July 10, 2009

"It is interesting to learn Levi is working on a piece of fiction while honing his acting skill."

What the Sarah Palin spokeswoman said in response to Levi Johnston's speculation that Palin quit the governorship because of money.

Snark, indeed. I'm just trying to decide how subtle that snark is.

152 comments:

Fred4Pres said...

I am surprised Andrew Sullivan has not offered Levi a free trip to P-Town to discuss Palin conspiracy theories and other things.

Dave said...

I thought kids were off-limits?

Scott M said...

Subtle is correct. Sublime, even.

BJK said...

Meghan Stapleton is a perfect example of the problem with any sort of Palin campaign.

Comments like this one, or 'keeping Willow Palin away from David Letterman' are unprofessional, and reflect poorly on the person being spoken for.

Can you think of any other spokesperson(s) with a bad case of "The snappies?"

As much as I like Governor Palin, she needs to surround herself with people who protect her image better than this.

Save the 'gotcha' press releases for your burn book....you'll sound much less "high school bitchy" that way.

peter hoh said...

As opposed to Palin, who, one presumes, must be working on a piece of non-fiction while honing her acting skills.

TitusYesSir said...

I would do Levi.

traditionalguy said...

So Book deals are on Levi Johnston's mind at his Attorney's arranged PR interviews. Just like Princess Diana's hangers on all cashed in "revelations" sold in book deals. That stuff goes with the celebrity territory it seems. What other shameful things has Levi learned from his living off of the Palin family? Stay tuned.

MadisonMan said...

Classy with a K.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I would do Levi.

Titus I bet you'd nail a Hotpocket in a pinch.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If I were Palin, I would slap Bristol.

Once for getting pregnant, no matter how much you will stand by and support your child. I would want to slap her for being such a dummy.

Second and twice as hard for getting pregnant by such a low life turd as Levi Johnston. Then I would be thankful that they didn't actually get married and I would have to be "nice" to him.

Third, slap myself for raising a twit of a daughter who doesn't have the common sense to look before she leaps, look deeper under the surface below the pretty face to see the lack of substance in creeps like Levi.

Then I would hold Bristol up as an example to the rest of the girls and hope to hell they learn something. But they probably won't because teenager girls (and Titus too it seems) will always fall for the tall good looking piece of shit.

The Palin girls should be glad I'm not their Mother.

Jim said...

BJK -

"Can you think of any other spokesperson(s) with a bad case of "The snappies?" "

Actually, I can. Start with Obama himself: Does "I won" sound familiar? Gibbs isn't bright enough to whip out a snappy one-liner, but Dee Dee Myers was extraordinarily peckish when dealing with criticism.

Pretty much all spokespeople are depending on the circumstance. After all, that's what they get paid to do: shut up critics. Sometimes a snappy comeback does that the best.

Theo Boehm said...

Well, we all make mistakes.

But I think Bristol's taste in mistakes is a notch or two below my wife's great-grandmother's, described in my linked blog post.

Maybe it's just that they don't make low-lifes like they used to.

kentuckyliz said...

What a snide thing to say. But it worked in deflecting having to say anything about his accusation.

Of course Sarah Palin is concerned about the family finances. The frivolous ethics charges brought by the Democratic party operatives and their AK shills are very nearly bankrupting the Palins.

Which is so nasty and is why I have mailed in my updated voter registration changing from (D) to Indendent. I just had to wash off the slime.

kentuckyliz said...

that would be, Independent

Richard Dolan said...

Snark? More like bad soap opera (with apologies to the soap).

garage mahal said...

The frivolous ethics charges brought by the Democratic party operatives and their AK shills are very nearly bankrupting the Palins..

Well if Sarah Palin said that it must be true! But of course it isn't.

JAL said...

While I appreciate Palin's straight shooting ("You are not listening to me.") I think her spokesperson could be given a different job.

While the retort is actually clever, Palin really should have someone able to give tactful non- answers to questions like that. (I assume the AP asked her what she thought?)

And yes, I am sure money is part of the issue. Personally, and as she tried to point out, also for the state of Alaska.

It seems pretty clear that a kid like Levi (or any 19 year old) really has no comprehension of the problems $40,000 a month in legal bills presents a family of finite means.

Sort of like President Obama and Congress not getting that trillions of dollars of added expenses, commitments, and unexpected bills cannot be met by taxing people of finite means.

With Obamagress there is no "The buck stops here" sign.

Can't wait for 2010.

Jeremy said...

In case anyone here is interested, here's a site where you can grab some real bargains for you and the entire family...if you have a family:

http://www.democraticstuff.com/Barack-Obama-Liquidation-s/7593.htm

Jeremy said...

JAL said..."While I appreciate Palin's straight shooting ("You are not listening to me.") I think her spokesperson could be given a different job."

No kidding?

How about telling her that "everybody" watching the interview could hear what she was saying and it was nonsensical at best.

And, speaking of not "listening" to HER...do you remember what she herself said about Hillary "whining" about media coverage?

The Princess doesn't even listen to herself.

Jeremy said...

Princess Sarah - "The frivolous ethics charges brought by the Democratic party operatives and their AK shills are very nearly bankrupting the Palins."

Of course the most expensive of all was opened up by...Princess Sarah herself.

"A large chunk of that work went into the state personnel board's "Troopergate" investigation, which Palin herself initiated on the grounds that a legislative probe was politicized. Only three of the ethics complaints are still pending, a fact that makes Palin's explanation seem even less sensible." (Rachel Weiner 7/09/09)

Fred4Pres said...

Sully is trying to encourage Levi!

Synova said...

She'd be stupid not to write a book.

William said...

The realization of happiness mandates finding a good cover story for the pursuit of money and sex.

Big Mike said...

I'm just trying to decide how subtle that snark is.

Not very.

@BJK, dead on the mark. IMAO neither Sarah Palin nor John McCain had very good people with them during the campaign, nor does Sarah Palin have very good people with her now.

Oh, Gawd. I see someone smuggled a laptop into Jeremy's padded cell. There goes the thread.

Jeremy said...

Big Mike said..."Oh, Gawd. I see someone smuggled a laptop into Jeremy's padded cell. There goes the thread."

Oh. little Mikey...why all the whining?

Everybody HAS to agree with YOU and your wingnut buddies, huh?

What a suck-ass.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Palin really should have someone able to give tactful non- answers to questions like that

Why?

People are sick of mealy mouth politicians who never really say what they mean and don't give straight answers. Sick of slick talking mouthpieces who hide behind tactful non-answers.

If the answer or response is that Levi is a low life lying piece of scum who is trying to cash in on the situation that the Palins are in......why not say so?

Big Mike said...

Just the sane ones, Jeremy, just the sane ones.

Invisible Man said...

IMAO neither Sarah Palin nor John McCain had very good people with them during the campaign, nor does Sarah Palin have very good people with her now.

It's always funny how we blame the people with them, instead of the persona actually hiring the people. It's not Princess Sarah's fault that her press agent is crude and undisciplined (who does that sound like). It's not McCain's fault that he would pick a VP who shoots from the hip with no facts to back themselves up while being lazy and thin-skinned (who does that sound like).

Invisible Man said...

Sick of slick talking mouthpieces who hide behind tactful non-answers.

You wouldn't happen to be talking about a press conference where we still don't have a good idea why the hell a sitting governor resigned 2 and a half years in to their term would ya?

Nichevo said...

Blogger TitusYesSir said...

I would do Levi.
7/10/09 7:58 AM


You do realize that he is a young punk who would bash you good for saying that, whether you offered to be the pitcher or the catcher, don't you?

Skyler said...

Before I realized that it was a teenaged boy she was talking about, I thought it was proper to say such a thing. But when I realized it was her daughter's ex-boyfriend that she trotted out at the convention and so many other places, then it was just classless.

He's a kid. Just say that and be done with it. Rise above acts of children.

Now she looks very petty.

Jeremy said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...(Palin really should have someone able to give tactful non- answers to questions like that...)

"Why?"

