Sarah Palin to Contribute to Fox News

[Badandy]

She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is. She thinks being close to Russia is foreign policy experience. She can't name a newspaper she reads. She can't name another SCOTUS case besides Roe v Wade. She couldn't name specific regulations on Wall Street that McCain supported. This is all on tape in her own words. No bias, no hearsay, just quite obvious, plain as day examples of why she is not intellectually capable of being president.

IntheNet: Please respond to this post. These examples aren't slip of the tongue mistakes that every politician makes on the campaign trail (57 states, etc...), these are genuine instances of her not knowing her stuff - important stuff. Basic stuff. How is she qualified to be President of the United States given the preceding information?[/QUOTE]

[Teh Don Ditty]

IntheNet: Please respond to this post. These examples aren't slip of the tongue mistakes that every politician makes on the campaign trail (57 states, etc...), these are genuine instances of her not knowing her stuff - important stuff. Basic stuff. How is she qualified to be President of the United States given the preceding information?

Keep dreaming. You know and everyone else knows he won't directly answer.

[yg17]

IntheNet: Please respond to this post. These examples aren't slip of the tongue mistakes that every politician makes on the campaign trail (57 states, etc...), these are genuine instances of her not knowing her stuff - important stuff. Basic stuff. How is she qualified to be President of the United States given the preceding information?

Keep dreaming. You know and everyone else knows he won't directly answer.

I think you have a better chance of being struck by lightning right after winning the Powerball jackpot than you do gettign a response from him.

[63dot]

If you examine her beliefs, and the larger beliefs of the Tea Party movement, you will not find "hate," as you allege, between the Tea Party movement and the Republican Party. What you will find, however, are Americans pushing for loyalty to the conservative message that some alleged Republicans have strayed too far from. A return to our roots... Fiscal discipline, less obtrusive federal government, protection for the unborn, strong military, and more powers at the state level are all long-term conservative beliefs. Regrettably, some Republicans pay only lip service to these beliefs. The genesis of the Tea Party movement, now populated and supported by conservatives, independents, and liberals, was in response to president Bush's wild excess spending of the TARP funds and continued in response to president Obama's deficit spending today. Think of the Tea Party movement as the sanctifying force of conservatism; to remind Republicans what the party believes in conservative government. The movement will make the Republican Party better.

Here is my take. I was a paleo-conservative who believed in what Republicans used to believe. It's about fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Period. The GOP left that stance and now I am a Democrat (since 1990).

Helping the unborn was never a core Republican value as a true conservative, as I once was in the 70s/part of 80s, because it is an intrusion into one's personal liberties. And I am pro-life, but I know a political issue from a personal religious one. I worship Christ but I am against establishing a national religion. Battling the gay agenda is also not a conservative belief from the paleo playbook since that's also an intrusion into personal liberty.

Nixon was so disgusted when the Christians started invading his party and taking the focus away from the business of America, which is business, to borrow a quote.

As a devout Christian, I preach individually and I pray and read the Bible in private, not through a political forum or party like King Herod who though himself to not only be a leader but a sort of god, the Pharisees, or Saducees. In Bible college (Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa) I learned that Christians are here to win souls, not elections like some "other" churches are interested in. We never got into politics, not once. Mixing the two is blasphemy of the highest order I can think of.

Just my two cents.

[IntheNet]

Here is my take. I was a paleo-conservative who believed in what Republicans used to believe. It's about fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Period. The GOP left that stance and now I am a Democrat (since 1990).

Okay... it's early afternoon and I want to believe you here but do you expect us to follow your logic if you tell us that because you are for fiscal discipline now you're following the Democrats? Really? With Obama's 12 months of spending excess? With Pelosi and Reid spending money like a drunk sailor in a whorehouse? You hear what the Democrats spent on their recent trip to Copenhagen? On a single weekend?

Helping the unborn was never a core Republican value as a true conservative, as I once was in the 70s/part of 80s, because it is an intrusion into one's personal liberties.

Sorry... You're just wrong here completely; when abortion came about as an established medical procedure (well before Roe v. Wade) it was promptly condemned by conservatives and added to the Republican Party as a plank of opposition. Abortion has long-standing opposition... Moreover, the reason abortion gained Republican opposition is not the "intrusion into one's personal liberties" but the death of the fetus, denying that child any liberty whatsoever.

And I am pro-life, but I know a political issue from a personal religious one. I worship Christ but I am against establishing a national religion. Battling the gay agenda is also not a conservative belief from the paleo playbook since that's also an intrusion into personal liberty.

Can't have your cake and eat it too... you can't call yourself pro-life then associate action on behalf of the innocent fetus an "intrusion into personal liberty." That's a cop-out. Secondly, nobody is advocating establishing a national religion; that is an ACLU-generated myth to rally the secular. You should be smart enough to see through that.

As a devout Christian, I preach individually and I pray and read the Bible in private, not through a political forum or party like King Herod who though himself to not only be a leader but a sort of god, the Pharisees, or Saducees. In Bible college (Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa) I learned that Christians are here to win souls, not elections like some "other" churches are interested in. We never got into politics, not once. Mixing the two is blasphemy of the highest order I can think of.

The words "separation of Church and State" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. This whole idea was withdrawn from a private letter Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist congregation; it has no basis of law behind it in this nation. Screaming that it does only causes laryngitis!

I'd like to speak more in depth on this but Sarah Palin is live on the Glenn Beck show and that has my complete attention, as it should every American.

[Eraserhead]

The words "separation of Church and State" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. This whole idea was withdrawn from a private letter Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist congregation;

True. However:

it has no basis of law behind it in this nation. Screaming that it does only causes laryngitis!

Complete nonsense. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I'd like to speak more in depth on this but Sarah Palin is live on the Glenn Beck show and that has my complete attention, as it should every American.
Fox News has taught you well. Every American should think, act and believe just the way Fox News wants.

[Queso]

The words "separation of Church and State" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. This whole idea was withdrawn from a private letter Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist congregation; it has no basis of law behind it in this nation. Screaming that it does only causes laryngitis!
The word god doesn't appear either.

[KingYaba]

The only reason Mrs. Palin is on Fox News is to stay visible and then launch her candidacy. From a ratings perspective I expect Fox's to go even higher. Good for both parties. Still, I doubt she has anything original to add when asked to comment on a specific story.

[rdowns]

Wow. Just wow.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001130039

She's even dumber than I thought.

