Sarah Palin

Talk about your unintended consequences. When Michael Smerconish interviewed Sarah Palin about her “very political” new book of daily devotions for CNN, she was suddenly forced to prioritize her bigotries.

If it all came down to that versus someone who believed in a religion that was hell-bent on destroying those who didn’t agree with their religion, who would literally want to kill those, the infidels who would not say, ‘Okay, I would go along with you,’ then I would.

Which means, anybody who is sympathetic to what’s going on today with Muslims terrorists, who would crucify children and behead women and stop at nothing to try to destroy us and Israel and our allies, I’d choose an atheist over that!

The ever-tactful Smerconish clarified the meaning hidden in her word-salad: “You’re voting for an atheist over an ISIS supporter,” he summarized, to which she replied “Okay, gosh, darn it, you made it too simple.”

So if you don’t believe in Santa Claus, you’re a terrible person — yet less terrible than someone who does believe in Santa Claus, but also wants to destroy the United States and Israel. See how that works?

But flip this false choice on Sarah for a moment. America has already balked once at an opportunity to place her a heartbeat away from the presidency; suppose she ran again, and that this time, by miraculous circumstances, the only alternative was someone so awful that you had no choice at all.

What does Hobson’s choice look like with the most incoherent figure in contemporary politics? Yesterday, I asked my friends in social media to finish the following sentence: “I would only vote for Sarah Palin if the other candidate was…” and the answers were quite illuminating.

Some people would only vote for Sarah Palin if the alternative was a genocidal dictator. Others would only choose her if the other candidate was a fictional destroyer of worlds, such as Darth Vader or Voldemort, or a real one like Hitler or Pol Pot. One wag suggested that Rick Santorum’s dead jar-baby would be worse than Sarah, while others insisted that they would have to be blackout drunk or drugged to the gills in order to even contemplate such a decision.

However, many respondents could not envision any scenario where they would ever vote for her: if the only other choice was Kang or Kodos, they would welcome their new alien overlords. Forced to choose between Palin and Dick Cheney, they would pick the guy who shot his friend in the face. Given the option of electing Charles Manson or Sarah Palin, they figure the crazed murderer would be less of a risk to humanity.

A question which began as a playful exercise meant to point out the flaws in Sarah Palin’s thinking was thus transformed into an examination of our own feelings about the Thrilla from Wasilla. What do YOU think? Sound off in the comments!

  • muselet

    Keith Olbermann (attributed): “That woman is an idiot.”

    I would agree and add the adjective “dangerous” to that description, whether or not Olbermann actually said it.

    If the only other candidate is Sarah Palin, sign me up for a Kang or Kodos lawn sign.

    Taking the question seriously: Of all the candidates, potential candidates and merely ambitious politicians I can think of, I can’t think of very many who would be more destructive to the nation and the world than Palin. David Duke or Ted Cruz perhaps, or Donald Trump if his chaddis are in a twist over some perceived slight. In those few cases, I’d have to think long and hard before deciding.

    I think it’s the combination of aggressive ignorance and absolute certainty that makes Palin so scary.

    –alopecia

    • “The combination of aggressive ignorance and absolute certainty” is indeed what makes her so frightening. She’s so sure of things she thinks she knows.