Well, for the same reason anybody in a position of authority would be expected to respond in a reasonably intelligent and tactful manner.

It's called "professionalism."

Something you're evidently not familiar with.

Jeremy said...

Big Mike said..."Just the sane ones, Jeremy, just the sane ones."

No, you want to be part of the local pack mentality and are afraid to rile any of your fellow wingnuts.

You know it and everybody knows it.

Keep in suckin'.

Salamandyr said...

I see nothing wrong with the comment. It's about as much thought as the accusation deserved.

There's a lot I like about Palin, but so far, she, like every other politician out there, speaks in bullshit. It's all marketing speech, she knows what she wants to be the soundbite, so she repeats whatever that is, ad nauseum instead of giving considered answers. I get the feeling she's reading off a script.

Lest it seem I'm attacking Palin only, it's only because she's an amateur at it. Obama, and Biden are just as bad (well, Biden is different, he just makes shit up) but Obama is more practiced at making his script reading seem like actual thought. Palin's accomplished more real world things than he has, so she's got that going for her at least.

Big Mike said...

@Invisible, you might be stunned to learn that I agree with you. My comment on Sarah Palin's team and John McCain's team is, in fact, a negative reflection on the ability of those two politicians to recruit an effective team.

IMHO, Hillary Clinton would be President today if she'd had a better campaign staff. Her campaign put itself in a hole right at the start and she never did catch back up.

Ordinarily I'd say something along the order of "score one for Obama," but now I see that he can't even recruit people who can spell his name correctly! A six letter name is too long to learn?

We're in trouble. We're in deep trouble.

Shanna said...

If the answer or response is that Levi is a low life lying piece of scum who is trying to cash in on the situation that the Palins are in......why not say so?

I had some sympathy for Levi initially, because his name got dragged through the mud with the rest of them. I wasn’t surprised that put strain on a teenage relationship and I wasn’t surprised they broke it off. However, it’s not appropriate to go telling tales. So, I’m revising my opinion downward.

former law student said...

She'd be stupid not to write a book.

Who's going to read it? And why? Will it be a balanced portrayal? Will it increase our understanding of her? Do we want to model our lives after hers?

The last book I bought written by a politician was one of Paul Simon's.

section9 said...

I think one of the things that the Beltway G.O.P. failed to get is that Republicans want a candidate who is willing to put the Manolos straight into the liberal balls when necessary. Palin will do that.

For several years in the Second Bush Term, GW basically stood mute to many attacks leveled against him. This frustrated conservatives. One of the reasons he left office at 28-32% approval was a realization among conservatives that it was pointless to waste time fighting for someone who wasn't going to defend himself.

Palin learned from that. She understood the difference between the Obama Campaign, which was very good at defending itself and attacking the enemy-and the McCain Campaign, which stumbled at best at doing minimal defensive work.

That said, Levi should be ignored. A bit of snark from the spokeswoman is all that's called for, but no more. Levi was a reasonably good looking young guy whom Bristol fell for; the kind of kid that Titus would assfuck in a Castro Street Minute. But behind the Behind, there's no there there.

Trust me; he'll end up doing porn in Chatsworth before this is done. With Lisa Ann. Eeeewwwww.

Joe said...

Why is Levi suddenly a "low life turd" for stating the blindingly obvious? The animosity for him amongst Palin defenders is as nauseating as the liberal attacks on Palin. If this is what we would have to look forward to with a President Palin, fuck that.

Shanna said...

She'd be stupid not to write a book.

Who's going to read it? And why? Will it be a balanced portrayal? Will it increase our understanding of her? Do we want to model our lives after hers?


Writing a book seemed to work out well for Obama.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Oh, Gawd. I see someone smuggled a laptop into Jeremy's padded cell. There goes the thread

Big Mike...you are completely wrong. Jeremy isn't in a padded cell. He is HERE

Dust Bunny Queen said...

You wouldn't happen to be talking about a press conference where we still don't have a good idea why the hell a sitting governor resigned 2 and a half years in to their term would ya?


Invisible, you must be deaf as well as dumb. Palin plainly stated several reasons why she resigned. She was a bit vague about what she plans to do in the near future. Sort of a "that's for me to know and you to find out attitude" to the media. However, her stated reasons were very clear.

If you can't listen, then that is your personal problem.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Before I realized that it was a teenaged boy she was talking about, I thought it was proper to say such a thing

At age 18+ he is a man. Old enough to go into the military and old enough to be entrusted with all the responsibilities that that entails.

Don't tell tales and gossip about your former girlfriend/wife/in-laws that intend to harm them at your own expense and to agrandize yourself.

Be a man or face the consequences.

BJK said...

@BigMike (@Invisible)

It's my turn to agree with you. I would be willing to extend the subject past the realm of politics, though.

A week or two ago, someone (DBQ, I think) stated that they detest the word 'handlers' in conjunction with a human being. This is an example where I think that the description is quite apt. Advisors are supposed to be there to stop you from doing the stupid things.

As I see it, there are 3 different types of entourages a VIP carries with them.
1) Handlers who give the VIP good advice; usually, the paid kind.
2) Hangers-on who focus more on their own interests than those of the VIP (e.g. the 'friends' of Michael Vick who thought a dog-fighting operation was a good idea)
3) Yes-men who have a good thing going, and don't want to upset the apple cart.

Good handlers keep group # 2 from getting in the way...so long as the VIP lets them.

Having good handlers reflects positively on the VIP themselves, since the handler often keeps the VIP from doing the stupid things that the rest of us end up doing (be it for love, lust, or lulz). My classic example of this is actually Britney Spears:

-With handlers from the record company: #1 selling artist, self-proclaimed virgin.
-Britney fires handlers, in favor of yes-men.
-Britney gets married (twice).
-Britney gets horrible reality TV show on 3rd-rate network.
-Britney shaves head, attacks paparazzi, forgets how to wear underwear, etc.
-Britney's father seizes purse-strings, tightens restrictions.
-Britney has successful album, apparently successful concert tour.


*I tend to notice (and point out) handlers, because they are a fact and consequence of modern culture, but their role is ultimately to shape our image of the VIP....it always comes back to the person.*

What is the old aphorism, "if you're not smart, surround yourself with smart people; if you are smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you."
My hope for Sarah Palin is that she can use her star-power (while she still has it) to make the right connections and find a set of advisors/handlers more befitting of a national political candidate. If she doesn't do that, it will ultimately reflect poorly on her.

Jeremy said...

"She'd be stupid not to write a book."

What the hell could it possibly be about?

Her entire professional career spans about 5 years.

Joe said...

Don't tell tales and gossip about your former girlfriend/wife/in-laws that intend to harm them at your own expense and to agrandize yourself.

Oh, but it's perfectly fine for the Palin family to treat Levi like shit.

I was never a big fan of Palin--I liked her more than McCain, who I despise, but still see as a better alternative to Obama. I thought she was horribly unprepared and displayed a distressing unwillingness to become prepared. I also found the attacks against her to be irrational and increasingly absurd.

On the flip side, even though I can see the political reasons for her resignation, by doing so it demonstrated a lack of honor and integrity. Levi was treated dishonorably as well and these latest attacks only reinforce that. That tells me that Sarah Palin has no core integrity and will ultimately sacrifice everything to get what she wants and I really dislike people like that, especially when they pretend to be Christian.

TitusIsReadyForTheWeekend said...

Please I have done thugged out black, ex prisoner muscle guys.

Levi, I would do him.

TitusIsReadyForTheWeekend said...

And I think its time we leave Levi alone.

He is just a young man trying to make his way in the world. Like Mary Tyler Moore.

He is a father, a brother, a son.

He is an American just like you and I.

thank you.

AlphaLiberal said...

Whoa. Peggy Noonan unloads on Sarah Palin!

She makes the party look stupid, a party of the easily manipulated. .

In television interviews she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity .

