by Michael dEstries
Categories: Animals, Film/TV
Tags: , .

palin_dailyshow

Dear Hollywood: Congratulations! You’re getting to Sarah Palin. Actually, some specific congrats to Ashley Judd — who was vaguely referenced by the now-former Alaskan Governor during her “goodbye” speech on Sunday for her work with Defenders of Wildlife to ban aerial wolf hunting.

“…You’re going to see anti-hunting, anti-second amendment circuses from Hollywood and here’s how they do it,” Palin said. “They use these delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets, they use Alaska as a fundraising tool for their anti-second amendment causes. Stand strong, and remind them patriots will protect our guaranteed, individual right to bear arms, and by the way, Hollywood needs to know, we eat, therefore we hunt.”

Of course, The Daily Show couldn’t let Palin get away with those inane comments. Check out the hilarity below:

About Michael dEstries

Michael has been blogging since 2005 on issues such as sustainability, renewable energy, philanthropy, and healthy living. He regularly contributes to a slew of publications, as well as consulting with companies looking to make an impact using the web and social media. He lives in Ithaca, NY with his family on an apple farm.

View all posts by Michael dEstries →
  • http://RawfoodsRetreat.com erin raw foods

    I tried reposting this (with the times set just to play the snippet) and would not work… :( can anyone tell me how to set the timers so it only plays that one part like you have it?

    Erin

  • Pingback: Sarah Palin’s Good-Bye Speech Gets Mocked By Daily Show

  • Stephanie

    Um hello, I’m a vegan and anyone can be a healthy vegetarian or vegan. We don’t need to hunt to eat. Palin is such an idiot.

  • http://www.veganjapan.net herwin

    um hello, all these polar bears and wolves end up at the dinner table ? i dont think so, its just a bag of shit these “we hunt to eat” stories. Palin is such a human freak.

  • http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com Tom Degan

    Perfect! A tip of the hat is in order for poor old Dan Quayle. Prior to Governor Palin’s nomination as vice-presidential candidate ten months ago, he was generally regarded as the very worst choice of a running mate in living memory. All that has changed. Compared to Sarah, Danny boy is starting to look like Albert Einstein.

    E=M.C. Hammer.

    I guess the time has come for all of us breathe a collective sigh of relief. But for the mysterious workings of fate, President McCain would at this minute be snoozing away in the White House and this idiotic woman would be a seventy-three-year-old heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Regardless of one’s political viewpoint or party affiliation, it must be admitted that we really dodged a bullet with the defeat of the McCain/Unable ticket last November. Had these two been inaugurated on January 20, the law of averages virtually guaranteed that at some point between the years 2009 and 2013 this country would have been stuck with President Gidget von Braun.

    In his column a few days ago in the Washington Post, Richard Cohen suggested that John McCain’s judgement should be put into question for making such an abysmal choice when he chose Governor Palin. Much as I admire Cohen as a writer, his assessment isn’t quite fair. McCain’s first two choices were former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge or that doofus Joe Lieberman. It was the Right Wing extremists who control the Republican party that forced Sarah Palin down his throat.

    Instead of focusing a glare of condemnation toward John McCain, the real target of our collective wrath should be aimed at the “grand old party” itself. Think about that for a minute: So far down the ideological deep end has that party fallen, the prospect of a probable Sarah Palin presidency seemed to most of them a perfectly fine and dandy idea. A new Gallup poll has just been released: Seventy-one percent of registered Republicans would be “likely” to vote for her if she runs in 2012. Medications, please.

    What, you may well ask, is her motivation for committing political suicide by abandoning the office that the people of Alaska entrusted to her care two years ago? When NBC’s Andrea Mitchell suggested to her that after ten months in the national limelight, the comparative drudgery of her duties as governor might have started to seem boring, Sarah Palin responded in words that should be etched in granite at the base of Mount Rushmore:

    “The nitty-gritty, like, you mean the fish slime and the dirt under the fingernails and stuff that’s me?”

    Brilliant. Someone hand me my chisel.

    Why did she resign? She says that as a lame duck governor she won’t be as effective as she would like to be. The fact that she expects the voters of Alaska to swallow this nonsense without a chaser shows the utter contempt she must feel toward the people she was sworn to serve.

    Does she really believe that she has a shot at the nomination three years from now? The answer (unbelievably) is yes. Tom DeFrank of the New York Daily News put it well: The woman has “delusions of adequacy”. The pundits (most of them anyway) are starting to compare her rambling press conference on July 3 to Dick Nixon’s infamous tirade when he lost the California governor’s race in 1962 (“You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore”). Some are even daring to suggest that, like Tricky Dick, she will ultimately be victorious. The only problem with that scenario is the fact that there are slightly over one-hundred things that separate Sarah Palin from Richard Milhaus Nixon: I.Q. points.

