Posted on 12/29/2009 6:12:13 AM PST by chickadee
"Johnston fought to allow the custody matter to unfold in public, saying in a sworn statement that doing so would help put everyone on best behavior. He noted that Van Flein also represents Sarah Palin.
"I know that public scrutiny will simplify this matter and act as a check against anyone's need to be overly vindictive, aggressive or malicious, not that Bristol would ever be that way, nor that I would. But her mother is powerful, politically ambitious and has a reputation for being extremely vindictive," Johnston said in his affidavit. "So, I think a public case might go a long way in reducing Sarah Palin's instinct to attack."
Johnston said he didn't want to hurt or embarrass his son -- or Bristol. He thinks Sarah Palin, not Bristol, is acting with "sheer malice," Butler wrote in a court filing.
"He feels Sarah Palin, through her lawyer, under the guise of Bristol Palin's name, would run roughshod over his very bones," Butler wrote."
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
We all know it’s not about the baby or Bristol, and I suspect the idiot judge knows that too.
Depends on how much the judge allows Levi to grandstand. No doubt, Levi’s lawyer is salivating over the opportunity to subpoena Sarah to answer charges of whether she called, “ Trig retarded”.
Depends on how much the judge allows Levi to grandstand. No doubt, Levi’s lawyer is salivating over the opportunity to subpoena Sarah to answer charges of whether she called, “ Trig retarded”.
Bob, with all due respect, you can kiss my arse running. That is a new low for you, comparing Sarah Palin to Hillary Clinton. You really need to take a long, hard look in the mirror at the shallow, pathetic remnant of your former self that you have become. And your regurgitation of liberal/RINO anti-Palin talking points makes you come across as little more than an attention whore - you might as well be Levi Johnson, the way you are acting here - just a punk looking for his 15 minutes to keep going.
Yeah, sure, Bob, and your comparing Sarah to Hillary Clinton is sober analysis.
The only thing I can surmise is that you have learned, like Levi Johnson, that if you bash Sarah Palin, it can get you fawning face time on the liberal talk shows, and these threads are your auditions for such - you sure as heck aren't promoting conservatism with your unprincipled, unconservative and over-the-top attacks on Palin on FR.
You have managed to go from a highly-respected freeper to a troll as far as I'm concerned.
That was a fine post, get right to it. I agree 100%
You have the wrong debate.
The debate in the book (pg 114) is Murkowski, Binkley and Palin.
That YouTube is the wrong debate according to the book.
___________________________________________________
Why alter what was said?
Also from the page you noted (115)...
"I calmly repeated my answer to all of his "what-ifs,", then looked pointedly to my right and my left, to one opponent, then the other. Then I returned to the moderator and said, "I'm confident you'll be asking the other candidates these same questions, right?" Of course, he didn't.""
This is not what happened. She did not look pointedly or at all to her opponents. And, the moderator did ask the same question of the other candidates. The book makes it appear as if she were singled out unfairly but that was not the case at all. As I said, make of it what you will.
She didn’t.
YOU have the wrong debate. Read the book, look at the names then go back to your YouTube link.
Wrong debate
The names are different.
Are you saying they made up different names?
Don’t disagree. What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. I wonder though if we can we expect other 2012 hopefuls to receive the ‘vetting’ Gov Palin has and continues to receive. If they are Conservative they better be ready for a high colonic with nothing off limits.
Interesting. I was just thinking the exact same thing, word for word.
The book says Murkowski, Binkley and Palin.(pg 114)
The YouTube says
“This TV debate took place on 2nd November 2006, and the participants were Sarah Palin, Tony Knowles and Andrew Halcro.”
It’s on you to prove that the YouTube is wrong on the participants. Or the book is wrong on the participants.
Her background has been more thoroughly vetted than any candidate in history. Her entire life, and that of her family, is an open book.
So exactly what, Bob, is “going to come down in one big ball”? (Whatever that means.) There has been no shortage of criticism of Palin in the media, and she has withstood it rather well.
And nobody here is claiming that she is the messiah. That’s Obama, remember? :-)
I think that's probably a futile hope. If he hasn't humiliated himself by now, one wonders if it's possible.
See post 135.
There are two different debates. The one from the book and the one on YouTube.
Lesson to all the parents with daughters.. never allow your child to date a boy named after a brand of jeans and with a mother that sells crack.. That’ll be rule 2 in my house, right after no democrats.
Did you mean me or wtc911? I’m bystanding his and your debate about videos at the mo!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.