"Now she can prepare herself for higher office by studying up, reading in, boning up on the issues." Mrs. Palin's supporters have been ordering her to spend the next two years reflecting and pondering. But she is a ponder-free zone. She can memorize the names of the presidents of Pakistan, but she is not going to be able to know how to think about Pakistan. Why do her supporters not see this? Maybe they think "not thoughtful" is a working-class trope!

AlphaLiberal said...

Skyler:

Now she looks very petty. .

Just now?

TitusIsReadyForTheWeekend said...

What are we going to do about Audra Shay the 38 year old candidate for President of the "young republicans".

Personally, I support Audra.

Freedom of speech.

traditionalguy said...

Peggy Noonan nails it. The Republicans are unable to win an election without Palin's popularity, and Palin is merely a gifted middle-class American politcian. Her answer is that the Republicans must lose the election in order to uphold Noonan's standards for Super Leaders. Now, what is wrong with Noonan's argument? Hmmm.

Methadras said...

Hey Gene, so you are calling her Princess Palin now? Well, at least you are acknowledging that her status far exceeds that of yours, but then again even a $5 crack whore has more credibility than you do. Say hi to your mom for me.

Shanna said...

Peggy Noonan unloads on Sarah Palin!

That’s not news, AL. She never liked Palin.

What is it the Palin's have done to Levi? Besides this one comment?

Elliott A said...

For the last several days, every Palin post has led the way in comments. For some reason, she is INTERESTING. For the same reason, people will buy a book she authors

Theo Boehm said...

I'm sure Sarah Palin is NOT happy about Levi.
In fact, I have some video to prove it!

knox said...

I despise the unfair and mean-spirited attacks on Palin and especially her family. But if I am ever going to vote for her, I need her to start communicating better. Or "her people." Whatever.

We all know a big failing for Bush was that he often didn't defend or explain what he was doing, even if it was (to his supporters at least) the right and reasonable thing. That hurt his presidency more than anything else, IMO.

We cannot afford another poor communicator. I really do consider Palin's resignation speech unacceptable. If I had voted or raised money for her, I would be incensed. I don't need some smooth-talker, but if she makes such an important decision, I think she owes it to people to explain why. Her speech felt like a "teaser." I don't want that from my politicians.

Lord knows, I don't want to pile on, and if she improves, I might still vote for her. But Palin cannot be going around giving the time of day to people like Levi. It's just not good. She had my full support at one time and I find myself slowly souring on her.


[Shout-out to Victoria, wherever you are. Please forgive me! :) ]

AlphaLiberal said...

That’s not news, AL. She never liked Palin. .

Oh, she's taken it up a notch!

knox said...

That Noonan essay is ridiculous. Some of it, obviously, I agree with, but most of it is way over-the-top.

Beth said...

Oh Titus, I thought Audra Shay hadn't made it on the national radar, and only us Louisianians were aware of her shenanigans.

Beth said...

Okay, I see Gawker's got the Shay item. Aside from the main story there, how the hell does someone 38 call themselves a "Young Republican" (or Democrat, or whatever)? That's a bit long in the tooth for a youth organization.

Cedarford said...

traditionalguy said...
Peggy Noonan nails it. The Republicans are unable to win an election without Palin's popularity, and Palin is merely a gifted middle-class American politcian. Her answer is that the Republicans must lose the election in order to uphold Noonan's standards for Super Leaders. Now, what is wrong with Noonan's argument? Hmmm.
/

NO, Noonan is warning that this woman is not equipped for the job.

This is similar to Democrats who warned that the charisma and the screaming thousands of "The Democrat Base" that attended Jesse Jacksons rallies...wasn't enough.

Jesse Jacksons "non-elite", up from poverty, MLK hanger-on background.....wasn't enough.

That the Rev's rhyming one-liners and simplistic slogans that had Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Teddy and other leaders nodding their heads like runaway bobbit dolls when Jackson publicly preached the truth to them ...wasn't enough.

That Jesse was more adept at preaching from his high moral position than answering questions or proposing solutions when it was All-About-Him....showed his lack of education and longtime ignorance on many things. It showed him a shallow thinker, and quite proud of that fact...It was not enough....

That Jesse loved the spotlight and the shot at money more than the chores and responsibilities of any office besides President that would "diminish his essential duty to all blacks and Democrats nationwide"? Showed his schtick was not enough.....

It's really easy for Noonan. She wants to write about Palin, she just has to pull up her past columns on REverend Jackson or Sharpton and change a few words.

Shahid said...

So, according to some here, Levi, a teenager who happens to be a legal adult, should be free to attack Palin and her family in the major media, and they should just take it quietly? While they should avoid getting mired in the mud (pigs and mud-wrestling and all that), what's wrong with a snarky dismissal?

(I suppose it's not compassionate enough toward the poor Levi with an unfortunate upbringing. But shouldn't those who want the best for Levi be telling him to get his act together?)

Anyway, Noonan, Parker, and many of her ilk in the commentariat (including M. Goldberg on the other partisan side), seem to reach the same thoughtlessness and factlessness in their response to Palin that they supposedly decry in Palin herself. It's a "How dare she?!" emotional response that only diminishes them, and does nothing to convince anyone not already convinced. It's demagoguery.

Anyway, I do have a knock on Palin from a presentation/polish perspective. She needs to work on simplifying her grammar, and trusting more to simple declarative sentences when speaking off the cuff. When she speaks on complex topics, there are just too many qualifiers and dependent clauses that make them hard to follow. And she gets hard-pressed to keep up with all the various grammatical subject-verb/tense/mood/number that makes editing a necessity for complex writing.

(And sometimes, when sentences get that big, it's hard to keep the topic straight from the beginning of the sentence to the end, both for speaker and listener.)

Maybe this comes out of growing up in a house of educators but it makes her off-the-cuff speech very unsafe for sound-bite editors.

The true art of communication is rendering complex ideas simple enough to convey to those lacking either familiarity or time to understand the details. Sadly, this is the nature of our commentariat, though you wonder what they do when they're not at their word processors...

(As someone who's read German philosophy in the original German, I generally get through her sentences in the first pass. And I may sympathize more because this is a challenge I still have to check myself on.)

Floridan said...

DBQ: "The Palin girls should be glad I'm not their Mother."

You didn't by any chance play the mother in the movie "Throw Momma from the Train," did you?

mariner said...

DBQ:

I'm curious: why is Levi Johnston a low-life turd, if Bristol Palin is not a low-life slut? Two teenagers did the nasty and the girl got pregnant. It took both of them.

One reasonable explanation of the observed events would be that Levi got dragged onto the national stage for the Palins' benefit, then was unceremoniously dumped when he was no longer an asset to them.

TitusIsReadyForTheWeekend said...

Beth,

The story is all over the internets.

Daily Beast, Huffpost, Washington Post.

I hope the young republicans nominate her. What a disgrace.

She wrote postings about wanting to go into West Hollywood and bash gays and laughed at some commenter calling blacks coons. And another one saying they are from the south and no blacks better come down there at night if they know whats good for them, and again she laughs. Classy lady.

And what is a 38 year old doing wanting to be the president of the "young republicans".

If republicans don't wake up to the new century they will be just like the Whigs. They have become a white old man southern party. Time to deal with the truth and make some changes. The 50's and 80's are gone. Time to come up with some new ideas folks.

JAL said...

DBQ: If the answer or response is that Levi is a low life lying piece of scum who is trying to cash in on the situation that the Palins are in......why not say so?

Because it is important to pick your battles carefully. Especially now.

Of course Levi does have a lawyer, (how many North Slope apprentices have lawyers? agents?) so it does sound like he is benefitting from his time with the Palins. Someone needs to remind him he is going to be in their circle for a long time, because of Tripp, so he also might learn the meaning of circumspect.

knox said...

She needs to work on simplifying her grammar, and trusting more to simple declarative sentences

Yes. Sometimes it is a morass of wordiness.

So, according to some here, Levi, a teenager who happens to be a legal adult, should be free to attack Palin and her family in the major media, and they should just take it quietly?

Yes. They shouldn't even attempt snark. If they really want to respond, then they should just make a brief, reasonable rebuttal and leave it at that.

