The Shotgun Blog
Monday, September 22, 2008
SNL pushes revolting Sarah Palin incest slur
Even if the video hadn't been taken off of YouTube, I wouldn't link to it here. Saturday Night Live did another Sarah Palin sketch this weekend in which it was suggested that Sarah Palin's youngest son Trig is the product of incest between her daughter Bristol and husband Todd Palin.
This -- this madness -- would not be tolerated if the subject had been any other candidate. But I remember left wing message boards like Daily Kos and Democratic Underground were simply buzzing with the rumor back when Palin was first selected to be John McCain's running mate. Even now, the top post on the SNL sketch on Daily Kos doesn't even mention the incest joke; rather, the poster is annoyed that the sketch also made fun of the New York Times.
Leftists have funny priorities sometimes.
Apparently, the sketch suggested the incest was between Todd Palin and Bristol, which is just as bad. The leftists were making accusations about Bristol and Track at one time, however.
Disgusting, any way you look at it.
Posted by Terrence Watson on September 22, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference SNL pushes revolting Sarah Palin incest slur :
Wow! Not even Heather Mallick or the CBC went that far.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-22 1:53:21 PM
This is called political vandalism.
It's time for someone, some agency to step in and put a stop to this kind of skanky political pornography. It's way past being humourous and is definitely a type of tampering with the electoral process.
ENOUGH, ALREADY. The Lefties are working overtime to show us how despicably how-low-can-you-go they are. They're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
Posted by: batb | 2008-09-22 2:21:22 PM
batb: Where do they get this stuff? I never would have thought about an 'incest' story. That's just creepy and wrong.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-22 2:25:35 PM
Given the sexual proclivities of the Left, I'll I've got to say is: They should talk.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-22 2:34:34 PM
Incest isn't bad compared to Obama's baby eating.
Posted by: Pete | 2008-09-22 2:57:53 PM
Or Morgantaler's baby ripping.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-22 3:06:29 PM
Did you see the sketch? No? I thought not. If you had your outrage would certainly be dailed down about ten notches. I did see the show as it aired and didn't find anything outrageous about the sketch at all.
The sketch was set in the NY Times newsroom as the editor is meeting with his reporters. The entire joke of the sketch was about how out-of-touch and moronic the reporters are. So they come out with absurdity after absurdidty to show just how foolish they are. So when one of them speculates about incest, it is just presented as another example of how idiotic the reporter is. The whole joke is based on the audience knowing that what he says is absurd.
To suggest that the sketch was about making an incest joke is to take a very small piece of the sketch and blow it out of proportion. To suggest that the reason for the joke was to perpetuate a malicious rumour is also to completely misunderstand the point of the reference. Palin and her family were not the targets of the jokes. The NY Times reporters were.
Some people need to lighten up. Or at least watch a sketch before condemning it. Get a grip, people!
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-09-22 3:26:46 PM
Fact Check?? You should wonder why you take it as being a subject to even be a part of a skit. Why should incest even be a topic of discussion. It is disgusting and beyond comprehension for those of us that have some old fashion commen sense. Who am I to convince someone of something that should come natural as offensive. That should be a concern. Or should I just say "Just kidding" you should be able to take a joke!
Posted by: AZ | 2008-09-22 3:50:10 PM
Does anyone have a link to the CBC interveiw with Kim "2 seats" Campbell where she said Sarah Palin's views were "anathema" to her own?
Seems like cbc pulled it after the Mallick affair. Funny that.
Posted by: bob | 2008-09-22 3:52:04 PM
You're right, I didn't see the sketch. It was removed from YouTube before I had a chance. I read a description of it which I believe can be found at the link I posted above.
Look, obviously, the New York Times was a major target of the sketch. I didn't deny that. But consider what I think would be an equivalent kind of sketch that would make the same point:
Reporter 1: What do we know about this Barack Obama guy, anyway?
Reporter 2: Not a lot. But hey, he's a black guy from Chicago, right? Maybe he's dealt some crack sometime in his life!