    What else were her motivations for quitting? Money. She knows damned well that there is a nice chunk of change to be made in the lower forty-eight and that getting from there to here is an expensive and time-consuming process that infringes upon her gubernatorial responsibilities. Were you aware that the distance between Fairbanks and Washington is almost as great as the distance between Washington and London? What to do? To hell with her constituents and head off to the land of the golden goose.

    When asked what her future plans were, she said that she will continue to work overtime for the people of Alaska. I’m willing to bet anyone that in the next twelve months, most – if not all of her time – will be spent in New York and Washington. Any takers?

    The next three years will find her cashing in on her status as a….uhh….well, whatever her status just might be. Count on her making a national speaking tour for at least one-hundred thousand dollars a pop. A radio talk show? Probably. A gig on FOX Noise? That’s almost inevitable. There is a fortune to be made here and she’s not about to let something as trivial as her oath of office prevent her from making it.

    Does she really have a shot at the nomination in three years? I sure hope so. That would be too good to be true.

    SA-RAH! SA-RAH!

    You go, girl!

    http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

    Tom Degan

  • don miguelo

    How come SARAHPAC ads are allowed on this website?!!!!!!! Palin’s donation site for republican/neocon causes? GAHH!

    I’d prefer at least to see the Socialvibe badge to raise money for dolphin-slaughter:

    http://www.socialvibe.com/whaleman?rs=whaleman_widget#1248689116?

  • don miguelo

    ^^AGAINST dolphin slaughter, above, raise money Against!
    Why can’t we edit our posts again?!?!

  • http://RawfoodsRetreat.com erin raw foods

    Sad that Sarah has publicly said she plans on spending all her time traveling coast to coast now that she’s stepped down.

    And here I was hoping she might want to spend a little time at home with her children – especially the special needs baby. I should have figured she obviously doesn’t give a SHIT about them.

    E

  • Johnson Rogers

    Yeah, bit of a strange statement from Palin there. I really didn’t think people were eating the bears and wolves that they’re hunting.

  • Rachelle

    I curse John McCain for introducing this dingbat to the world. LOL!

  • Stimp

    The question is, Did Palin make such a laughable stab at defending hunting (we eat therefore we hunt) because she’s a simpleton or because she’s dishonest? Could go either way.

  • Whoever…

    Now, this is one monster the world would be a much better place WITHOUT!!!

    Good riddance palin the evil one! I hope she gets lost FOREVER somewhere (kind of the island in ‘Lost’) during her time travelling across the US.

    Regarding the 2012 presidential elections… well if in some nightmare scenario she would run for president and win, then I guess all the fuss surrounding this date (2012) would actually be true, thus meaning it would be the beginning of the end of the world :)

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • VeggieTart

    Okay, so you shoot caribou and eat them, but I don’t see anyone eating the wolves that folks like you gun down from airplanes. Nice try, though Scary Palin; just admit you get your kicks killing defenseless critters.

  • IceClass

    Hunting is just as legitimate a way to produce protein as any other and doesn’t involve repurposing land as farming does.

    A little less reactionary ideology and a little more ecology fools!

  • hil

    @ IceClass, I agree that when done with respect to ecological limits, hunting can provide a protein source for people. My father grew up in rural Michigan and lived off of a very local diet for most of his life since there were no big box grocery stores near by, and that local diet included deer and wild turkey meat in the winter. However, I feel that the wolves taht are being hunted are not bieng hunted for food directly, but rather indirectly to force the caribou population higher. Wolves spend most of their lives running after food, which has caused them to evolve to have a large amount of slow tick muscle fibers, which does not make them a very desirable food source since these types muscle fibers are often very tough. Therefore, hunting wolves to increase caribou, when the wolves themselves are most likely not used as a food source is NOT hunting with respect to the ecological limits of the land.

  • Carly K

    What the hell is wrong with this woman? Is she missing a portion of her brain or something?

  • Whoever…

    “A little less reactionary ideology and a little more ecology fools!”

    Coming from an ‘evil defender’, it’s no surprise that you would write such an insulting comment!

    In case you don’t know, meat is not the only source of protein. In fact, some vegetables are richer in protein than any kind of meat…

    And if all animal eaters would hunt their food, what do you think would happen to the wild populations of animals?

    And in case you also don’t know, animals in farm factories eat cereals which by the way need land to grow on. So you see, from any point you look at it, eating animals of any kind hurts the balance of nature!

    And we’re the fools!?

    Yeah, right…

  • FlyingScot10

    IceClass, well done.

    Everyone else,
    pssst,
    your fear is showing.

    :o)

  • catfuzzies

    People don’t eat wolves and bears in any normal situation. Most people who hunt are not doing it because they have to feed their families. It makes me sick to see pictures of seven year old kids with a bloody dead animal, a big grin, and a gun. The only reason animal populations need to be “culled” is because people interfere with them to begin with. Wolves were endangered, and as soon as they take them off the list, people start killing all of them. Therefore they must be put on it again. If anyone is afraid, it is of this crazy woman and any influence she has over our lives.