I don't think this response--or the Letterman back-and-forth--does Palin any credit.

Jim said...

knox -

" If I had voted or raised money for her, I would be incensed. I don't need some smooth-talker, but if she makes such an important decision, I think she owes it to people to explain why. Her speech felt like a "teaser." I don't want that from my politicians."

I would assert that there was a very good reason why she could not be specific in her resignation speech: Democrats abusing the ethics process.

If she had said that she was leaving office to take part in the national polity, then they would have filed a complaint saying that she was conducting a campaign event. It would have been a specious claim, but it would have cost both her and the state time and money to defend against the claim.

She's leaving office in just over 2 weeks when the anklebiters won't be able to touch her any longer. Let's see if her reasons don't become more clear after July 25th. If they don't in rather short order after that date, then I'll agree with you. However, I have a feeling that you'll have the answers you're looking for soon thereafter.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I'm curious: why is Levi Johnston a low-life turd, if Bristol Palin is not a low-life slut? Two teenagers did the nasty and the girl got pregnant. It took both of them.

It has nothing to do with them having a child out of wedlock.

That's a completely different issue on which I have already weighed in earlier in the thread.

He is a low life turd, because Levi is going onto national forums, news shows, gossip columns and trashing his ex-girlfriend and her family. He is delibertely trying to harm them. The issue is that Levi is showing zero class. If he has personal issues with the Palins, he should not be airing those in venues that are to his own self agrandizement....aka:he makes money at their expense.

If you've been divorced and have no desire to ever be around your ex again, you should still keep your mouth shut and not trash his/her character in public. All it does is make you look bad and show your lack of character. Just like Levi.

Jim said...

DBQ -

"Levi is going onto national forums, news shows, gossip columns and trashing his ex-girlfriend and her family."

Even more importantly, he is trashing his child's mother, grandparents, aunts and uncles. But hey, exploiting your child's family to make a buck is not only respectable, but desirable, on the Leftist side of the aisle as long as it may reflect badly on a conservative.

And they wonder why people believe they have no real principles or morals other than prurient self-interest.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Yes. They shouldn't even attempt snark. If they really want to respond, then they should just make a brief, reasonable rebuttal and leave it at that.

I don't think this response--or the Letterman back-and-forth--does Palin any credit.


You are right about that. Possibly they should ask their PR people to tone it down a bit.

However, it is understandable for the Palins to be irritated by the outrageous treatment that they have received. It is doubly understandable as a mother to want to defend/shield your children from attacks. Whether they are doing it the right way is debatable.

John Stodder said...

Look, Levi: Your acting career is going nowhere, you dumb hick. You've probably topped out, income-wise. Meanwhile, your baby-mama's mama has the chance to earn enough money to assure that your daughter will never go hungry and could attend the college of her choice, which is more than you're capable of doing. What the hell are you complaining about? You've had your fifteen minutes of fame. They've been pretty dull, but you've had them.

Look, I think by now it is abundantly clear that Palin's political career is, realistically, over. She will never be elected to anything again. At best, she can help like-minded politicians raise money during her remaining years of celebrityhood. Serving another year and a half as governor would have put her more deeply in debt and served no other purpose, least of all to Alaska. Her resignation was the right move, albeit poorly explained. The most important thing in anyone's life is their family. She has an opportunity to take care of her family by writing a book. End of story. Peggy Noonan wasted her breath.

What might be more worth her time is figuring out whether the GOP has any future at all. You've got a Democratic president who seems to have deluded himself (in a mirror image of his predecessor) that his personal popularity was a mandate for radical, poorly-conceived social engineering. It's starting to unravel, quite obviously. But chances are, all his stuff's going to pass because the Loyal Opposition party is mired in stupidity. The right-o-sphere might want to start concentrating on that little problem, and let the Palins go along their merry way.

garage mahal said...

I would assert that there was a very good reason why she could not be specific in her resignation speech: Democrats abusing the ethics process..

Most of the ethics complaints filed were from Republicans. The one costing the most money is one Palin filed on herself. Try again.

John Stodder said...

I would assert that there was a very good reason why she could not be specific in her resignation speech: Democrats abusing the ethics process.

If she had said that she was leaving office to take part in the national polity, then they would have filed a complaint saying that she was conducting a campaign event.
..

Interesting point.

Chilling, too. Does this mean any sitting politician in any state with similar pseudo-ethics laws could be silenced in this way?

I note that an issue is being made of Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine's time spent as head of a Democratic Party group. As Democrats never seem to understand, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I don't see why a group of activist republicans shouldn't try to bankrupt Kaine the way the dems tried to bankrupt Palin. "That's the Chicago way."

Beth said...

Titus, not that I'm one to jump to defend Young Republicans, but the stories ought to note that the people on her Facebook that Shay "unfriended" were fellow YR's who immediately reacted to the "coon" post with a hearty "WTF????" I do wonder where they were when she was extolling queer bashing in West Hollywood, but I don't follow her career so maybe they called her on that, too.

That "sundown town" comment was chilling - she's clearly attracting the bottom of the barrel.

garage mahal said...

:I don't see why a group of activist republicans shouldn't try to bankrupt Kaine the way the dems tried to bankrupt Palin. "That's the Chicago way.".

What Democrats?? Alaska is the reddest state in the Union, controlled by Republicans for decades. Again, most of the ethic complaints were raised by Republicans! And herself. It's amazing how Palin can just plain make shit up as she goes along and there is virtually nothing out of her mouth that is either the truth or makes any sense whatsoever, yet whatever she says gets accepted as some sort of truth. She's like a golfer who gets to kick the ball out of the rough, or just throw it on the green if it's in the bunker.

Jim said...

garage -

"Most of the ethics complaints filed were from Republicans. The one costing the most money is one Palin filed on herself. Try again."

Wrong on the facts over and over again. Are you intentionally lying or do you just have a problem doing your homework?

1) "Most" of them were not filed by Republicans. "Most" of them were filed by Democrats - especially the most egregiously frivolous of them.
2) Palin did not file an ethics complaint against herself. She filed a self-disclosure and asked for a ruling.
3) The fact that several ethics complaints were filed by a political rival who happens to be a Republican is only proof of what she always said: which is that she was willing to take on her own party to clean it up. But you and your cohorts claimed that she did no such thing. Thanks for admitting that Palin was right and you were wrong all along.

Jim said...

John -

"Does this mean any sitting politician in any state with similar pseudo-ethics laws could be silenced in this way? "

Yes, they can. That's why I said that Democrats are going to be very sorry that they opened up this particular can of worms for some short term "gotcha" politics.

Kaine's problems are particularly bad because he won't release any numbers at all on his travel for the DNC. His ethics make Palin look like Mother Teresa.

Joe said...

Levi is going onto national forums, news shows, gossip columns and trashing his ex-girlfriend and her family.

As was already pointed out, Levi isn't acting in a vacuum. The Palin family has trashed and ostracized him and are treating him like a second class citizen. Levi has acted in response to a smear campaign by the Palin family.

Is he acting immature now? Yup. But Sarah Palin is supposed to be the mature adult here, not Levi. Like a poster above, I think Sarah used Levi until he wasn't convenient anymore and then told Bristol to dump him.

Jim said...

Joe -

"As was already pointed out, Levi isn't acting in a vacuum. The Palin family has trashed and ostracized him and are treating him like a second class citizen. Levi has acted in response to a smear campaign by the Palin family."

Maybe you're familiar with some piece of information that I don't have. When, where and how did the Palin family "trash" Levi? As far as ostracizing him, was this before or after he went on talk shows to talk about his sex life with Bristol? Name me an instance where the Palin family treated him like a second-class citizen. Again, before he decided to go talk about his sex life with Bristol on national TV.

AlphaLiberal said...

Democrats abusing the ethics process. .

Except for the Republicans who filed ethics complaints. Four were from Republican Andree McLeod, alone. Only one came from out of state.

Hey, why let reality interfere with your opinions? Just keep repeating those false talking points.

AlphaLiberal said...

