was reading on my phone earlier today and thought the same thing. then again, not that surprising…

December 20, 2008 @ 5:28 pm | Comment

Anyone who’d read about Palin’s new son-in-law back when he was thrust into the spotlight knew he was bad news. Didn’t know it was going to be this bad, however.

December 20, 2008 @ 6:47 pm | Comment

Doesn’t Palin’s new-in-law’s-mom host one of those TV cooking shows?

I heard that she uses only the freshest, finest ingredients.

December 21, 2008 @ 12:50 am | Comment

I was always so angry that the media was so unwilling to delve into what was the absolute hypocrisy of Palin’s beliefs in the face of her daughters actions. Why wasn’t she asked if her daughter’s pregnancy had served to change her [Palin] views on abstinence-only sex-ed, for example? There’s nothing wrong with a question like that. It would not be unfair, nor would it be incriminating to her daughter. It’s just a simple question: “In light of your daughter’s pregnancy and the statistics that have come out over the course of the last eight years regarding abstinence-only sex-ed, do you believe your position has changed on how children should be educated about safe sex?”

That was apparently deemed off-limits, though.

Now, perhaps, as more light is shed on the actions of her in-laws and how she handles it, we’ll see more clearly the double standards she’s willing to support when it comes to people she’s close to.

December 21, 2008 @ 4:40 am | Comment

So where’s the evidence that Palin palled around with this woman? Oh, thats right, you’ve got none.

But how do you feel about the future head of our State Department pallin around with drug dealers and other unsavory characters?

December 21, 2008 @ 5:21 am | Comment

“Daniel Plainview, do you accept the Chuch of the 3rd Revelation as your spiritual guide?!”

“I do.” [The phoney preacher then pores water over Daniel Plainview’s face baptizing him.]

VICE PRESIDENT Dick Cheney said this week that he directly approved waterboarding to torture terror suspects. “I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared,” Cheney told “ABC News.” Asked if he believes the simulating of drowning is an appropriate technique, he said, “I do.”

December 21, 2008 @ 9:49 am | Comment

Maria, there are two possibilities. Either Sarah Palin never talked with the new mother-in-law of her daughter, or she did. Most – in fact I would say every – parent meets their child’s in-laws socially, at least once. If not, then something is deeply wrong. Palin is the one who set the definition of “pallin’ around” and it is extremely vague and, in reality, meaningless. Under her definition, many of Chicago’s leading Republicans palled around with a terrorist, as Ayers was involved with the Annenberg family and many, many other prominent Republicans. So which will it be, Maria – Sarah never socialized with her daughter’s new mother-in-law, never even chatted with her, or she did? If the former, something’s awfully fucked up. If the latter, it can be argued, using Palin’s notorious birdbrained logic, that she palled around with a drug dealer.

December 21, 2008 @ 10:57 am | Comment

Well Maria, which is it? Did she or didn’t she?

December 21, 2008 @ 1:40 pm | Comment

Sarah never socialized with her daughter’s new mother-in-law, never even chatted with her, or she did?

“Palling” sounds a bit more than just meeting someone socially. More like you’re good friends. I don’t get how meeting someone according to Ms Palin’s logic equates to being good friends.

December 21, 2008 @ 6:29 pm | Comment

Perhaps you have a point Raj. But by Sara Palin’s logic, the fact that Barack Obama and Bill Ayers served on the same board munificently endowed by the Annenbergs {dear friends of Ron and Nancy Reagan} made them “pals,” then you would at least expect as great a sense of fealty between two women whose children have sealed a sacred bond and spawned (as early as this weekend} progeny with missing strands of meth-addled DNA and yet have the ability to shoot a fleeing caribou from a moving conveyance.
Should the Palins become our next political dynasty, it may be far more entertaining than anything the Kennedys, Bushes or Clintons could have offered us.

December 21, 2008 @ 8:02 pm | Comment

the fact that Barack Obama and Bill Ayers served on the same board munificently endowed by the Annenbergs … made them “pals”

If you want to suggest the only contact they had was in regards to their board meetings, I won’t argue otherwise. But from what I remember some of the claims went further than that.

you would at least expect as great a sense of fealty between two women whose children have sealed a sacred bond

Maybe, maybe not. My grandparents got on very well together, but I know of people who could never stand their children’s in-laws. Some people keep things polite but would never say they were “friends”.

spawned… progeny with missing strands of meth-addled DNA

No need to be unpleasant in regards to a new-born, JC.

next political dynasty

Mike Smithson is considering Huntsman for getting the Republican 2012 nomination.

http://tinyurl.com/9bmmez

I believe he also put money on Obama getting the nomination quite a while before he became a star.