Reporter 1: Of course, there's no evidence he has... but there's no evidence against it, either!
Reporter 2: And what about his wife?
Etc. In this case, let's assume the reporters work for National Review or something.
I don't think I even need to point out that SNL (not to mention NBC) would be absolutely BLASTED over a sketch like that. And rightly so. But here it's supposed to be funny? Or, if we're Daily Kos, we're supposed to be irritated SNL made fun of the New York Times and ignore the rest of the sketch?
I guess it's the double standard here that frustrates me.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-09-22 5:39:47 PM
If the Left wants to subliminaly plant incest innuendoes why not go to a REAL incestuous dad? Drudge Report had a link to old Woody Allen's comments about what a travesty it would be if Obama wasn't elected. They could plant a hint of scandal where it actually exists!
Posted by: Trish McLellan | 2008-09-22 5:51:42 PM
The sketch as you describe about The National Review *IS* just as funny as the one SNL did (and in truth, the SNL sketch was only mildly funny anyway, but not because it was supposedly offensive). It's also why I thought the New Yorker cover with the Obamas as Muslim terrorists *WAS* funny.
"I don't think I even need to point out that SNL (not to mention NBC) would be absolutely BLASTED over a sketch like that. And rightly so."
Counter-factual arguments always amuse me. They are perfectly un-dis-provable. But the reaction to the Obama New Yorker cover gives good evidence that you are right. There were some Obama supporters who said that it was funny, but there were others mad that it could reinforce moronic beliefs that some people actually hold. So, yes, you are right that they would have been blasted if they had done a New republic version of the sketch, but I disagree with the "And rightly so." I extend that, by the way, to people who are mad because it made fun of the NY Times. They need to grow up a bit too.
Now all this talk about SNL reminds me of the other SNL controversy of the week. The opening sketch had John McCain doing recording "I approve this message" to a series of more and more outrageous and dishonest ads. The skit included this exchange:
Voice Over Actor: "Obama supports tax cuts to pedophiles."
McCain: "Does he?"
Campaign Aide: "Well, there's no way to identify all pedophiles, percentages are if you cut taxes, it's going to benefit at least a couple of them."
McCain: "I'm John McCain. I approve this message."
The sketch was controversial because Al Franken helped write it, and he is now a Democratic Candidate in Minnesota. But this was a much funnier sketch than the NY Times one overall. The target of the joke was both John McCain and the general ridiculousness of the attack ads. And although I thought the sketch funny as it was, it would have been even funnier if they had made it bipartisan.
For the set-up, they could have both McCain and Obama finding that they have to share studio time to record their "I approve this message" tag lines. Then they would alternate between increasingly more ridiculous attacks ads from each. Each guy would get more outraged at the other guys ads and each would get more gleeful about approving the next attack. The one-upsmanship game would be funny to watch. It might even have been as funny as this: http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=18318
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-09-22 6:19:44 PM
For once, I'm with Fact Check - the point of this sketch was the idiocy, partisanship, and bigotry of The New York Times.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-09-22 7:01:13 PM
One more question: Is this funny, offensive, or both?
I vote "funny".
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-09-22 7:28:46 PM
Don't conservatives ever discuss actual issues, instead of TV jokes?
Also, it's absolutely hilarious that there's an "Opinion" section on this site, insinuating that the rest of the site is strictly fact.....
Posted by: Mike | 2008-09-23 9:36:28 AM
Actually, yes, Mike, we do. We discuss crime, social values, demographic trends, education, creeping encroachment on civil liberties, corruption...issues that well and truly affect all Canadians. Liberals, on the other hand, talk about about Kyoto, carbon taxes, the rape of Alberta, peacekeeping versus peacemaking, Obama's smile, Sarah Palin's wardrobe, whatever they're banning this week, and a failed socialist economic model that's failed everywhere it's been tried.
Sorry, old chap, but your ego did need a bit of deflating.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-23 9:57:46 AM
Oh, yes, and they discuss Justin Trudeau's exercise routine.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-23 9:58:11 AM
Pull your head out of your butt. The joke was about monumentally stupid NYT reporters.
