The beginning of the end of whatshername

Sarah Palin has accidentally revealed her own 500 dollar haircut, her own Chappaquiddick, her own Monica Lewinsky. On a recent trip to Canada, during a speech, she revealed the fact that when she lived in rural Alaska as a child, her family regularly slipped across the Canadian border to avail themselves of the Canadian Healthcare System.

Yes, folks, Sarah Palin was an illegal in Canada, as I assume the health care system there is for Canadians, not Unitedstateseans. And, yes, folks, Palin’s people are socialist commies who engage in socialist commie Obamacare Canadian style then lie about it later.

This comes as Palin’s approval ratings in Alaska have plummeted. Moreover, various documents (mainly official emails) from Palin’s ill-fated Alaskan governorship, which were supposed to be released a long time ago, are being kept in hiding. Why? Because there are things there they don’t want us to see, I assume.

The Canadian health care story is here. The latest poll results are here. The story about the emails is here. Enjoy.

Comments

  1. #1 Larian LeQuella
    December 28, 2010

    I love that you have a tag for “teabagging morons”! Although, isn’t that a little redundant, not to mention sort of insulting to morons of other stripes? :P

  2. #2 Carol Mathews
    December 28, 2010

    Those who oppose socialized medicine in the United States should, if they are consistent, be working to get rid of its most obvious manifestation: the Veterans’ Administration. VA Hospitals are owned and operated by the government, use government employees, and are paid for with tax revenues. The only exception to this is for women who become pregnant and want to obtain an abortion–they must seek help from public health care wherever they happen to be or can get to. Happily, in Europe, abortions are readily available at reasonable cost because they feature health care which covers everyone. It’s another contradiction that abortion opponents want the government to stop making personal decisions for their citizens–except where this issue is concerned.

  3. #3 MikeMa
    December 28, 2010

    The healthcare thing is old news. Canadian clinics were closer than anything in the US and as far as I can tell, her family paid for the care so the irony is a little thin on that one.

    The poll results are a little late but not unexpected. She’s an empty suit, a christo-facist and a brainless media whore. That she lasted this long is the real mystery not that she’s got falling numbers.

    The email coverup could just be (more) incompetence or she could be hiding yet more ethical lapses. If she thinks she can bury it until after she is elected president, that isn’t going to fly. No one will wait that long and she cannot possibly be elected.

  4. #4 MadScientist
    December 28, 2010

    Get real, it’s just the rich mooching off the po’ as usual. That’s not called commienism, that’s entrepreneurship. Or some other ism. If you made her *pay* for her health care, she wouldn’t be able to create any new jobs, you know like how taxing the rich destroys jobs.

  5. #5 Rob Jase
    December 28, 2010

    Palin’s trips to Canada are old news. So far all her supporters have done with it is use it as a reason to invade Canada & free them from commies.

  6. #6 Greg Laden
    December 28, 2010

    So, the teabaggers can dump on Obama for being a sekret muzzleman born in Indonesia, but if we have a bit of dirt on Palin it is subject to defensive scrutiny? … I see where this is going. “We’re rational atheists, we shoot ourselves in the foot whenever possible!!! No freebies for us, no way!”

    Old news? Does that make it go away? I don’t think so.

    Not that this post is meant to be serious (though the Palin apologists who’s comments are being deleted are pretty serious), but I really don’t think it matters if Palin’s family lived in a part of the US that had no health care and found what they needed in nearby equally remote Canada. That is, you see, the point.

    (along the border of the lower 48, the Canadian side is almost always less remote than the US side, but I’m pretty sure there are no non-remote areas in the Yukon)

  7. #7 Juice
    December 28, 2010

    Came here from the front page and man this post is sad.

    First off, disclaimer: Sarah Palin sucks ass and will never come close to the White House.

    With that said…

    Jeez, really? She was like 6 years old when that happened, it was the closest medical facility, and that was well before passage of the Canada Health Act in 1984 that created the single payer system. In other words, it’s a non-story.

    And a poll saying that Democrats support Obama means what in relation to Sarah Palin?

    Lord.

  8. #8 Greg Laden
    December 28, 2010

    Juice: Bla bla bla.

  9. #9 Elizabeth
    December 28, 2010

    Juice, on your way here from the front page you should have stopped at the comments.

  10. #10 D. C. Sessions
    December 28, 2010

    Greg, it’s really kinda cute of you continuing to think that facts have anything to do with Saint Sarah’s popularity. If nothing else, her fans will never encounter this kind of stuff, at least from any source they take seriously.