And if Palin was "cleared on all counts," then why did she have to pay $8,000 back to the state for expenses spent on her kids?

Jim said...

Alpha -

"Hey, why let reality interfere with your opinions? Just keep repeating those false talking points."

1) I never said that NO Republicans were abusing the process. The most frivolous and clearly abusive ones, however, were the ones filed by Democrats.
2) In case you're unaware, there actually are Democrats that live in Alaska. Just because only one was filed from outside the state doesn't mean that Democrats inside the state weren't filing abusive claims.

But you just keep repeating your talking points. Don't let facts get in your way.

garage mahal said...

) "Most" of them were not filed by Republicans. "Most" of them were filed by Democrats - especially the most egregiously frivolous of them..

See here.

And technically I was incorrect, a Republican did file the most complaints, as Alpha correctly posted. And contrary to what Palin would have you believe only three complaints are still pending.

Jim said...

Alpha -

"And if Palin was "cleared on all counts," then why did she have to pay $8,000 back to the state for expenses spent on her kids?"

I'll quote the CBS story:

"An ethics complaint had alleged Palin abused her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her. The Alaska Personnel Board found no wrongdoing, but Palin agreed to reimburse the state for trips found to be of questionable state interest."

If you knew anything about government ethics requirements, you'd know what a tangled mess they are. In this case the Personnel Board found that Palin hadn't done anything intentionally wrong, but there had been confusion over what did and did not qualify for billable expenses.

Again, don't let facts stand in the way of your talking points. Keep repeating them and making yourself look like a fool.

Jeremy said...

DBQ: "The Palin girls should be glad I'm not their Mother."

So are you implying Princess Sarah is a "bad" mother?

Jim said...

garage -

"...only three complaints are still pending."

1) When did Palin enumerate how many were still outstanding that would support your statement that it was "contrary to what Palin would have you believe"?

2) Exactly how many frivolous ethics complaints are OK, garage? Is it 2, 3, 10, 20? Please tell me that because the Personnel Board has been moving expeditiously in resolving the complaints so that there are only 3 pieces of garbage left to wade through that you personally endorse abusing ethics process so long as you keep the abuse to a certain level? Who sets that level, you? Are you volunteering to pay for the out-of-pocket legal expenses since evidently you think that playing this kind of game is just OK with you?

3) How many more frivolous complaints were going to be filed between now and the end of her term? If you can't guarantee that the answer is ZERO, then why does it matter how many are outstanding at any given point in time given that 20 more could be filed the very next day? Either the process was being systematically abused or it wasn't.

Baron Zemo said...

They should look to the example of young Geli if they need to solve this lingering problem.

I am sure Andrew Sullivan would oblige. He truly does resemble Röhm in all so many particulars.

garage mahal said...

Boo-hoo! Says the Palinbot.

Jim said...

garage -

By your non-responsive response, I'll take it that you concede that you were speaking through your sphincter in your previous posts. Come out into the light, the air is much fresher here.

garage mahal said...

What's the sense Jim? Whatever evidence is throw at you it all can just simply be explained away that poor Sarah is a victim of mean liberals and Democrats, even though the link I gave you clearly showed they weren't. Any complaint filed is "frivolous" anyway, so what's the point?

AlphaLiberal said...

And, I see people here are continuing to use Sarah Palin's excuses for why she had to quite.

Let's be clear. The Anchorage Daily News looked at those reasons which - shock - blamed other people.

The ADN found that Palin's reasons for quitting were false. That is, wrong. Not true. Not factual. A red herring, a whopper, a load of moose dung, so much storytelling. You know, a lie.

AlphaLiberal said...

Let's not forget these ethics complaints were filed under the ethics law that Palin claims she put through.

If they are so bogus, didn't Palin screw up her revision of the ethics law?

Baron Zemo said...

"And, I see people here are continuing to use Sarah Palin's excuses for why she had to quite."

Indeed.

AlphaLiberal said...

Jim: your argument is that complaints were dismissed, so they must have frivolous.

But they were dismissed by a state personnel board who served at the whim of the Governor! She could have fired any of them. Not exactly an independent finding. More like a whitewash.

AlphaLiberal said...

Sorry. People are repeating Sarah Palin's excuses for why she had to quit.

Which the Anchorage Daily News found to be so much horse hockey.

Jim said...

garage -

"Sarah is a victim of mean liberals and Democrats, even though the link I gave you clearly showed they weren't. "

No...Evidently you didn't read the article at the link. All it did was provide a list of the ethics complaints. Nowhere in there was an exoneration of Democrats, so you'll have to do better than that.

So that would be the point. If you have proof that something I'm saying is wrong, then produce it and I'll admit that I am wrong. If you don't have any proof, then you should admit that as well.

Shanna said...

The Palin family has trashed and ostracized him and are treating him like a second class citizen.

Joe, I asked earlier in the thread, what exactly have the Palin’s done to Levi, besides a snarky comment in response to his attempts to trash them? I really don’t see this shoddy treatment from the Palin’s. I see the media who trashed Levi and his mother, but I don’t think that came from the family. So, I’m not sure what you are talking about.

Until I see any evidence that the Palin family “trashed” Levi, then I think you should stop making that claim.

theobromophile said...

A year and a half ago, Levi Johnston was a high school boy who was dumb enough to screw the Governor's daughter without using protection. (According to Bristol, they used birth control sporadically.)

Note to Levi: if you do not want politicians going after you; if you do not want the spotlight; if you do not want to look like an attention-seeking fame whore... do not impregnate the Governor's daughter. It's just that easy.

Let's all be real. This guy's sperm did not magically migrate into Bristol's womb, leaving him the helpless victim of the Palin's fame. Oh, yeah, let's not forget that the woman that Levi is trashing on national TV is the same woman who is supporting his son.

Jim said...

Alpha -

"Jim: your argument is that complaints were dismissed, so they must have frivolous."

No. The fact that they were dismissed is only one part of the argument. The fact that they were frivolous is what made them frivolous. Holding a fish? You take that seriously? Giving an interview to a reporter? That's an ethical lapse? Wearing a jacket with a logo on it? WTF?

Alpha, you're spinning so hard that your head is about to pop off. Go ahead and defend that kind of thing as not being frivolous. I dare you.

AlphaLiberal said...

Here you go. Get yer facts here.

the story from the Anchorage Daily News showing that Palin made up the numbers on her ethics defenses. And this.

Example:

including a line item that says 0.3 attorney hours added up to $10,063 in costs. That would add up to an attorney billing of over $30,000 an hour, .

Nice work if you can get it!

Jim said...

Alpha -

"Which the Anchorage Daily News found to be so much horse hockey."

First, taking the ADN's word for anything with regard to Palin is like taking the NYT's word for anything with regard to Bush. They, and their editor, has always been very anti-Palin for a very long time. They took half the facts and tried to concoct a whole story out of them while ignoring everything else.

Are you trying to take advantage of the fact that most people here aren't aware of the Leftist bent of the ADN or are you just determined to drive this into the ground that you think it doesn't matter?

Jim said...

Alpha -

Too bad that article doesn't say what you said it says. It goes through the $1.9 million in claims, and the closest it comes to any real dispute of them is one line where they say:

"Those state employees would have been paid regardless."

Which we've already covered here on multiple occasions: they would have been paid to conduct state business not defend against ethics complaints. Hours spent working on ethics complaints aren't spent doing the state's business which makes counting them perfectly legitimate. Unless you were volunteering to pay someone to do the state's business while state employees were busy doing something else?

Really....you and garage should both actually read the articles before you post links to them since nothing like what you claimed they said they actually say.

Baron Zemo said...

Please leave young AlphaLiberal alone.

Every village needs an idiot and he is so adroit as to be perfection itself.

It is quite sublime.

Bravo Sir! Bravo!

Invisible Man said...

Are you trying to take advantage of the fact that most people here aren't aware of the Leftist bent of the ADN or are you just determined to drive this into the ground that you think it doesn't matter?