[Queso]

It's almost like listening to an 8-year old doing a Show and Tell isn't it?

[yg17]

Okay... it's early afternoon and I want to believe you here but do you expect us to follow your logic if you tell us that because you are for fiscal discipline now you're following the Democrats? Really? With Obama's 12 months of spending excess? With Pelosi and Reid spending money like a drunk sailor in a whorehouse? You hear what the Democrats spent on their recent trip to Copenhagen? On a single weekend?



Sorry... You're just wrong here completely; when abortion came about as an established medical procedure (well before Roe v. Wade) it was promptly condemned by conservatives and added to the Republican Party as a plank of opposition. Abortion has long-standing opposition... Moreover, the reason abortion gained Republican opposition is not the "intrusion into one's personal liberties" but the death of the fetus, denying that child any liberty whatsoever.



Can't have your cake and eat it too... you can't call yourself pro-life then associate action on behalf of the innocent fetus an "intrusion into personal liberty." That's a cop-out. Secondly, nobody is advocating establishing a national religion; that is an ACLU-generated myth to rally the secular. You should be smart enough to see through that.



The words "separation of Church and State" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. This whole idea was withdrawn from a private letter Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist congregation; it has no basis of law behind it in this nation. Screaming that it does only causes laryngitis!

I'd like to speak more in depth on this but Sarah Palin is live on the Glenn Beck show and that has my complete attention, as it should every American.

I think you have a better chance of being struck by lightning right after winning the Powerball jackpot than you do gettign a response from him.

Well, I think I'm going to go buy a lottery ticket and find the nearest thunderstorm. Nice knowing you guys. If I survive the lightning, I'll share my winnings.

[macfan881]

Wow. Just wow.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001130039

She's even dumber than I thought.

I loved How they went out and Said her first Thing She will be Covering is a Tea Party i Guess Faux hasnt change there position on promoting news.

[rdowns]

It's almost like listening to an 8-year old doing a Show and Tell isn't it?


Bingo. :D

You can see her trying to remember the rehearsed phrases and put them together into something intelligent.

[Eraserhead]

Even Glenn Beck looked really embarrassed and awkward by talking to her.

[Thomas Veil]

Proof?At this point I want to do my Jim Mora imitation:

(incredulous look) "Proof? Proof?? Don't talk to me about proof! Are you kidding me? Proof???"

[Zombie Acorn]

Wow. Just wow.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001130039

She's even dumber than I thought.

She had to buy some time to think of that one.

[yg17]

Wow. Just wow.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001130039

She's even dumber than I thought.

What a ********** dolt. Looking at Beck's facial expressions, even he was thinking "Holy crap, is she really that stupid?"

[XNine]

i quite frankly find it odd that anyone would hire this imbecile, even odder that we have 11 pages talking about the daft twat. She's a terrible, worthless human being with nothing but lies and bile to spill from her tongue.

[jecapaga]

It's almost like listening to an 8-year old doing a Show and Tell isn't it?

Exactly what I thought. It was like a 6 year old trying to tell their daddy what they learned in school that day. Unbelievable.

[Badandy]

She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is. She thinks being close to Russia is foreign policy experience. She can't name a newspaper she reads. She can't name another SCOTUS case besides Roe v Wade. She couldn't name specific regulations on Wall Street that McCain supported. This is all on tape in her own words. No bias, no hearsay, just quite obvious, plain as day examples of why she is not intellectually capable of being president.

IntheNet: Please respond to this post. These examples aren't slip of the tongue mistakes that every politician makes on the campaign trail (57 states, etc...), these are genuine instances of her not knowing her stuff - important stuff. Basic stuff. How is she qualified to be President of the United States given the preceding information?


As far as I'm concerned, this thread is pretty much over unless IntheNet addresses this. I know he/she's reluctant to, but I urge other PRSI contributors to not prolong this thread until we hold IntheNet accountable to legitimate, honest complaints against his beliefs.

[hulugu]

IntheNet: Please respond to this post. These examples aren't slip of the tongue mistakes that every politician makes on the campaign trail (57 states, etc...), these are genuine instances of her not knowing her stuff - important stuff. Basic stuff. How is she qualified to be President of the United States given the preceding information?


As far as I'm concerned, this thread is pretty much over unless IntheNet addresses this. I know he/she's reluctant to, but I urge other PRSI contributors to not prolong this thread until we hold IntheNet accountable to legitimate, honest complaints against his beliefs.

Badandy, holding until your question is answered.

[macfan881]

Wow. Just wow.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001130039

She's even dumber than I thought.

LMAO I can see glen beck is biting his finger to hold back at yelling just how dumb and idiotic she is I think its safe to say today Palin made glen beck look like a albert enstien today on his show.

[yayitsezekiel]

i'm a conservative, but i think Sarah Palin is a joke. Not to offend anybody, but she just doesn't know her stuff. :rolleyes:

[applesupergeek]

What? Another colossal moron at fox? Who would have thunk it....fox being the pedestal of intelligent political discourse that it is.

The iq there is lower than that on the Madame Tuseaud's wax museum after midnight, guards not included.

[kainjow]

Wow. Just wow.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001130039

She's even dumber than I thought.

Beck: Who's your favorite founder?
Palin: Well, all of them...

Sounds familiar? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y#t=00m03s

Couric: What newspapers and magazines did you regularly read?
Palin: ...All of them, any of them...

:D

As far as I'm concerned, this thread is pretty much over unless IntheNet addresses this. I know he/she's reluctant to, but I urge other PRSI contributors to not prolong this thread until we hold IntheNet accountable to legitimate, honest complaints against his beliefs.

This thread isn't about IntheNet. If you want him to reply, fine, but forcing him (or anyone else) to respond to every single one of your requests is unrealistic and plain silly. Can we stop jumping at each other's throats every chance we get, and start learning to ignore those who we know we should ignore? I'd suggest anyone PM me if you want to discuss further so we don't take this thread too OT. Thanks.

[applesupergeek]

To be fair, an even bigger moron was in the oval office for 8 years just because his dad run the ci of a, and his grand dad was one of the biggest opium smugglers in the country, speaks volumes about the U.S. Not that it's that much better elsewhere, but you can't deny politics in the U.S. is really a dumpster.