December 21, 2008 @ 9:13 pm | Comment

JC, before you engage with Raj on this topic, realize he actually felt Sarah Palin was an acceptable choice for VP and that she would “grow into the role.” There is no rationalizing with people like that, so don’t try. (Said with respect, of course.) Raj was pro-Palin, not that there’s anything wrong with that, so it’s not surprising he will continue to defend her and keep the Ayers-Obama “pallin’ around” nonsense alive after it has been universally rejected as nonsense. It was a sloppy, stupid thing of Palin to say because it is so amorphous. Pure guilt by association. If Sarah met the Meth Mom and chatted with her, I can say they were “pallin’ around.” Is it true? Maybe not. Maybe. Depends on what “palling” means. Which is why Palin’s sloppy assertion was so infuriating. It was made without definition or specifics, and branded Obama as a friend to terrorism, an assertion so outrageous and sickening as to defy belief. Luckily, America and the world agreed. If nutters choose to cling to it, so be it. I chatted with my taxi driver for 20 minutes tonight. Were we pallin’ around? Anyway, next topic….

December 21, 2008 @ 10:52 pm | Comment

Actually, richard, for the record I was never “pro-Palin” – I tolerated her because I thought McCain like Obama would have made a good president (or at least better than Bush). Just because you disliked her a lot doesn’t mean that anyone who disagreed with your criticisms was for her. When I don’t have a vote there’s no need for me to take sides.

I didn’t raise Ayers – JC did. Of course if you can show where I said Obama was matey with Ayers please do so. My actual view is that in politics it’s not so uncommon to meet people with extreme views, even form relationships with them. So maybe Ayers was more than an “acquaintance” to Obama – so what? I’m sure Obama would in hindsight regret that, even if he was too embarrassed to admit the extent of his relationship (assuming there was one).

Of course Palin can’t complain if others point to people she knows given the comments she made, though personally when it’s a family thing I wouldn’t make light of it.

December 21, 2008 @ 11:18 pm | Comment

Why should it matter if it’s a family thing or business or politics or social? Pallin’ is pallin’, no?

Bottom line, whether it’s a “family thing” or any other kind of thing: No such despicable allegation should ever be made against any man unless there is ample supporting evidence and you are ready to back up the claim proving you are justified in saying someone is “pallin’ around with terrorists.” That is a mighty steep and slanderous claim, akin in its emotional impact to accusing someone of being a murderer or pedophile. Practically no description carries as much baggage as “terrorist” or a friend to terrorism in modern-day America.

It is totally outrageous to brand Palin as a friend to a drug dealer. It is equally outrageous to brand Obama the way she did. This illustrates just how dumb she was for saying it (as though there was ever any doubt), and it’s kind of sweet to see the tables turned, just so we can all be reminded how dangerous it is to judge people guilty by association. The discussion should never have occurred. Neither should this one about Mama Meth. Unfortunately, Sarah set the terms for the discussion.

December 21, 2008 @ 11:38 pm | Comment

Why should it matter if it’s a family thing or business or politics or social?

Because you can choose who you do business or politics with, but you can’t choose your family.

It is totally outrageous to brand Palin as a friend to a drug dealer. It is equally outrageous to brand Obama the way she did.

I would agree with that.

it’s kind of sweet to see the tables turned

I can see what you mean, but if I felt any positive feeling I’d consider myself like those who were enjoying the Ayers comments directed towards Obama.

December 21, 2008 @ 11:57 pm | Comment

Actually, I feel nothing positive either, because no one is seriously saying this about Palin – it is too absurd, too preposterous. I am getting a kick out of seeing her falling into the verbal trap she herself set, but am pleased no one is seriously making claims about her palling with meth dealers. That would be such nonsense. The only reason it’s being brought up, as I hope you see, is that it underscores how deranged her charges against Obama were.

December 22, 2008 @ 12:23 am | Comment

I feel nothing positive either
I am getting a kick out of seeing her falling into the verbal trap she herself set

That seems somewhat contradictory but never mind.

The only reason it’s being brought up, as I hope you see, is that it underscores how deranged her charges against Obama were

I thought it was being reported because that’s what the newspapers do (and why they reported on the Ayers matter). If you’re talking about bloggers and commentators, yeah, I’m sure that many are doing so because of her attacks on Obama’s character. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say.

December 22, 2008 @ 12:32 am | Comment