Jim,

I hope that you are making sure that all of your physicians aren't LEFTISTs, as of course their words about watching your diet can only be construed as lies meant to turn you into a Socialist and institute Sharia Law. Or make sure the checkout lady at the Kroger isn't a LEFTIST as she surely is plotting to overcharge you and hopefully Sarah Palin, if she ever got the chance, for your Mini-wheats, as well as use your excess coupons to fund ACORN.

AlphaLiberal said...

Jim, here is what Palin said:

"That huge waste that we have seen with the countless, countless hours that state staff is spending on these frivolous ethics violations and the millions of dollars that Alaskans are spending, that money not going to things that are very important, like troopers and roads and teachers and fish research," Palin said this week.

So, attorneys are going to be troopers and work on roads and do fish research? Really? Bullshit.

Here is what the article says:

But Murrow, the spokesperson, acknowledged to our reporter, Amanda Erickson, that this total was arrived at by adding up attorney hours spent on fending off complaints -- based on the fixed salaries of lawyers in the governor's office and the Department of Law. The money would have gone to the lawyers no matter what they were doing.

My emphasis.

Palin falsely stated that it cost the state $2M. The $1.9 million added cost to the state Palin falsely claimed was not, in fact and added cost.

I showed above how they inflated attorney costs.

A pretty simple concept. Twist and spin and insult all you will.

AlphaLiberal said...

Jim, so typical of the delusional and fantasy-based American conservatives to take any new information that punctures your world view and attack the source as not credible.

What that really means is you've lost the argument and that's all you have left.

Joe said...

Levi and Bristol announced their engagement was off around March 10. Since then, there has been a long series of sniping back and forth. I'm not going to recite it all here because that would be inane; I assume all of you can read so do so.

Levi is no doubt immature, and the fame surrounding Sarah Palin has given him a soapbox to whine upon. But it still isn't in a vacuum and any reading of various stories, including quotes from the Palin clan makes them come off pretty bad.

That aside, Sarah Palin isn't going to win elections with the way she and "her people" have been acting. They are coming across as petty and very defensive. The knee jerk defense of Palin will wear very thin with the populace. (And this from a guy who defended her in this very blog. But I've had it.)

AlphaLiberal said...

Jim starts flogging a strawman argument:

No. The fact that they were dismissed is only one part of the argument. The fact that they were frivolous is what made them frivolous. Holding a fish? You take that seriously? Giving an interview to a reporter? That's an ethical lapse? Wearing a jacket with a logo on it? WTF? .

Note: I didn't say none of the arguments were frivolous. I said that the process is suspect because the board making the call can be fired at the whim of the Governor.

And, as Mr Monegan (sp?) can attest, she's willing to fire people who won't carry her water.

Invisible Man said...

Which we've already covered here on multiple occasions: they would have been paid to conduct state business not defend against ethics complaints.

Jim,

I know some state attorney's in the bright Red state of Georgia, and if you don't know, those complaints merely forced them to have to work 3/4 of the days of the week instead of about half. One of these days your going to have to just admit that Sarah lies about as much as John Boehner tans.

AlphaLiberal said...

Jim claims:
they would have been paid to conduct state business

Ethics complaints ARE state business. And it's part of the job for attorneys.

But Palin lied when she said they could have been doing fish research or working on roads or whatever.

Jim said...

IM -

"I hope that you are making sure that all of your physicians aren't LEFTISTs, as of course their words about watching your diet can only be construed as lies meant to turn you into a Socialist and institute Sharia Law. Or make sure the checkout lady at the Kroger isn't a LEFTIST as she surely is plotting to overcharge you and hopefully Sarah Palin, if she ever got the chance, for your Mini-wheats, as well as use your excess coupons to fund ACORN."

While you may regard yourself as even mildly amusing, if I were looking to answers for questions of a political nature I would be highly unlikely to go to my physician or the checkout lady. While this may be your preferred method of sampling, I find that common sense and some knowledge of history to be a better guide.

Perhaps you should try it.

AlphaLiberal said...

Ahh, here's the money line that shows the ADN article I link to did in fact show Sara Palin's excuses were a pile of moose dung:

In other words, while these lawyers might have been free to do other legal work for the state, the ethics complaints have apparently not had the real world impact Palin has claimed, and didn't drain money away from cops, teachers, roads and other things. .

Or this one...

"Is it a check that we wrote, no, but is it staff hours, yes," Sharon Leighow, spokeswoman for Palin, said of the expenses related to state employee work. .

I also question Palin's claim that she had to spend $500,000 of her own money. Obviously the state provides attorneys. So why did she have personal costs?

Jim said...

Alpha -

"Note: I didn't say none of the arguments were frivolous. I said that the process is suspect because the board making the call can be fired at the whim of the Governor. "

You're trying to twist out of what you said, and I'm not going to let you do that.

You said that the reason I was asserting they were frivolous was because she won. So I pointed out that the claims were indeed frivolous, and now you're trying to claim that you never said they weren't frivolous.

So what was the point of saying that I was only asserting they were frivolous because she won if you weren't asserting that they weren't frivolous?

Sorry...claiming that you didn't say they weren't frivolous isn't going to wash. You clearly tried to imply they weren't and now you're trying to weasel out of it.

AlphaLiberal said...

Take it away, Peggy Noonan!

The era we face, that is soon upon us, will require a great deal from our leaders. They had better be sturdy. They will have to be gifted. There will be many who cannot, and should not, make the cut. Now is the time to look for those who can. And so the Republican Party should get serious, as serious as the age, because that is what a grown-up, responsible party—a party that deserves to lead—would do.

It's not a time to be frivolous, or to feel the temptation of resentment, or the temptation of thinking next year will be more or less like last year, and the assumptions of our childhoods will more or less reign in our future. It won't be that way.
.

AlphaLiberal said...

Jim:
You said that the reason I was asserting they were frivolous was because she won. So I pointed out that the claims were indeed frivolous, ...blah blah.

If you want to think so, I can't stop you.

You mentioned three complaints and only very lightly touched on the substance, in a mocking, fact-free and derisive way.

And, you said:

No. The fact that they were dismissed is only one part of the argument. .

So, I didn't twist a thing.

Hey, there's cold beer waiting for me! Have a nice weekend!

Jim said...

Alpha -

Once again,

"...have apparently not had the real world impact Palin has claimed, and didn't drain money away from cops, teachers, roads and other things."

Emphasis mine. Apparently. So even the ADN in their supposedly "damning" article isn't even asserting what you claim they're asserting. They said that, superficially, it might not be true - which given their political bias, is just as much of an admission that it might be true.

Do you know that the state of Alaska would have needed to retain as many attorneys or clerks or other employees if they did not have to deal with all this garbage? Do you have incontrovertible proof that this is the case? Since the answer to both is obviously no, then you are speculating as much as the ADN is.

If it helps, let's go back to the NYT's "story" on the John McCain "apparent" affair with the lobbyist. Yeah. Except it was neither "apparent" nor "true." So a newspaper using the word "apparently" is hardly the rock, solid proof that you claim to have on the subject. Next?

As far as your second quote, I've read through it several times trying to see in any way how that supports your thesis that state time and money wasn't spent. As the woman clearly says, they did.

"I also question Palin's claim that she had to spend $500,000 of her own money. Obviously the state provides attorneys. So why did she have personal costs?"

Because maybe she wanted to make sure her rights were protected? Because she didn't want to leave her future hanging on the performance of a government employee? Because she had an absolute right to have one?

What the hell business of yours is it why she had a lawyer? Is she billing the public for it? Did you get a bill in the mail that you haven't shared with anyone else? There's no reason to dispute her number other than because you don't like her, have never liked her, and never will. When you have an actual factual basis for disputing those numbers, or any other, get back to me.

Jim said...

Alpha -

"So, I didn't twist a thing. "

Except to twist my response by leaving out the body of it.

Like garage, your non-response response is proof enough of your own recognition of the untenability of your position.

Thanks for admitting you were wrong. Have a great weekend!

Fred4Pres said...

Andrew Sullivan's new best friend.

Invisible Man said...

