The Alabama Moderate

Painting the Red State Purple.

Sarah the Unicorn

Posted by ALmod on September 12, 2008

If you haven’t seen the infamous “Charlie the Unicorn” videos on YouTube, then well…  Go see them.  They’re incredibly stupid, but it’s one of those things where it’s so stupid it’s funny.  As a plus, you’ll start to understand a few more Internet culture jokes that you didn’t understand before.

So anyway, the news keeps playing that clip of Gov. Palin answering Charlie Gibson’s question about the Bush Doctrine and her asking, “In what respect, Charlie?”  And the way she kept saying Charlie’s name just kept eating at me.  I couldn’t figure out exactly what it reminded me of.  And then my husband did his “Charlie the Unicorn” impression.  My first thought was, “I have GOT to make a video and put the two clips together!”  But as it turns out, someone else picked it out first, and their version was a heck of a lot funnier!

So I say to Loretta Nall…  I don’t think she sounds like Bobby’s mom, anymore.

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Sarah the Unicorn”

  1. Don said

    I don’t recall Bush ever calling anything the “Bush Doctrine”. I believe that title was created by pundits and media and they applied it to more than one of Bush’s initiatives. So Gibson should have identified which one of those he was asking about at the time he first asked the question.

  2. Her voice makes me wish I was deaf. The more I hear of her high pitched, cheer leader like squeak the more I consider ramming an ice pick thru my ear drums. Her interview with Charlie Gibson is one of the most frightening things i have ever seen in my life. I keep asking myself….”Are American’s REALLY considering electing this woman?” REALLY?

  3. ALmod said

    He did specify what he was referring to. Palin asked, “In what aspect, Charlie?” Gibson then followed up by specifying that he was referring to the Bush Doctrine that was published on September 20, 2002. This is a formal National Security Council document that explains our policy for preemptive war.

    Gibson’s exact words were: “the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002”

    Granted, while I recognized and knew what Gibson meant, I could say agree that most people would not. However, most people are not running for VPOTUS, and I consider it to be crucial for the VPOTUS to be familiar with our National Security Council policies.

  4. The GTL™ said

    LMFAO, JB! Glad to see you’re back up and runnin’ again 🙂

  5. Del said

    I used to work with a business insurance salesman who had taken the Dale Carnegie course. It drove me nuts listening to him drop the prospect’s name at regular intervals all through a phone call – just seemed incredibly phony. I think the number of times she said Charrrrlie irritated me even more than the way she said it. (I’ve never heard of the unicorn before, but you’re right, there’s an eerie resemblance.)

  6. Don said

    The National Security Strategy Of The United States Of America dated September 17, 2002 does contain the following words: “While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country….”, but it contains much more than that.

    I just reviewed the video of the first part of Charlie Gibson’s interview where he discussed the “Bush doctrine” with Palin. Gibson said that his understanding of the doctrine was that it said that the USA had the right to make a preemptive strike under certain conditions. He should read the entire document if he thinks that’s all that it’s about. Maybe Palin knows more about it than Gibson does.

    It speaks to building a coalition of willing nations to combat terrorism and working with other nations to promote freedom, security, and prosperity for everyone. It covers so much ground that everything Palin said in response to Gobson’s question could be fairly interpreted as falling within what the document contains.

    You know, I don’t consider either McCain or Obama worthy of my vote so I’ll vote for someone else. But it seems to me that some people are predisposed to attempt to find fault with and discredit Palin regardless of what she says or does, and I can’t help wondering why that’s the case. Why don’t they expend their time and energy pointing out the real flaws of McCain? After all, it’s his name that will be on the ballot for the presidency.

  7. ALmod said

    Don, here’s the problem with that. Even during her explanation, she STILL got it wrong. And if you want to claim that I’m liberally biased on this, you can take a look at what FactCheck.org had to say:

    http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/09/12/the-bush-doctrine/

    These fact checking sites have gone after Obama, too, but they’ve had to go after McCain and Palin at least twice as much in the last couple weeks because there’s just so much that they’re getting wrong.

    And Gov. Palin is John McCain’s running mate. She is new to the scene, and she is running for an office that will make her second in line to the presidency. The thing is, everyone else in this race has had months and years to find out if there’s anything of concern. OF COURSE we want to know more about her! I want to know if there’s anything that we should be concerned about, and I believe that this is just one thing in a very long list.

    But this:

    “But it seems to me that some people are predisposed to attempt to find fault with and discredit Palin regardless of what she says or does, and I can’t help wondering why that’s the case.”

    I don’t like what you’re implying here, and I should point out to you that you sent me two emails yesterday which contained links to articles which contained false information about Barack Obama. I may be biased. I don’t pretend to not be biased, and I’ve stated my reasons for such, but I do make sure to check my facts.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: