Posts
I didn't see the skit, but if this is a fair representation, then the point of the skit was clearly not to suggest incest in the Palin family; it was to imply the mendacity/gullibility/partisanship of the NYT editors for whom this is a reasonable exchange:
Reporter: “What about the husband? You know he’s doing those daughters. I mean, come on. It’s Alaska.”
Editor: “He very well could be. Admittedly, there is no evidence of that, but on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. And these are just some of the lingering questions about Governor Palin.”
Then again, this might be SNL's "New Yorker Moment": you remember that New Yorker cover art of Obama-as-Muslim? Intended as a lampoon of the rubes who think Obama might be a Muslim, the Obama people didn't think everyone would get it. Likewise, considering the "Trig trutherism" still circulating, this is exactly the kind of hoax that Andrew Sullivan would totally fall for.
3 comments:
Personally, I think the "not everyone may get it" excuse is lame. (It has a little more validity in the New Yorker case. Regardless, though, I doubt anyone is going to be tuning in to Saturday Night Live and say "hey! What is this serious piece of news doing in the middle of my comedy programming?! And why are polar bears allowed to drive snow machines?!"
Conservatives have a long and storied history of telling women and minorities to get over their hypersensitivity about non-existent slights. It seems now like (shocker of all shockers!) this advice was politically motivated.
You may be right, but I think the political motivation better attaches to the feigned outrage at, for instance, "lipstick on a pig." In context, Obama wasn't exactly pure as the driven snow when he made that crack, but it's exactly the kind of thing that Sarah would have better shrugging off with a witicism of her own, rather than allowing her proxies to claim insult on her behalf.
The incest thing, obviously, is harder to laugh off, and may have been over the line in terms of bad taste, but still: the Republican long-term appeal is as the party of thick skin, and the phony outrage does them no service.
It's interesting you feel that way. I feel the exact opposite. The lipstick on a pig comment seemed to me to be clearly directed at Palin. This, as you explain seems clearly directed at the NYT. It doesn't seem like there is anything for her to be outraged about.
Post a Comment