Jim

Do you know that the state of Alaska would have needed to retain as many attorneys or clerks or other employees if they did not have to deal with all this garbage?

There isn't even a hint that the state had to hire new attorney's at any point because of these allegations. The burden of proof is on you or Sarah to show extra expenses not us.

If it helps, let's go back to the NYT's "story" on the John McCain "apparent" affair with the lobbyist.

I'm sure that this reasoning worked just as well when the DREADED MSM began questioning where Sanford is. Your paranoia has no basis in reality. All papers get some stories wrong, but NYT is faaarrrrrr more right than wrong. Thinking that everything is a conspiracy is based more on your silly fears than actual facts.

Because maybe she wanted to make sure her rights were protected? Because she didn't want to leave her future hanging on the performance of a government employee? Because she had an absolute right to have one?

John Coale, who set up Sarah's Legal Defense Fund and apparently runs SarahPAC, told Carlson that THEY reimbursed the state for the children's travel expenses and paid her legal bills for the other ethics charges. In other words Sarah Palin has paid NO out of pocket money due to these charges!

Invisible Man said...

Sorry meant to attribute that last quote to Immortal Minority who is quoting Margaret Carlson, Tucker's Mommie.

Jeremy said...

Jim - " The fact that they were frivolous is what made them frivolous."

I love it when I hear wingnuts whine about "frivolous" attacks or ethics violations being investigated.

This from the same assholes who fully supported Ken Starr spending right around 60 million to investigate the Clinton's involvement in a 30 year old land deal that meant absolutely nothing to anybody.

And then of course, the impeachment related to lying about getting blowjobs.

REALLY IMPORTANT stuff, huh...Jim??

Jim said...

IM -

"The burden of proof is on you or Sarah to show extra expenses not us."

You've got it exactly backwards. If you want to challenge her assertions, then you have to provide proof that her numbers are wrong. I have yet to see you or anyone do anything other than make allegations and insinuations. Which means that, absent proof to the contrary, Palin's statement stands uncontradicted.

"Thinking that everything is a conspiracy is based more on your silly fears than actual facts."

I know you're trying to be clever, but my point was that the ADN didn't provide any more proof of their allegation than the NYT did that McCain was having an affair with Isekoff. Now you can try to twist what I said any way you want, but it doesn't change the plain meaning of what I said, and it surely doesn't change the fact that the ADN didn't back up its own allegation.

"John Coale, who set up Sarah's Legal Defense Fund and apparently runs SarahPAC, told Carlson that THEY reimbursed the state for the children's travel expenses and paid her legal bills for the other ethics charges."

Which has exactly what to do with whether or not she had a right to have an attorney, which since you seem to have conveniently forgotten to mention, was the point?

As far as getting the PAC to pay for these things, good for her. I'm glad that her family isn't going to have to suffer for games that Leftists are trying to play. That people have donated money to help cover the bills doesn't change the fact that she and her family were on the hook personally for those bills absent the generosity of her supporters. So what's your point, or did you even have one?

Jim said...

I just love the fact that very same people who unquestioningly swallow Obama's assertion that he has "saved or created 150,000" jobs despite losing more than 2 million, all of a sudden want to play Sherlock Holmes and go line-by-line through Palin's estimate of the cost of the frivolous ethics complaints.

Perhaps if they had done half that much due diligence before the election, we wouldn't have to be dealing with such obviously disingenuousness as "jobs created or saved."

Jim said...

Jeremy -

Not to encourage your regularly scheduling ranting and raving, but Starr's investigation did result in 14 criminal convictions, so it's not exactly accurate to say that the land deal didn't mean anything to anybody. It certainly meant enough to at least 14 people that they committed crimes to make it happen.

Now, back to your cookie before your mother calls you in for dinner.

mariner said...

DBQ:
He is a low life turd, because Levi is going onto national forums, news shows, gossip columns and trashing his ex-girlfriend and her family. ...


I haven't been paying attention so I missed that.
To the extent that's true, I wonder to what extent his behavior is related to the Palins' treatment of him? It seems to me that Levi has been ill-used by his erstwhile family.

He seemed to be really interested in "doing the right thing" and in being there for his son, and the Palins dumped him.

That said, I believe Levi could use some mature adult advice.

mariner said...

Jim:
Yes, they can. That's why I said that Democrats are going to be very sorry that they opened up this particular can of worms for some short term "gotcha" politics.


No, they won't.

Republicans have neither the brains nor the balls to strike back.

Jim said...

mariner -

"Republicans have neither the brains nor the balls to strike back."

If we were relying strictly on the castratos that inhabit DC, you'd be correct. However, private citizens can file ethics complaints too, so I wouldn't be surprised to hear that many are studying up on the process even as we speak.

Tim Kaine, the Democratic Governor of VA, is already finding out how uncomfortable it can be when the ethics spotlight is turned on you and your hands aren't clean. I'm sure he won't nearly be the last.

Jim said...

mariner -

"He seemed to be really interested in "doing the right thing" and in being there for his son, and the Palins dumped him."

I think that's an unfair characterization. All we know is that he and Bristol broke up - which, as we all know, people do all the time, and the next thing you know he's on national talk shows "telling all" about his sex life with Bristol.

I'm confused as to what obligation the Palins had to him once he was no longer engaged to their daughter, or what special consideration he was due once he decided that talking having sex with their daughter on national TV was OK.

I know you're well-intentioned unlike some of our knee-jerk Leftist friends, so these are sincere questions as to where you think the Palins have done wrong by him rather than vice versa.

Beth said...

Which means that, absent proof to the contrary, Palin's statement stands uncontradicted.

No, her statement stands unsubtantiated. You are willing to take her at her word. I would never take any politician's assertion as a given, absent evidence to the contrary.

Beth said...

The fact that several ethics complaints were filed by a political rival who happens to be a Republican is only proof of what she always said: which is that she was willing to take on her own party to clean it up.

That is true, except for the "only" part: it's also proof that Republicans are willing to use the ethics option to go after their rivals.

Lawgiver said...

And then of course, the impeachment related to lying about getting blowjobs.

Oh, you mean the perjury and obstruction of justice charges Clinton faced. You mean Clinton's lying in a sworn disposition. You mean the Clinton who didn't know the definition of the word "is." You mean the Clinton who settled with Paula Jones for about 850K.

You're such an idiot Jeremy. I for one am glad you still post here. I love to see turds like you still crying about Clinton's impeachment.

WAAAAA, WAAAAA, WAAAAA, what a pussy baby.

Beth said...

I always confuse this kid with the guy Britney Spears married for 5 minutes. I bet they both have the same agent.

Jim said...

Beth -

" I would never take any politician's assertion as a given, absent evidence to the contrary."

I'm absolutely willing to hear any evidence to the contrary, but nobody has presented any. I know that some here like to paint me as a "Palinbot," but I feel like all I'm trying to do is stand up for a little reason and proportionality here.

I hear a lot of accusations being hurled at Palin, but whenever I check the smoke to find the fire all I keep finding is people blowing smoke: personal conjecture colored by their previous political views more than anything else.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on a lot of subjective opinions of Palin, but "agreeing to disagree" about facts simply isn't an option. Either something is or it is not. It's not, as Alpha asserted: "apparently."

Jim said...

Beth -

"That is true, except for the "only" part: it's also proof that Republicans are willing to use the ethics option to go after their rivals."

What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander, is it not?

Beth said...

Jim, it's politics. Full of gandering and goosing.

mariner said...

Jim:
... where you think the Palins have done wrong by him rather than vice versa.


I have the impression, based on my recollection of events at the time, that Levi was dumped once he was no longer useful as a political prop. If that's how it went down I believe it was despicable. If that's not how it went down I'll revise my impression. Unfortunately neither of us is in a position to really know.

I don't think Levi is conducting himself well at all. I just don't see this as one-sided as some others appear to.

WRT ethics complaints against Democrats, I'd rather you were right than I. Let's see.

mariner said...

Beth:
That is true, except for the "only" part: it's also proof that Republicans are willing to use the ethics option to go after their rivals.


