillary Clinton supporters, for two. Of course the big flaw in choosing Palin to appeal to the Clinton supporters is the total misunderstanding of why the Clinton supporters preferred Clinton over Obama: it wasn't because she's a woman.
Perhaps Palin was actually the best choice, which isn't saying much of Republican governors and legislators. The problem isn't so much Palin, the problem is the weakness of the entire Republican party to come up with 2 candidates who can attract enough votes to win an election.
Palin and Hillary turned out to be neoconservative puppets at large. As for the so-called Hillary supporters who were angry with Obama that they'd even go to Mccain, it's just another conspiracy theory which is already being disproven day after day. The long term failures on the economy and foreign policy is what's taking a toll on the GOP. Not to worry though. They know how to plan unexpected turnarounds. They did it to Clinton in 1994 and they could do it again to Obama in 2010 assuming that the party stays "conservative". If the party moderates on the other hand, maybe this might signal a return to the Eisenhower Republicans, who knows.
Hillary Clinton is hardly a neoconservative puppet.
There are actually lots of Hillary Clinton supporters who are going to vote for McCain, but it's not because they are "angry with Obama", it's because they think that Obama is a worse choice for Prez than Obama. I'm not one of them, but I know some of them. I don't know how many there are, last poll came up with 20-something percent.
Btw, I just got an email today from an organization of Hispanics who are Democrats but who are going to vote for McCain, because they dislike Obama.
"Hillary Clinton is hardly a neoconservative puppet."
Yes she is. Hillary supported the war in Iraq and up until she lost to Obama, Hillary still insisted that her vote for the war against Iraq was somehow the right thing to do.
"There are actually lots of Hillary Clinton supporters who are going to vote for McCain, but it's not because they are "angry with Obama", it's because they think that Obama is a worse choice for Prez than Obama. ... I don't know how many there are, last poll came up with 20-something percent."
Most of those people would have voted for Mccain anyway even if Hillary were the nominee and I've met plenty more of those in my area and elsewhere. The media will always invent political conspiracy theories to keep the electorate divided. With the way Mccain is campaigning these days especially his latest gaffes on calling even his own supporters "my fellow prisoners", most of the Hillary supporters who planned on voting for Mccain will think twice unless their only purpose was to vote Hillary in the primaries and vote Mccain in the general election. And even if those Hillary-mad-at-Obama voters went for Mccain, there are plenty more conservatives angry at Mccain for voting to bailout Wall Street they'll cancel out the Hillary-mad-at-Obama voters. Is Obama great? I doubt it but I'll take him over John "my fellow prisoners" Mccain any day.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
Atheist:
What do you mean by this: "...because they think that Obama is a worse choice for Prez than Obama"? Actually, I know what you meant and your post is otherwise well-written.
I always proofread my comments because it's important for me to communicate my opinions in a logical, grammatically-correct manner. It bothers me how many comments on CD are imparted in such sloppy, disjointed ways.
I learned in journalism school 35 years ago to proofread everything I write before sending it forward. Sure, mistakes get through occasionally but at least I make the effort.
Is this petty and not germane to the issue? Definitely, but enough is enough.
OK, I'm stepping off my soap box now.
Don't apologize, Dave, you're absolutely right. I do the same thing, having been an editor and proofreader at many publications years ago. I was in the business a long time and have recognized how atrocious writing skills are on the Internet, and on this site in particular. The commenters here (most of them, not all) seem to be typing blindfolded most of the time. They don't give a damn about spelling, punctuation, grammar, usage, syntax or anything else. Hence, they don't seem to give a damn about MEANING, or coherence in anything they write. There's a massive breakdown in meaning all over this country, largely because of this bizarre, dumbed down Internet pact that seems to say clear and coherent communication is a stupid waste of time. What we really want is gibberish posing as insight, or whatever the hell is going on. But it only serves to make all discourse less and less effective. I have no idea what Atheist means by "...because they think that Obama is a worse choice for Prez than Obama". It's the total disregard for proofreading, as you say, that makes his statement utterly ridiculous, whatever he may have meant. This kind of thing goes on constantly here, and nearly everywhere else on the web.
You may as well battle the tide with a teacup.
atheist October 9th, 2008 6:04 pm, I have yet to meet a Hillary voter who is now voting for McCain -- they are diametrically opposed on most issues -- but I'll readily concede there may be some Low Infomation Voters (read: imbeciles) out there who will do this out of spite.
Many of these Dems and Hillary voters for McCain are astroturf groups founded and funded by the GOP, such as the PUMA movement. Read on:
"[PUMA founder] Darragh C. Murphy, an outspoken Clinton supporter on FOX news, doesn't seem to think that it is too important to tell her followers that she felt sooo compelled to help John McCain in 2000 that she donated $500 to his campaign, only that she NOW supports John McCain because of Hillary's loss."
-- From "PUMA founded by Republicans," Christina Cedeno, TPMCafe, July 10, 2008.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/puma-founded-by-republicans.php
This is similar to the shady Teresa LaPore, the Republican-turned-Democrat who designed the intentionally confusing Florida 'butterfly' ballot in 2000 that gave 3,000 of Al Gore's votes to Pat Buchanan.
If McCain wants to win, Palin needs to step down. She can concoct some medical excuse.
Palin or otherwise, Mccain is not going to win. Unless you benefitted from Bush's policies for the past 8 years, expecting Mccain to win this year would have been like expecting Carter to win in 1980. So what other VP running mate could Mccain possibly pick that would help him?
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
Romney, Linda Lingle, Ron Paul ... pretty much anyone but Palin. :-)
Btw, don't read anything extra into my posts. I'm not pro-McCain. At least now I'm not going to be accused of being pro-Palin. >:-)
Romney would have straightened Mccain out no doubt but I'm not sure Mccain would have gotten far. Ron Paul spoke out against Mccain. We Idahoans would tremendously benefit from President Paul although he got kicked out in the primaries. Lingle? I think she's a bit too liberal for the GOP. As far as Mccain is concerned, he lost my vote when he dropped his efforts to reach out to moderates. He should have won in 2000 but the system crunched him. Yeah, my state will vote for him like every election where the state gives Republicans a 30-40 point margin. I'll just be one of the few voting for Obama so that he doesn't lose the popular vote. I'd vote for 3rd party but I don't think they're going to be able to overcome the nasty folks in Congress even if they were to win.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
You're actually in the best position TO vote 3rd party. That's what I'm going to do, I live in Chicago. Popular vote really doesn't matter.
SPalin
SPalin
Stalin
SPalin
Stalin
SPalin
Stalin
Stalin
George Washington
George III of England
George Washington
Sarah Palin is America's Eva Braun!
She's cute, vacuous and supports evil!
Use that meme!
http://badamerican.wordpress.com/
Ya ketch mor flies wit suga dan yu do wit vinger.l kin see Palin in alittle Frenh made oufet lap dancin won a dem furn lders wit a funy soundin name gittin what evr she wants.