  11. #11 Greg Laden
    December 28, 2010

    DC, cute or not, I give you the following facts that are too important to ignore:

    1) 48 percent of the American electorate are unmitigated morons. This means that the swing vote is 3 percent of the voting population, and they can be talked into a number of different things.

    2) George bush served TWO terms in the White house, and apparently one of those was because he won an election. So really, these things do matter, and any clown is a threat.

    The fact is that Sarah Palin is electable. Anyone who does not recognize that possibility, however revolting, deserves to have her as president. I would prefer, however, to override the stupidity of my fellow progressives in this particular regard and not make any such foolish assumptions.

    So, no, I’m not really being cute.

  12. #12 MikeMa
    December 28, 2010

    Greg,
    I find Palin as revolting as the next sane human but polls have repeatedly shown >50% of rethugs are unlikely to support her as a candidate. A majority of her own party are against her. Surely that would significantly reduce any likelihood of stupid sarah spending any meaningful time in DC.

  13. #13 Stephanie Z
    December 28, 2010

    MikeMa, when was the last time you saw Republicans, as a party, limit their office-/power-seeking behavior to things they actually liked?

    Also, as was demonstrated repeatedly this last election, the majority of voters are not the people who decide who ends up on the ballot.

  14. #14 D. C. Sessions
    December 28, 2010

    Greg, I don’t disagree with anything you wrote — excepting only that any of it is at all likely to change anyone’s mind. Rational people and those who allow facts to enter their mental landscapes (not identical sets, but either will do) are already horrified at the idea of the Palinator getting anything resembling power.

    The remainder aren’t paying attention and aren’t likely to change their minds [1] no matter what.

    [1] Quirk objection preemptively noted.

  15. #15 george.w
    December 28, 2010

    Maybe 50% of Republicans don’t like her now, but if she were their candidate they’d pick her of any Democrat no matter how well-qualified. That, to me, is the danger.

    Highlighting evidence of her hypocrisy won’t sway any Republican but it might turn the swingers. Best to keep the lights on and the heat turned up. I don’t want to wake up some day and find that she is President just because we thought it couldn’t happen. That’d be worse than Michele Bachmann being on the House Intelligence Committee or something. Absurd as that sounds.

  16. #16 george.w
    December 28, 2010

    Doh! “…pick her over any Democrat…” said my brain, but my fingers typed something else.

  17. #17 MadScientist
    December 29, 2010

    @george.w: At least we haven’t got a “preferential” system like Australia (a voting system which might sound OK to people who haven’t got the necessary analytic skills but is really bad). In one round of elections the major parties put some fundamentalist nutcase as the “preferred” candidate if they don’t win by a majority in the first count. The imbeciles in both parties believed that the fundamentalist couldn’t possibly win (one of the many incorrect beliefs about a ‘preferential’ voting system) so when no major party had the required majority, their votes all went to the nutcase. It is a textbook example of why what is touted as a virtue of the preferential voting system is merely an illusion of the innumerate and in reality a severe defect of any such system. It is similar in many cases to the old rules of progression in tennis tournaments and Lewis Carroll explained the problem very well. (Except that in the case of voting, unlike the tennis, the winner is not necessarily who people want either.)

  18. #18 A Bear
    December 29, 2010

    Juice; The CHA of 1984 was not the origin of universal health care in Canada, which began in the late 1940s and was in place throughout Canada by the 1960s. The Canadian Health Act was more of a cost sharing agreement between the provinces and the federal government.

  19. #19 Virgil Samms
    December 29, 2010

    Another entry for the “teabagging morons” file:

    Feds probe Christine O’Donnell’s campaign spending
    BALTIMORE (AP) — Federal authorities have opened a criminal investigation of Delaware Republican Christine O’Donnell to determine if the former Senate candidate broke the law by using campaign money to pay personal expenses, according to a person with knowledge of the investigation.

  20. #20 Monado
    December 29, 2010

    Universal health care came in in 1966, with hospital and diagnostic services insured before that.

  21. #21 Karen B
    December 29, 2010

    To echo A Bear and Monado, Universal Health Care came to Canada in 1966 and existed in several provinces in the 1940’s. The Canadian Health Act was created to stop doctors from extra billing.

  22. #22 Greg Laden
    December 29, 2010

    See, it IS a socialist plot. Extra billing is just the free market making everything all efficient and stuff.