I laughed hard at the sketch, but then again I'm not an uptight right winger with a crucifix shoved so far up my butt that Jebus' feet are tickling my uvula.
Posted by: Howie Feltersnatch | 2008-09-23 10:35:40 AM
If the reporters for the Times are monumentally stupid, Howie, that must make a sizeable contingent of New Yorkers also monumentally stupid, because they buy what these reporters put out, and several mega-ticket companies advertise in the same paper that these reporters put out.
How did the urban/rural divide ever get this wide? Not helping matters is the fact that urban folks have had tons of trouble with crime, social problems, and the like since the "new ideas" of the 1960s, yet remain convinced that their way is the best way and that the clod-footed mud pounders should just square off and fall in behind their betters. Rural evangelists can be pretty hardheaded, too, but at least their communities appear to work.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-23 10:47:04 AM
I think many people make a very invalid assumption or two or three. 1- Not everyone who may have watched this skit is capable of understanding what SNL claims was the real point. It will turn into the child's game of gossip- first player- did you see SNL skit about Todd Palin and incest, second player- did you see TV show said Todd Palin commits incest, third player- I heard it was on TV that Todd Palin commits incest, a news show I think. AND SO IT GOES until it becomes an "established fact" because "it was on TV". 2- Incest should NEVER be mentioned in a supposedly humorous arena. If terrorism was a subject fit for an Obama New Yorker cartoon (which I find out of bounds) it could at least be claimed that there are major religions in the world that promote terrorism. Name me one major one that encourages incest. 3- there are just too many people that use no thought when looking or listening to supposed news. Example- a local woman in my area, who after Hurricane Ivan destroyed the Interstate bridge bed 30' above the water claimed there were 250 people who went off the bridge and the authorities were covering it up. Questions like- how did 250 people get on a closed bridge in the middle of a hurricane and what were they doing driving down a closed highway apparently never entered her head. She claimed the sheriff had divers and wrecker crews out there pulling vehicles out of the water- but they were all covering it up so no reporters knew. I supposed one could just say she is certifiably nuts but there are lots like that around- and they vote unfortunately. So how many similar types are now running around convinced Todd Palin commits incest? The law of unintended consequences strikes continually and the media have a moral responsibility to remember that and act accordingly.
Posted by: E L Tucker | 2008-09-23 11:23:12 AM
I haven't seen the sketch, but even from the description in the link provided, it sounds funny to me. But I have a very liberal sense of humour, and I particularly like it when humour is used to take the piss out of zealots of all kinds. Colbert manages to do that in a completely bipartisan way: he mocks right-wing blow-hards by showing how they appear to hyperventilating left-wing commentators. Who is the butt of the joke?: the right-wing blow-hards, or the left-wingers who over-react to them?
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-09-23 11:35:35 AM
An Al Franken skit? Of course it was designed to expose more people to the rumor about incest. The skit itself is meaningless. Who's being ridiculed is meaningless. It's just one more way to spread the rumor, and it worked.
Al Franken used to be funny. So did Dennis Miller. Now they're opposite sides of the same plug nickle.
Posted by: dp | 2008-09-23 11:43:40 AM
I saw the sketch. It wasn't funny. It was just WRONG. VERY poor judgment on the part of SNL. There's a line ... they crossed it. But I suspect they know that ... I mean, really, don't you think viewers will be UP this coming Saturday.
I think candidate's children are off limits!
Posted by: Mox | 2008-09-24 12:04:24 AM
Keep in mind that Lorne Michaels is a Republican and contributed $2300 to the McCain campaign.
Posted by: Jay | 2008-09-24 11:46:52 AM
This -- this madness -- would not be tolerated if the subject had been any other candidate.
Posted by Terrence Watson on September 22, 2008
Would not be tolerated? This is a property rights issue. Are you suggesting that NBC should be censored or should self-censor even though their property rights allow them to say whatever they please?
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-09-24 1:11:28 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.