Yes, it's true that corrupt Republicans are as willing as corrupt Democrats to use phony ethics complaints against their rivals.

Methadras said...

mariner said...

I'm curious: why is Levi Johnston a low-life turd, if Bristol Palin is not a low-life slut? Two teenagers did the nasty and the girl got pregnant. It took both of them.


You see it all the time. Upper middle-class girl finds hunky lower scale trailer trash attractive. Throw in a dash of high school drama, athlete to her cheerleader, hormones ensue and you have the obvious coupling and product of that union. Now if I were Todd Palin, Levi and I would having a pretty non-civil discussion. Frankly, I'd be kicking his ass from Anchorage to Barrow and tell him to shove off. There isn't room in my family for low-life filth.

If my daughter was Bristol, let's just say I'd be rubbing the mistake of getting on her back and letting that piece of trash between her legs and inject himself into my family for a long, long time so she gets the message to choose a way more properly next time.

Big Mike said...

If my daughter was Bristol, let's just say I'd be rubbing the mistake of getting on her back and letting that piece of trash between her legs and inject himself into my family for a long, long time

No you wouldn't. I'm guessing that you don't have teenagers (and never did) or you're a control freak or, most likely, you're fooling yourself (and fooling oneself is the easiest thing in the universe). By now Bristol realizes that she made a big mistake and at the moment she needs help. And if she's like any other teenager I know, desperately needing your parents is the worst thing that can befall a teenager.

As for me, I'm glad I had sons.

former law student said...

Why don't people here think Levi is credible? He should have learned from the Palins' vendetta against Trooper Wooten how hard they come down on those who go against the family. His wisest course was to say nothing. Instead he stuck his neck out.

Why?

Jim said...

fls -

"Why don't people here think Levi is credible?"

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can tell you why I personally don't think he's credible: Because he went on national TV to talk about having sex with Bristol.

That's not the act of a person with integrity, and if you're willing to sell out the mother of your child for 15 mintues of fame then why would I believe that you wouldn't do anything else for another 15 minutes?

There's a little thing called character that the young man is obviously missing, and once it's clear that you don't have character, then nothing else out of your mouth means anything to me any more.

Jim said...

Big Mike -

I won't get into all the personal details, but I couldn't agree more with your post. Loving parents have to do what they have to do when their children make mistakes which Bristol clearly did.

I give Bristol a lot of credit for voluntarily stepping up and speaking candidly about her experience and telling other teens not to follow in her footsteps.

I know certain of our Leftist friends here think that makes her a valid target for scorn and ridicule since she happens to be related to Palin, but it's heartless and it bespeaks a certain cruel streak that evidently knows no bounds. She's walking a tough road, and standing up for what she thinks is the right thing to do despite all the vile trash that's being talked about her. No matter what anyone else thinks, I think that regardless of having made a mistake (which, if we're all honest, we have all done) that she's a good reflection on the Palins' parenting.

Beth said...

He should have learned from the Palins' vendetta against Trooper Wooten how hard they come down on those who go against the family.

I have no idea how much of what he says about the Palins is truth and how much is ginned up, but so far as why he'd take the chance? He is family. He's the father of Bristol's child. Wooten was, reportedly, physically abusive. This kid's just an immature idiot. He'll run his public course. There's no upside for the Palin's to crush him like a bug.

former law student said...

I can tell you why I personally don't think he's credible: Because he went on national TV to talk about having sex with Bristol.

That's not the act of a person with integrity,

But he did have sex with Bristol. He was naive,or an "immature idiot," as Beth said, but there's no indication he wasn't being truthful when he went on Tyra Banks.

He's out, father or not. Trooper Wooten made Sarah an aunt, but he's out anyways.

He may enjoy the role of being Sarah Palin's debunker, a one man truth squad. But that doesn't make him a liar.

Jim said...

fls -

"But he did have sex with Bristol."

Which proves what exactly? That going on national TV to talk about is a good idea? Ask yourself if you think it would have been a good idea for your father to spread his sex life with your mother around on national TV would have made you feel good as their child? Is that really a moment that's going to make you feel proud inside to say "That's my dad, I'm so glad the country knows all the intimate details about his sex with my mom. I feel better now."? Somehow I don't think so.

You have no idea whether one word he said on Tyra Banks was true. Neither do I. You're assuming that every word he said was truth when he was on the show. Based on nothing more than your presumption that if someone says something that Sarah Palin doesn't like then it must necessarily be true.

What he did was crass and low and only served his own interest. He wasn't thinking about his child. He was thinking about one person: Levi Johnston. If you think that somehow makes him a person of integrity, then you either don't understand the concept or you're feigning ignorance because your world would fall in on itself if you were forced to admit that somebody other than Sarah Palin might be at fault for anything ever.

A man of such base character cannot be trusted. If you cannot be trusted in small things, then you cannot be trusted in large things. He proved he could not be trusted with something that is intimately private of no one's concern but him, Bristol and their child. End of story.

former law student said...

What he did was crass and low and only served his own interest.

Which was what, exactly?

If you cannot be trusted in small things, then you cannot be trusted in large things.

Now you understand why I oppose Sarah Palin -- her character has flaws big enough to drive a Mack truck through. She has been caught lying flat-footed too many times.

Bruce Hayden said...

I'm curious: why is Levi Johnston a low-life turd, if Bristol Palin is not a low-life slut? Two teenagers did the nasty and the girl got pregnant. It took both of them.

I would suggest because she has stepped up and taken responsibility for her actions (of having unprotected sex outside marriage) and he has not.

I would give him more slack if I were to see evidence that he was making a serious attempt to provide half the parenting of their kid, from a time, money, and interest point of view. I haven't seen it yet.

We also don't really know why the two of them broke off the engagement, but I do somehow remember rumors that he was sleeping around a bit. Of course, that is the problem here all around - rumors.

Bruce Hayden said...

This will all be interesting. I am not surprised at the avid lefties here claiming that this will make sure that Palin won't win, won't be the Republican nominee for President, etc. But, I would suggest that anything coming from the keyboard of someone who invariably supports Democrats and attacks Republicans is first off, not a very good judge of what sells in the Republican part, and secondly, is more likely trying to sell disinformation than anything else.

As I have pointed out before, I think that the reason that the lefties here, and elsewhere so despise Sarah Palin is that she is the one Republican who could make serious inroads into one of the Democrats critical demographics - the Reagan Democrats, who are typically socially conservative, lower middle class, and possibly union workers or affiliated. She speaks their language, and Obama doesn't even have a idea of how to connect with them.

The problem with Peggy Noonan here is that she comes from the demographic most impressed with Obama - the bi-coastal intellectual "elite", of which he is a part, and Biden would like to join (if he were smart enough).

Jim said...

fls -

"Which was what, exactly?"

Are you having attention deficiency issues? We're talking about him talking about his sex life with Bristol on Tyra Banks.

"She has been caught lying flat-footed too many times."

You kept making that claim, but every time you do you keep failing to make your case. The best you've ever done is, at best, come up with an instance of "he said, she said" and then claimed that because someone else said she lied that's proof. It's not.

Jim said...

Bruce -

"...the reason that the lefties here, and elsewhere so despise Sarah Palin is that she is the one Republican who could make serious inroads into one of the Democrats critical demographics..."

I agree with you about Reagan Democrats and would add "feminists" to the list. I'm not talking about the self-styled arbiters of feminism who command the editorial pages. I'm talking about women who reside outside of major metropolitan areas who consider themselves feminists but who aren't wrapped up in Leftist politics.

Look at the number of Hillary supporters who crossed the aisle to support Palin - even with all the disinformation about her stances on abortion, evolution, etc. There's a reason that Leftists take such pains to lie about Palin's positions: they know if they didn't false paint her as a radical then they risked more defections.

Remember that 53% of the population (women) are still looking for their "historic first." Leftists are scared to death it could be a woman that doesn't toe the Leftist party line as that could permanently shatter their coalition which depends on fear-mongering among women to stay intact.