[63dot]

Okay... it's early afternoon and I want to believe you here but do you expect us to follow your logic if you tell us that because you are for fiscal discipline now you're following the Democrats? Really? With Obama's 12 months of spending excess? With Pelosi and Reid spending money like a drunk sailor in a whorehouse? You hear what the Democrats spent on their recent trip to Copenhagen? On a single weekend?



Sorry... You're just wrong here completely; when abortion came about as an established medical procedure (well before Roe v. Wade) it was promptly condemned by conservatives and added to the Republican Party as a plank of opposition. Abortion has long-standing opposition... Moreover, the reason abortion gained Republican opposition is not the "intrusion into one's personal liberties" but the death of the fetus, denying that child any liberty whatsoever.



Can't have your cake and eat it too... you can't call yourself pro-life then associate action on behalf of the innocent fetus an "intrusion into personal liberty." That's a cop-out. Secondly, nobody is advocating establishing a national religion; that is an ACLU-generated myth to rally the secular. You should be smart enough to see through that.



The words "separation of Church and State" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. This whole idea was withdrawn from a private letter Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist congregation; it has no basis of law behind it in this nation. Screaming that it does only causes laryngitis!




Wow, that's a mouthful. I will take the issues here in reverse order:

You appear take what I say out of context and I know you are not doing this to be mean, so let's get that straight. I get it, you are passionate about Palin and there is nothing wrong with that.

In the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, what was a consensus is that the United States was not to establish a state religion, such as the Church of England. It's not a far jump to call that separation of church and state. What would you call not establishing a state religion? ... "Oh, let's go start a one world government/religion super democracy and mix up God, war, and money?"

...............

What do you say of all the Republicans who are pro-choice? Do you want to kick them out and send them over to the Democrats? And you talk about logic? What about my former pro-choice Governor, Pete Wilson, a Republican?

Some conservatives did not like abortion, some did not care, but you were not around then I take it. Core Republican values centered around supporting business, large and small, having a smaller government, and not intruding into people's personal lives.

You have a belief but you were never a paleo conservative like me. You were not even born then.

What you profess is not good or bad, but it isn't anything close to traditional conservatism from the Eisenhower through early Reagan days. It is neo-conservatism, starting with Pat Robertson and that's OK, it's a viewpoint millions of Americans share with you, but not paleo-conservatives who want fundamental Republican values first. Please do a little political research before you try and rewrite the history of the GOP before Reagan's second term.

BTW, about when were you born?

How many elections did you vote in?

I am not saying you don't know what you are talking about, but I am talking about history over a long period of time, not the latest flavor of the month for the neo-cons.

...........................................

And why does a person like me who wants a balanced budget be a Democrat? Clinton saw surpluses and how much different is Obama? In the long run the idea of national health care besides expanding coverage is to save money. The Clinton years were paying off our debts, not creating them in most sectors. The spending which gave us little or no positive gain was during GW Bush, and his administration left us with the nation's biggest debt after two full terms. Let's judge Obama after one full term and see who spent better and saved when it was prudent.

[63dot]

Beck: Who's your favorite founder?
Palin: Well, all of them...

Sounds familiar? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y#t=00m03s

Couric: What newspapers and magazines did you regularly read?
Palin: ...All of them, any of them...

:D



I cannot believe how bad Palin was with O'Reilly.

I know she gaffed with Couric.

I won't watch the Beck interview until I read Palin's book. I seriously want to understand her and what made McCain choose her. I respect John McCain, and maybe, just maybe, there is something politically good or practical about Palin that I just have not seen yet. Maybe America needs an outsider.

I read Colin Powell's book, and before the lie he told the UN about weapons of mass destruction, I would have probably voted for him even though I am a Democrat.

I will give Palin another chance as I have promised InTheNet. I try and find valid points he makes, but I want to talk to him in the context of Palin as a candidate for the whole GOP, not just a wing within that party. If she takes just a small slice of the GOP, she is doomed.

The next GOP Presidential candidate will have to win over all factions of that party in order to win the GOP nomination and expect independents to be won over in large enough numbers, in order to win the election in 2012.

When I am done with Palin's book, I will watch the Beck interview.

[jb1280]

I cannot believe how bad Palin was with O'Reilly.

I know she gaffed with Couric.

I won't watch the Beck interview until I read Palin's book. I seriously want to understand her and what made McCain choose her. I respect John McCain, and maybe, just maybe, there is something politically good or practical about Palin that I just have not seen yet. Maybe America needs an outsider.



First, Palin is no longer an outsider.

Second, do you still respect John McCain or is this in a past tense?

If you still respect John McCain how do you square that with the 2008 campaign?

He ran a patently unserious campaign that culminated in the nearly criminal negligent act of selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate at the last moment.

There was always the idea that McCain was a serious person who actually did put "Country First." Palin's selection was cynical and a gross failure to uphold his responsibility to the American polity.

How does a man in his 70s who has survived multiple instances of melanoma pick a woman who lacks the knowledge base, intellectual capacity, and intellectual curiosity to be President of the United States?

Since the election, McCain has also been more interested in his reelection to the Senate than to serving the United States.

Simply, the selection of Sarah Palin has demonstrated that John McCain is no longer fit to hold high office and the only way to salvage his historical legacy is to either resign his seat or not seek reelection and write a publication detailing why he selected her, why he continued his campaign despite the known dangers she brought, and why he has defended her since.

[Eraserhead]

To be fair, an even bigger moron was in the oval office for 8 years just because his dad run the ci of a, and his grand dad was one of the biggest opium smugglers in the country, speaks volumes about the U.S. Not that it's that much better elsewhere, but you can't deny politics in the U.S. is really a dumpster.

No, Palin is way dumber than Bush, it seems she makes the average 6 year old look intelligent.

[Badandy]

This thread isn't about IntheNet. If you want him to reply, fine, but forcing him (or anyone else) to respond to every single one of your requests is unrealistic and plain silly. Can we stop jumping at each other's throats every chance we get, and start learning to ignore those who we know we should ignore? I'd suggest anyone PM me if you want to discuss further so we don't take this thread too OT. Thanks.

I'm questioning the assertions he has made in this thread. Nothing more. People are free to ignore me if they want, but I'm not the one straying off topic. If the poster in question wishes to throw out baseless arguments on how Sarah Palin is well-versed in national and international issues (as was his assertion originally) I don't think I'm in the wrong for asking for him/her to back it up. What I'm doing isn't against the rules (or off-topic) and IntheNet's continual refusal to address valid points is also not against the rules - just a little bit telling of the merit of his/her arguments.

