Palin Place: Sarah Lashes Out At Levi

Like any good soap opera, there are new turns in the drama virtually every day. In today’s installment of the Palin soap opera, Sarah lashes out at Levi Johnston for talking about his relationship with Bristol on The Tyra Banks Show:

Levi Johnston is in big trouble at the Sarah Palin household.

After taking about sex on The Tyra Banks Show, Johnston – the 18-year-old father of Bristol Palin’s baby – was hit with a blistering response from Bristol’s mother, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

“Bristol did not even know Levi was going on the show. We’re disappointed that Levi and his family, in a quest for fame, attention, and fortune, are engaging in flat-out lies, gross exaggeration, and even distortion of their relationship,” says the statement from the Palin family rep.

If Levi were to wind up getting back together with Bristol, imagine the mother-in-law problems he would have.

Levi Johnston’s comments just might not be credible:

In the show airing April 6, Johnston tells Tyra Banks that he believes Sarah Palin knew he and Bristol, 18, were having sex when they lived under her roof. “I’m pretty sure she probably knew. Moms are pretty smart,” Johnston says.

The statements of anyone who suggests Sarah Palin is “pretty smart” cannot be taken seriously.

Meanwhile in the blogosphere, those following the trackbacks would see that PUMAs are now defending Sarah Palin. This is consistent with my characterization of them during the campaign as an essentially non-liberal crowd who were obsessed with supporting a woman candidate, regardless of whether they would make a good president or vice president. My bet is that most PUMAs will wind up backing Palin should she run in 2012. They are also likely to be sympathetic to Sarah Palin’s view that the First Amendment is intended to protect politicians from criticism by the media.

Be Sociable, Share!

6 Comments

  1. 1
    Eclectic Radical says:

    There is a serious disconnect about the reality of Sarah Palin and the perception of Sarah Palin among some of her female supporters. Women who are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and opposed to restrictive religious legislation still claim that Sarah Palin is an unfortunate victim of an evil chauvinist conspiracy. I think, in some cases, movement feminism is so heavy-handed in its insistence that women are good and men are bad that it cannot think critically in a case like that of Sarah Palin. The ridiculous ‘lipstick on a pig’ bullshit comes to mind most immediately. I live in the area that speech was given and saw it verbatim on local television. If the entire speech is viewed in context, it is impossible to believe the statement referred to Palin in any way. Yet some self-proclaimed feminists can not let it go.

  2. 2
    Chris says:

    I’m a feminist,  and I think the people – male and female – who are claiming that poor Sarah Palin is being picked on because she is a woman are either (a)  irrational or (b) disingenuous.

    She is an object of scorn because of her absurd run for VP [which simultaenously evidenced her egotism adn her ignorance], her nuttiness, and the antics of her relations.  For whatever’s sake: Bristol is going to continue speaking out for abstinence??  Well, that should be effective.

    By the way, just discovered the blog and think it’s great.

  3. 3
    Eclectic Radical says:

    I distinguish between feminists and ‘movement feminism’ in much the way I would distinguish between conservatives and ‘movement conservatism’ or environmentalists and ‘movement environmentalism.’ In each case the latter is not necessarily the genuine article of the former, but in all three examples the latter frequently claims to represent the former and insists that only those of the former who conform to the views of the movement are the genuine article.

    Now, most of Palin’s supporters are very far from feminists. The ‘women for Palin’ blogs during the election were all frightening things, angry housewives convinced that single or working women were somehow betraying womanhood and family values.

    However, the small knot of hardcore movement feminists who supported Hillary Clinton and then switched to Sarah Palin because Hillary didn’t win and wasn’t the running mate represent the underbelly of any movement. The people who suborn themselves to movement thinking because they are unable to think for themselves. To them, President Obama is a chauvinist monster for running against Hillary and the Democratic Party is evil and sexist for nominating him instead of her.

    Geraldine Ferraro, for whom I once had great admiration and who is now a favorite guest commentator on Fox News, comes to mind most immediately.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    As is probably the case with any label, there is a wide variety of views which might fall under feminism, at least by some people. Feminism includes many valid points, and the label has also been used to promote total nonsense as we have seen from the PUMAs and some Palin supporters.

  5. 5
    nomoreGOP says:

    I find the “feminist” palin supporters about as relevant and logical as “gay republicans” (or even a republican of color, although I think there are different aspects of that identity crisis)

    They have so far to go as far as personal discovery and self-awareness that absolutely nothing they say should be taken as anything besides a good psychological profile.. The idea of following a group or ideology that blatantly contradicts one’s actual lifestyle is such an interesting phenomenon..

  6. 6
    Eclectic Radical says:

    Republicans of color don’t really strike me as particularly ridiculous in the same sense as the other two groups you note, nomoreGOP. Basic Republican policy (leaving the religious right and the Southern strain of anti-multiculturalism that comes along with it aside for a moment) is built on specific socioeconomic ideas which are not dependent on race. People in the same socioeconomic bracket and/or sharing the same socioeconomic philosophy will gravitate to the Republican Party. They genuinely believe that a tough love doctrine of self-reliance is good for everyone, and that Americans of color can succeed as easily as white Americans provided they deserve to succeed.

    A reading of Larry Elder or a writer discussing Jackie Robinson’s (yes, that Jackie Robinson) thoughts about the need for greater self-reliance and independence in the black community will give a better perspective on this issue than I can. I don’t agree with most of the positions advanced, even when I agree with some of the points made, so I am not sympathetic enough to do them proper justice.

Leave a comment