[IntheNet]

...continual refusal to address valid points...

See Badandy... that's the key... most of the "points" in this thread - that the liberals try to tag Palin with - are invalid. It is not so much that I refuse to address them; I refuse to admit they're valid... huge difference....

Let's take the overriding one - that Palin (as liberals allege in post after post) is somehow "mentally challenged," unqualified (in their words) to hold public office. Let's address that with facts. She holds a college journalism degree, she advanced rapidly through Alaska politics, she held a mayor position, she held the chairmanship of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, she advanced to the governor's office, she competed in a national election as a vice president candidate, she authored a NYT-bestselling memoir that is still number one, and in the last six months, in one of the toughest economic climates, she made several million dollars. In her latest position, she signs with the leading cable news outfit as a political commentator. If all of that, in the empty mind of a flagrant liberal, qualifies as being "mentally challenged," would that we were all so. No; the fact here is quite clear, liberals are not against Palin so much as what she stands for; independent conservative woman who is against abortion, pro-abortion, pro-family, pro-gun, and anti-government. All the liberals worst fears. Liberals attack her, they attack her family, they go out of their way to call her stupid. What liberals are trying to tag Palin with, being unqualified, is completely invalid based on her demonstrated experience; responding to it an exercise in futility.

Let's take the secondary one; that Palin (as liberals allege in post after post) cannot articulate or (in their words) is "rhetorically challenged" in some way. Best example of their allegation happened during campaign 2008 when Palin was interviewed by ABC's Charlie Gibson and asked about "Bush Doctrine." Gibson's specific verbiage at beginning of interview here, in his question, was vague (quotes are verbatim and taken from 09-11-08 ABC interview); to wit:

GIBSON: "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"
PALIN: "In what respect, Charlie?"
Gibson then followed up:
GIBSON: "The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?"
Another vague assessment by Gibson, trying to get Palin to commit. It went on:
PALIN: "His world view?"
GIBSON: "No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war."
Palin, having something to go on finally, responded:
PALIN: "I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better."
Not happy with that, Gibson adds his own definition to his initial question then tries to get Palin to defend it:
GIBSON: "The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"
Note that the definition Gibson surfaces is his own construct (certainly not President Bush's) and then he wants Palin to defend it! Palin responds:
PALIN: "Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend."

Seems an intellectual, thought-out response on Palin's part. Who's clueless here? Not Palin to be sure. Moreover; I can't, in inclusive terms even today, summarize the "Bush Doctrine" even now, after eight years of his presidency, into a short brief summation as Gibson requested. I doubt anyone here could without being rambling, because such doctrine, if there is one, varied based on Al Qaeda, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other security factors during Bush presidency. The definition Gibson articulates is certainly not one that Bush would subscribe to, far less one Palin should be forced to define.Nonetheless, following this interview, liberals ran around like wild banshees screaming about Palin's lack of response. I thought she did well, considering the Gibson interview was one of her first under the limelight.

So Badandy... I say again, most of the "points" in this thread - that the liberals try to tag Palin with - are invalid. It is not so much that I refuse to address them; I refuse to admit they're valid. Come up with legitimate political complaints against Palin and I'll respond. But bring your B-game crap from liberal rags that Palin is somehow not qualified due to lack of intellectual capability, or that Palin cannot speak or respond to points, and I'll prove you wrong based simply on facts.

[leekohler]

I'm questioning the assertions he has made in this thread. Nothing more. People are free to ignore me if they want, but I'm not the one straying off topic. If the poster in question wishes to throw out baseless arguments on how Sarah Palin is well-versed in national and international issues (as was his assertion originally) I don't think I'm in the wrong for asking for him/her to back it up. What I'm doing isn't against the rules (or off-topic) and IntheNet's continual refusal to address valid points is also not against the rules - just a little bit telling of the merit of his/her arguments.

And I don't blame you for it. If I were a conservative and had to put up with people like that calling themselves conservative, I'd be demanding answers too.

[Eraserhead]

See Badandy... that's the key... most of the "points" in this thread - that the liberals try to tag Palin with - are invalid. It is not so much that I refuse to address them; I refuse to admit they're valid... huge difference....

Why not discuss her appearance on Beck a few days back, and how she sounded and how Beck looked on that show?

[leekohler]

Why not discuss her appearance on Beck a few days back, and how she sounded and how Beck looked on that show?

Invalid points? OMG :eek: INVALID POINTS!!!????:eek::eek:

This woman is quite possibly the biggest idiot and media whore ever to run for VP. Even my parents, who are staunch Republicans voted for Obama because of her. That alone is quite a valid point. The woman also left Wasilla with huge amounts of debt and couldn't even finish her term as governor. She is not fit to go anywhere near the White House. That should be obvious, just form those two points alone. She also has terrible family problems that she has shown she's terrible at coping with.

[yg17]

See Badandy... that's the key... most of the "points" in this thread - that the liberals try to tag Palin with - are invalid. It is not so much that I refuse to address them; I refuse to admit they're valid... huge difference....

Let's take the overriding one - that Palin (as liberals allege in post after post) is somehow "mentally challenged," unqualified (in their words) to hold public office. Let's address that with facts. She holds a college journalism degree, she advanced rapidly through Alaska politics, she held a mayor position, she held the chairmanship of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, she advanced to the governor's office, she competed in a national election as a vice president candidate, she authored a NYT-bestselling memoir that is still number one, and in the last six months, in one of the toughest economic climates, she made several million dollars. In her latest position, she signs with the leading cable news outfit as a political commentator. If all of that, in the empty mind of a flagrant liberal, qualifies as being "mentally challenged," would that we were all so. No; the fact here is quite clear, liberals are not against Palin so much as what she stands for; independent conservative woman who is against abortion, pro-abortion, pro-family, pro-gun, and anti-government. All the liberals worst fears. Liberals attack her, they attack her family, they go out of their way to call her stupid. What liberals are trying to tag Palin with, being unqualified, is completely invalid based on her demonstrated experience; responding to it an exercise in futility.

Let's take the secondary one; that Palin (as liberals allege in post after post) cannot articulate or (in their words) is "rhetorically challenged" in some way. Best example of their allegation happened during campaign 2008 when Palin was interviewed by ABC's Charlie Gibson and asked about "Bush Doctrine." Gibson's specific verbiage at beginning of interview here, in his question, was vague (quotes are verbatim and taken from 09-11-08 ABC interview); to wit:

GIBSON: "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"
PALIN: "In what respect, Charlie?"
Gibson then followed up:
GIBSON: "The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?"
Another vague assessment by Gibson, trying to get Palin to commit. It went on:
PALIN: "His world view?"
GIBSON: "No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war."
Palin, having something to go on finally, responded:
PALIN: "I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better."
Not happy with that, Gibson adds his own definition to his initial question then tries to get Palin to defend it:
GIBSON: "The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"
Note that the definition Gibson surfaces is his own construct (certainly not President Bush's) and then he wants Palin to defend it! Palin responds:
PALIN: "Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend."

Seems an intellectual, thought-out response on Palin's part. Who's clueless here? Not Palin to be sure. Moreover; I can't, in inclusive terms even today, summarize the "Bush Doctrine" even now, after eight years of his presidency, into a short brief summation as Gibson requested. I doubt anyone here could without being rambling, because such doctrine, if there is one, varied based on Al Qaeda, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other security factors during Bush presidency. The definition Gibson articulates is certainly not one that Bush would subscribe to, far less one Palin should be forced to define.Nonetheless, following this interview, liberals ran around like wild banshees screaming about Palin's lack of response. I thought she did well, considering the Gibson interview was one of her first under the limelight.

So Badandy... I say again, most of the "points" in this thread - that the liberals try to tag Palin with - are invalid. It is not so much that I refuse to address them; I refuse to admit they're valid. Come up with legitimate political complaints against Palin and I'll respond. But bring your B-game crap from liberal rags that Palin is somehow not qualified due to lack of intellectual capability, or that Palin cannot speak or respond to points, and I'll prove you wrong based simply on facts.
And you still ignored the other points that Badandy wants you to answer.

A swing and a miss....

[jb1280]

Seems an intellectual, thought-out response on Palin's part. Who's clueless here? Not Palin to be sure. Moreover; I can't, in inclusive terms even today, summarize the "Bush Doctrine" even now, after eight years of his presidency, into a short brief summation as Gibson requested. I doubt anyone here could without being rambling, because such doctrine, if there is one, varied based on Al Qaeda, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other security factors during Bush presidency. The definition Gibson articulates is certainly not one that Bush would subscribe to, far less one Palin should be forced to define.Nonetheless, following this interview, liberals ran around like wild banshees screaming about Palin's lack of response. I thought she did well, considering the Gibson interview was one of her first under the limelight.

So Badandy... I say again, most of the "points" in this thread - that the liberals try to tag Palin with - are invalid. It is not so much that I refuse to address them; I refuse to admit they're valid. Come up with legitimate political complaints against Palin and I'll respond. But bring your B-game crap from liberal rags that Palin is somehow not qualified due to lack of intellectual capability, or that Palin cannot speak or respond to points, and I'll prove you wrong based simply on facts.

I suggest you read up then:

Bush Doctrine as defined by contemporaries from the NSS in 2006 refer to page 18:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/nss2006.pdf

This: http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=459 by John L. Gaddis is an intellectual look at the issue of presidential doctrines.

What you presented from Palin is similar to the ramblings of an undergraduate student writing an essay who writes paragraphs without saying anything in the hope of tricking the reader.

[rdowns]

IntheNet, you keep posting the same lies over and over. They have been refuted with ample links to sources provided. At this point, I just feel sorry for you.

And before you go on spouting more lies, her book is no longer #1 on the NY Times Bestseller's List.

[IntheNet]

Bush Doctrine as defined by contemporaries from the NSS in 2006 refer to page 18:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/nss2006.pdf

That document you cited, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued in March 2006, is a 49-page assessment of security procedures advanced and proposed by President Bush against terrorism, lacks an interesting word; not one mention of "doctrine" in entire document. Had Gibson wanted candidate Palin to respond to this "Security Strategy" thesis why didn't Gibson reference it by name, rather than issuing a rather vague and loose "Bush Doctrine" premise?

What you presented from Palin is similar to the ramblings of an undergraduate student writing an essay who writes paragraphs without saying anything in the hope of tricking the reader

You didn't read my post did you?

... her book is no longer #1 on the NY Times Bestseller's List.

"Hardcover Nonfiction - Thursday, January 14, 2010"
Top 5 at a Glance
1. HAVE A LITTLE FAITH, by Mitch Albom
2. GOING ROGUE, by Sarah Palin

Oh excuse me... she slipped to No. 2... get the nails for the crucifixion ready...

[jb1280]

That document you cited, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued in March 2006, is a 49-page assessment of security procedures advanced and proposed by President Bush against terrorism, lacks an interesting word; not one mention of "doctrine" in entire document. Had Gibson wanted candidate Palin to respond to this "Security Strategy" thesis why didn't Gibson reference it by name, rather than issuing a rather vague and loose "Bush Doctrine" premise?



You didn't read my post did you?



"Hardcover Nonfiction - Thursday, January 14, 2010"
Top 5 at a Glance
1. HAVE A LITTLE FAITH, by Mitch Albom
2. GOING ROGUE, by Sarah Palin

Oh excuse me... get the nails for the crucifixion ready...

Read Gaddis's piece for starters.

When Monroe issued a statement of purpose on hemispheric policy in 1823, the word doctrine was never used. (Incidentally, JQ Adams is probably the main drafter of the document.)

When Truman gave a speech before Congress in 1947 asking for aid to Greece and Turkey, the word doctrine never appeared.

Doctrine is always applied by either historians or contemporaries to describe a basic sense of purpose for a set of policies.

Academics, pundits, thinkers, journalists, all date the Bush Doctrine back to the September 2002 NSS which established the idea that preemption is within the legal rules of war and is rooted in the history of American foreign relations. The manifestation of this statement of purpose was the 2003 Iraq War.

Spare me the semantics on the use of the term "doctrine."

I read your post. You are exactly like Palin, who is exactly like a ********ter on an exam. You write a lot, but manage to say very little.

The problem with examining what Palin actually knows is that she has never put herself in an environment where she is tested. Every public appearance she has given has been nothing short of an opportunity to spout talking points with little synthesis or analysis of historical or contemporary issues.

Her book, which has never been fact-checked, is not a viable source of information, period.

[yg17]

Oh excuse me... she slipped to No. 2... get the nails for the crucifixion ready...

If it means we'll never have to hear from her, I'll stop at Home Depot on my way home from work.

[IntheNet]

Her book, which has never been fact-checked, is not a viable source of information, period.

Do you lie often?

AP Assigns 11 “Fact Checkers” To Palin’s Book (http://constitutionclub.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/ap-assigns-11-fact-checkers-to-palins-book-finds-six-errors/)

AP Assigned 11 Fact Checkers to Palin's Book (http://blogsforvictory.com/2009/11/15/the-ap-assigned-11-fact-checkers-to-palins-book/)

btw... they found six "errors" ... that’s 1.8333333 writers for each error! Still no word from the AP on when they'll get around to "fact checking" BHO's books...

[applesupergeek]

No, Palin is way dumber than Bush, it seems she makes the average 6 year old look intelligent.

Omg, I wasn't aware of that, and when we thought there wasn't much lower one could scoop too...

[mcrain]

Omg, I wasn't aware of that, and when we thought there wasn't much lower one could scoop too...

I'd like a scoop of Palin Rocky Political Road with some Silly Spinkles.

[jb1280]

Do you lie often?

AP Assigns 11 “Fact Checkers” To Palin’s Book (http://constitutionclub.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/ap-assigns-11-fact-checkers-to-palins-book-finds-six-errors/)

AP Assigned 11 Fact Checkers to Palin's Book (http://blogsforvictory.com/2009/11/15/the-ap-assigned-11-fact-checkers-to-palins-book/)

btw... they found six "errors" ... that’s 1.8333333 writers for each error! Still no word from the AP on when they'll get around to "fact checking" BHO's books...

by the publisher...

[63dot]

First, Palin is no longer an outsider.

Second, do you still respect John McCain or is this in a past tense?

If you still respect John McCain how do you square that with the 2008 campaign?

He ran a patently unserious campaign that culminated in the nearly criminal negligent act of selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate at the last moment.

There was always the idea that McCain was a serious person who actually did put "Country First." Palin's selection was cynical and a gross failure to uphold his responsibility to the American polity.

How does a man in his 70s who has survived multiple instances of melanoma pick a woman who lacks the knowledge base, intellectual capacity, and intellectual curiosity to be President of the United States?

Since the election, McCain has also been more interested in his reelection to the Senate than to serving the United States.

Simply, the selection of Sarah Palin has demonstrated that John McCain is no longer fit to hold high office and the only way to salvage his historical legacy is to either resign his seat or not seek reelection and write a publication detailing why he selected her, why he continued his campaign despite the known dangers she brought, and why he has defended her since.

I will state two facts here that nobody can dispute. 1) I am a registered Democrat, though I voted Green Party for the White House in 2008 2) It is my opinion that Palin is the worst VP candidate in the history of US politics, and it would be a huge stretch to call her anything close to a politician (who buy the way should know something about politics)

Now we got that out of the way:

Let's look at the difference between McCain and Palin (neither of who I voted for or will vote for in the future):

1) McCain has longtime experience, Palin doesn't
2) McCain knows military issues, Palin made the erroneous statement she runs the Alaska national guard when in fact it is Lt. General McCampbell who was less than happy with Palin's assertions
3) McCain has DC experience on top of being a well educated politician on the topics, Palin has no DC experience
4) Even under torture, McCain stood for his principles, but Palin panders to whoever will listen to her
5) McCain tries to stay on topic, which is of a political nature, but Palin reverts to trying to be folksy and cute
6) McCain had health issues, but there's no indication he will die soon
and finally:
7) McCain did not show he is not fit to hold office, but he showed that he has the ability to make bad personal choices. But so did Clinton, on personal choices, yet he was the most effective President for our economy in US history. It was Palin who showed us she is not fit to hold office.

Again, I am a Democrat and will never vote for these two, but there is a world of difference between the two Republicans, where one is a noobie who left the only real political job she had and the other a seasoned DC politician who can stick it out in the fire that is national politics.

[63dot]

Do you lie often?

AP Assigns 11 “Fact Checkers” To Palin’s Book (http://constitutionclub.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/ap-assigns-11-fact-checkers-to-palins-book-finds-six-errors/)

AP Assigned 11 Fact Checkers to Palin's Book (http://blogsforvictory.com/2009/11/15/the-ap-assigned-11-fact-checkers-to-palins-book/)

btw... they found six "errors" ... that’s 1.8333333 writers for each error! Still no word from the AP on when they'll get around to "fact checking" BHO's books...

You did some research on something that few thought would be the truth. I didn't know her book was fact checked. For that, I give props to you.

However, if she is going to run for President, which I highly doubt due to her lucrative deal at Fox and her resignation as Governor of Alaska, there should be no errors.

You just did a good job in undermining Palin yourself. What facts were off? Doesn't Palin have editors? Why did those errors get in there.

And let's pretend for a second the book has no errors.

1) Why the heck would you vote for a candidate who resigned the Governor's post? (recently)

2) What logical argument can you make that Palin will throw her hat into the Presidential race later this year or early next year for the primaries when she is making more money than the President (with her massive book sales/royalties and Fox deal)?

What logical argument can you make having Palin, without a law degree, or advanced degree (like Dr. Condi Rice or George W Bush or Colin Powell or Pat Robertson), trying to come into the Republican primaries and talking about political and legal issues? We know MBAs George Bush and Colin Powell won't run, but there are plenty of MBA Republicans in the GOP who can intelligently talk about the economy who will wipe Palin off the map, not to mention the scores of GOP lawyers who are likely sitting politicians who can wipe Palin out on anything concerning legal issues. The GOP field will destroy her if she goes into the primaries. She will spend her millions simply making a fool out of herself against educated, seasoned Republican politicians.

If you like what Palin stands for, issue for issue, I suggest you find somebody with political experience in DC, some advanced education in business or law, and the ability to hold an interview and directly answer questions as we all know if she runs she will have to field tough questions.

[mcrain]

I'd donate to the Palin campaign...

Give her a pole, and I'll donate one dollar at a time...

[63dot]

I'd donate to the Palin campaign...

Give her a pole, and I'll donate one dollar at a time...

Hey counselor, that's funny ;), however what isn't funny is that there are some people who think Palin should run for President. That is downright scary. I bet there are people who support Palin who are highly uniformed on the issues, but ironically none more uninformed than Palin herself. I so look forward to reading her book, then watching the Beck interview. :)

I thought Bush was terrible as a speaker and unfocused on the issues, but he looks like a statesman and scholar next to Palin. Even if Palin regains some form of office, let's say Congresswoman or Senator from Alaska and she gets anywhere near the beltway, then God help us all.

[rdowns]

I'd pay good money to see a Sarah Palin press conference.

[mcrain]

I'd pay good money to see a Sarah Palin press conference.

ESPECIALLY ON THE MAIN STAGE!

[63dot]

I probably helped get this thread off of the topic of Palin going to Fox to one of Palin being a bad choice for 2012 so I started a new thread, which I am sure all of you will find right away.

I will leave this thread with saying that, "Palin, you hit bank by the Fox job."

[IntheNet]

I'd pay good money to see a Sarah Palin press conference.

:rolleyes:

I'd pay good money to see an Obama press conference!

He hasn't given one since July of last year! (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-barack-obama-helda-press-conference-months/story?id=9549859)!

[hulugu]

:rolleyes:

I'd pay good money to see an Obama press conference!

He hasn't given one since July of last year! (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-barack-obama-helda-press-conference-months/story?id=9549859)!

More partisan sniping.

Last year, there were several discussions (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/21/westen.obama.overexposed/) about whether (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2009/06/13/even-bill-maher-knows-obama-overexposed-too-much-celebrity) Obama (http://mediamatters.org/research/200907260009) was overexposed (http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2009/03/12/obama,_overexposed).

And, now the meme is, he hasn't given enough press conferences?

[rdowns]

:rolleyes:

I'd pay good money to see an Obama press conference!

He hasn't given one since July of last year! (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-barack-obama-helda-press-conference-months/story?id=9549859)!

And he still beats Bush. :D

Obama had five news conferences at the White House last year, one more than President George W. Bush had in his first year in office.

[leekohler]

More partisan sniping.

Last year, there were several discussions (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/21/westen.obama.overexposed/) about whether (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2009/06/13/even-bill-maher-knows-obama-overexposed-too-much-celebrity) Obama (http://mediamatters.org/research/200907260009) was overexposed (http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2009/03/12/obama,_overexposed).

And, now the meme is, he hasn't given enough press conferences?

I've said this before. Obama could give the biggest tax cut in history, and the Republicans would still find a way to s*** on him for it. They will criticize him no matter what he does.

[Queso]

I've said this before. Obama could give the biggest tax cut in history, and the Republicans would still find a way to s*** on him for it. They will criticize him no matter what he does.
Of course. They are so convinced that they are 100% right they simply can't grasp that the majority of Americans didn't agree with them and put Palin within a heartbeat of the White House.

[mcrain]

I will leave this thread with saying that, "Palin, you hit bank by the Fox job."

I will leave this thread with saying that, "Palin, you can hit skank by the b-job"

[rdowns]

Palin Continues to Exploit Her Children and Grandchild:
http://bit.ly/5Fcvwq
"Sarah Palin and her daughter, Bristol, earned an eye-popping $100,000 for their new In Touch Weekly cover, sources say. For just eight hours' work at her own home, Palin pocketed nearly as much as her $125,000-a-year salary as Alaska governor. It seems her decision to quit her political role is making big financial sense. Palin also reportedly earns $100,000 per public-speaking engagement, while she has a multiyear deal as a Fox News Channel analyst. Reps for the magazine and Palin refused to comment on the deal. But in a classic example of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, Bristol -- who gave birth to son Tripp in 2008 after a brief liaison with Playgirl-posing flop Levi Johnston -- told In Touch the experience has made her a born-again virgin and announced, "I'm not going to have sex until I'm married. I can guarantee it."

[Rt&Dzine]

Palin Continues to Exploit Her Children and Grandchild:
http://bit.ly/5Fcvwq
"Sarah Palin and her daughter, Bristol, earned an eye-popping $100,000 for their new In Touch Weekly cover, sources say. For just eight hours' work at her own home, Palin pocketed nearly as much as her $125,000-a-year salary as Alaska governor. It seems her decision to quit her political role is making big financial sense. Palin also reportedly earns $100,000 per public-speaking engagement, while she has a multiyear deal as a Fox News Channel analyst. Reps for the magazine and Palin refused to comment on the deal. But in a classic example of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, Bristol -- who gave birth to son Tripp in 2008 after a brief liaison with Playgirl-posing flop Levi Johnston -- told In Touch the experience has made her a born-again virgin and announced, "I'm not going to have sex until I'm married. I can guarantee it."

Palin is just your typical soccer mom. :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

Half-term chisler strikes again...

[Queso]

Born-again virgin :D

Too late love. That ship has already sailed...

[Ugg]

Ever since the clothes fiasco it's been obvious that Palin's only in it for the money. She'd better hurry too, her gig with Murdoch won't last long, she's simply too inane, and her looks won't last forever.

[Rt&Dzine]

Born-again virgin :D

Too late love. That ship has already sailed...

Perhaps immaculate conception . . .

[Thomas Veil]

Palin Continues to Exploit Her Children and Grandchild:
http://bit.ly/5Fcvwq
"Sarah Palin and her daughter, Bristol, earned an eye-popping $100,000 for their new In Touch Weekly cover, sources say. For just eight hours' work at her own home, Palin pocketed nearly as much as her $125,000-a-year salary as Alaska governor. It seems her decision to quit her political role is making big financial sense. Palin also reportedly earns $100,000 per public-speaking engagement, while she has a multiyear deal as a Fox News Channel analyst.Huh. We've had fun calling her Sarah Barracuda and Caribou Barbie, but it looks like she's got a lot of Yukon Cornelius in her as well.

[CaptMurdock]

Perhaps immaculate conception . . .

Or immaculate contraception...:D

[jecapaga]

Here's hoping her news career is as fleeting as her other "jobs" and she runs for office in the future. With numbers like these, more power to her ruining the Republican party even further. What a train wreck.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6113291.shtml

[opinioncircle]

I left myself wondering today, if that pOrn movie about Palin finally came out...I know NSFW, and out of topic, but still :)...

[Zombie Acorn]

I left myself wondering today, if that pOrn movie about Palin finally came out...I know NSFW, and out of topic, but still :)...

Finally? its been out for like a year+ now. Watched it at a friend's house (his gf let him order it for some reason), it was more of a comedy then a porn though, we were all laughing our asses off.

[hulugu]

Finally? its been out for like a year+ now. Watched it at a friend's house (his gf let him order it for some reason), it was more of a comedy then a porn though, we were all laughing our asses off.

Perverts.

[opinioncircle]

Finally? its been out for like a year+ now. Watched it at a friend's house (his gf let him order it for some reason), it was more of a comedy then a porn though, we were all laughing our asses off.

Well I guess I missed out on that :)...

[rdowns]

Sarah Palin's In Touch Cover FLOPS
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/sarah-palins-in-touch-cov_n_429446.html
Despite Palin's huge book sales and TV ratings, sources said In Touch sold about 500,000 copies on newsstands, about half the number it sold a few weeks ago with the late Brittany Murphy on the cover.

Shame on her for exploiting her children and grandchild.


http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/134336/original.jpg

[gibbz]

Sarah Palin's In Touch Cover FLOPS
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/sarah-palins-in-touch-cov_n_429446.html
Despite Palin's huge book sales and TV ratings, sources said In Touch sold about 500,000 copies on newsstands, about half the number it sold a few weeks ago with the late Brittany Murphy on the cover.

Shame on her for exploiting her children and grandchild.


Yay! Let's celebrate the fact that her unwed teen child had a baby! Go Mom!

[NT1440]

Oh yea sarah, this is really how you keep your family out of the limelight. :rolleyes:

[Teh Don Ditty]

She's nothing but a media whore whose limelight should've ended after the 2008 Elections.

[rdowns]

Maybe Sarah from Alaska should spend a bit more time with her kids.

Yeah, I know. (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/sarah_palin_boozy_daughter_willow_wild_parties_levi_bristol/celebrity/67975)


Sarah Palin's got another Wasilla wild child on her hands - 15-year-old daughter Willow who's running with the "wrong crowd".

Big sister Bristol made headlines with her out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and now Willow has been named as a participant in a teenage booze bash that got out of hand, say sources.

"Willow has been running with the wrong crowd," confides a friend. "They are a popular high school clique known as the Colony Girls, who are well known as hard partiers and are regularly involved in underage drinking and smoking dope."

Willow recently attended a party thrown at a school pal's former family home - after others broke into it, according to the friend.

"About two dozen kids broke into the house that was up for sale. They drank, played beer pong, listened to loud music - and trashed the place.

"Police were notified, and they investigated the incident for possible vandalism and breaking and entering. When the pal who threw the bash was questioned by police, she named Willow as one of the partiers."

And when word got back to Sarah about Willow's involvement, "she was furious," said the source.

The friend also maintains that Willow has a definite rebel streak like siblings, 20-year-old Track and 19-year-old Bristol.

In July 2009, Willow was photographed slamming back a bottle of vodka at a Juneau house party. "Sarah was fuming when that photo of Willow was published," said the friend.

Her older sister Bristol scandalized her hometown of Wasilla, Alaska, as a dope-smoking underage drinker and party girl. At 17, she announced she was pregnant - by hunky Levi Johnston whose mother was later sent to jail for pushing drugs.

Bristol, who gave birth to baby Tripp in December 2008, later organized an much ballyhooed advocacy group to prevent teen pregnancy.

Track, meanwhile, has had drug problems in the past, and was addicted to the painkiller OxyContin before shipping off to Iraq.

The former Alaska governor - who ran for vice president on a family values platform - is upset that Willow's wild behavior could cause her embarrassment as she promotes her new gig as Fox News commentator.

"Right now, Sarah's trying to sweep the whole thing under the rug," the source said.

[yg17]

LOL

Family values indeed.

[mactastic]

Hmm... Trak was addicted to Oxycontin? Isn't that what Levi's mom got busted for pushing?

[NT1440]

Maybe Sarah from Alaska should spend a bit more time with her kids.

Yeah, I know. (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/sarah_palin_boozy_daughter_willow_wild_parties_levi_bristol/celebrity/67975)

Uh, while 15 is definitely young, its a bit hypocritical to be chastising willow for this, shes just being a teenager. Who didn't party a bit in HS?

Colony Girls though? come on :rolleyes:

[Rt&Dzine]

Hmm... Trak was addicted to Oxycontin? Isn't that what Levi's mom got busted for pushing?

And it was another "Troopergate" when they tried to investigate her.

[mactastic]

Uh, while 15 is definitely young, its a bit hypocritical to be chastising willow for this, shes just being a teenager. Who didn't party a bit in HS?

Colony Girls though? come on :rolleyes:
It's not a criticism of Willow, it's a criticism of Sarah Palin for claiming "family values" high ground, and criticizing the values of people who aren't "real Americans" like she and her followers claim to be.

If you're gonna complain about "San Francisco values", you invite people to examine the values you have brought to your family.

[NT1440]

It's not a criticism of Willow, it's a criticism of Sarah Palin for claiming "family values" high ground, and criticizing the values of people who aren't "real Americans" like she and her followers claim to be.

If you're gonna complain about "San Francisco values", you invite people to examine the values you have brought to your family.

I think all families with teenagers deal with this, thats a typical part of being a family. I really think this willow crap is a non issue. A legitimate concern would be her continued pleas to leave herself and her family alone, while whoring them all out to any media outlet that will pay.

[rdowns]

I think all families with teenagers deal with this, thats a typical part of being a family. I really think this willow crap is a non issue. A legitimate concern would be her continued pleas to leave herself and her family alone, while whoring them all out to any media outlet that will pay.


Oh stop. Why are you taking a freaking National Enquirer article so seriously? TBH, I'm just trying to lure my recently timed-out friend back. ;)

[NT1440]

Oh stop. Why are you taking a freaking National Enquirer article so seriously? TBH, I'm just trying to lure my recently timed-out friend back. ;)

Oh god, I didn't even look at the source. :(

[freeny]

Oh stop. Why are you taking a freaking National Enquirer article so seriously? TBH, I'm just trying to lure my recently timed-out friend back. ;)

I dont believe it was FOX that reported it...

[Macky-Mac]

The Colony Girls? :p

It looks like the whole Pailn family has gone rogue!

[Thomas Veil]

Big sister Bristol made headlines with her out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and now Willow has been named as a participant in a teenage booze bash that got out of hand, say sources.

"Willow has been running with the wrong crowd," confides a friend. "They are a popular high school clique known as the Colony Girls, who are well known as hard partiers and are regularly involved in underage drinking and smoking dope."
Hmm. Maybe David Letterman had it pegged right after all.....