Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Sarah Palin tell-all biography tells us more about ourselves
The Washington Post ^ | September 16, 2011 | Colbert I. King

Posted on 09/16/2011 7:06:43 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Sarah Palin doesn’t deserve this. Neither does any other similarly situated public figure, whether on the political right, left or in the middle. But worthiness has nothing to do with this, not when there’s a chance of driving up book sales and bringing down the celebrity you despise at the same time.

Enter Joe McGinniss.

His new book, “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin,” claims that the former Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate had a tryst in 1987 with basketball star Glen Rice when he was in Alaska to play in a tournament with his University of Michigan team. Whether it’s true or false, the story is making the rounds. It’s a shame.

If the book was supposed to be about Sarah Palin, then it should have been about Palin.

This episode isn’t. There was no Sarah Palin in 1987. At the time of the Thanksgiving Great Alaska Shootout basketball tournament at the University of Alaska in Anchorage nearly 25 years ago, the 23-year-old woman who allegedly hooked up with Rice was an unmarried TV sports reporter named Sarah Heath.

This has nothing to do with today’s Sarah Palin. It’s irrelevant and none of our business.

To justify McGinniss’s prying eyes, my Post colleague Erik Wemple, who blogs on the media, noted that Palin had indicated in a 2006 Eagle Forum questionnaire that she supported funding abstinence-only education programs instead of teaching sex-education programs. “Explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support,” Palin reportedly wrote in the conservative group’s questionnaire.....

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Campaign News; Issues; State and Local
KEYWORDS: ailes; ailes4guesswho; msm; palin; pds; peepingjoe; sarahpalin; therogue; waronsarah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last
To: tsowellfan
Why vet her, according to your PDS’ers - she’s not running. Why not a book on Mitt or Cain or MB?

Why didn't you answer the question. Is it above your pay grade?

(especially against other republicans) only confirms the statement that Sarah Palin is too "divisive" to win a general election.

Who are these other republicans? And what it confirms is you are a parrot for the media.

PDS = sign of controversy....You may want to rethink your usage of this term.

No I will NOT rethink my usage. You libs got a new talking point - a new definition? What's your definition for your leader, Barry? All American?

Conservatism isn't for everyone - and certainly not one like you who sees it as too divisive - I see your contempt for it - a known trait of PDS. Now back in your cage, parrot.
81 posted on 09/17/2011 12:03:28 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: LadyDoc
and who ended up convicted from the publicity.

OMG. This guy truly is into destroying lives. What he sows he reaps, more than he sows, later than he sows.
82 posted on 09/17/2011 12:09:45 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

Exactly this is usually the GOP candidate’s advantage. The press refused to allow a vetting of Obama the last time, but that was an exception not the rule yet, I think.


83 posted on 09/17/2011 12:15:30 AM PDT by JLS (How to turn a recession into a depression: elect a Dem president with a big majorities in Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

If she wasnt married, then whats the big deal who she slept with anyways?
And the left is a bunch of hypocrics. They sound like KKK people. ‘keep your hands off the white woman boy.Dont you know your place,boy”?
I dont know, or do I have the desire to know,what this scumbag wrote. The “writer” of this book seems like a spurned high schooler who writes nasty things about a girl who shot him down for the prom.


84 posted on 09/17/2011 12:46:57 AM PDT by Yorlik803 (better to die on your feet than live on your knees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #85 Removed by Moderator

To: 9YearLurker
It has struck them that she may well be our country’s first president

George Washington?

86 posted on 09/17/2011 2:41:14 AM PDT by humblegunner (The kinder, gentler version...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Sorry—I shouldn’t be posting in the middle of the night!


87 posted on 09/17/2011 2:43:03 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative
Barack’s Mama had sex with a Black guy, and it stuck.

Good point!

That would be an epic topic in a debate between Obama and Palin.

Obama: "And the incident where you had sex with a black man..."

Palin: "YOUR MAMA!"

Epic.

88 posted on 09/17/2011 2:48:03 AM PDT by humblegunner (The kinder, gentler version...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Wapo sees that she is becoming a victim, we can’t have that, being a victim will lead to her winning. This whole business sickens me. Unfortunately she is still the only one with fire to get me, an Independent to the voting booth.


89 posted on 09/17/2011 5:56:53 AM PDT by Bringbackthedraft (Liberals fight with smear, Conservatives fight with truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It tells us more about Bertelsmann.....


90 posted on 09/17/2011 5:57:41 AM PDT by mewzilla (Forget a third party. We need a second one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

That is nonsense and you know it. Any time a conservative is slandered, we need to condemn it, whether or not we support that conservative as a candidate.


91 posted on 09/17/2011 6:05:49 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
What is also sick is that NOT ONE
of the male GOP POTUS candidates have had the
testicular fortitude to defend her against
this scurrilous attack by a stalker.

NOT ONE.

WHY NOT?

Ailes, Romney, FOX News, Perry are Gore-derived
Rovian-puppets with one purpose. guess what.

"Peeking Out From the McCain Wreckage: Mitt Romney"

"Someone's got to say it: IS MITT ROMNEY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBAMA'S VICTORY?"

"Vanity: Team Romney Sabotaged Palin and Continuing to Do So?"

"Romney Supporters Trashing Palin"

"Romney advisors sniping at Palin?"

92 posted on 09/17/2011 6:26:40 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64

Yes. It was meant to be a compliment. Lighten up.


93 posted on 09/17/2011 7:04:48 AM PDT by Victor (If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert." -David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
Conservatism isn't for everyone - and certainly not one like you who sees it as too divisive - I see your contempt for it - a known trait of PDS. Now back in your cage, parrot.

Hey, Einstein! My statement had nothing to do with political affiliation, liberal, conservative, right of left. It's political strategy I'm talking about. I think you had that reply pre-written before you even read my comment. In fact, it just happened to be my comment you used it on. Didn't matter if the response was relevant to the comment.

The only person I came close to parroting in the statement Anybody who uses the term "PDS" (especially against other republicans) only confirms the statement that Sarah Palin is too "divisive" to win a general election. was Michael Reagan.

Again I say "You may want to rethink your usage of this term PDS" unless you know for sure Sarah Palin is not running in 2012. Unless you're on Mitt's side.

94 posted on 09/17/2011 8:43:38 AM PDT by tsowellfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

dirtboy, condemn it, prove it is false, etc. - great. In the general election it will be old hat and dealt with.

It is when we have uncontested primaries, where candidates are named by the establishment and there is no contested fight, that we get lame, greenhoused candidates that wilt under fire.

We are certain it is slander. Big deal. We will always have slander. This will be dealt with and put to rest.

“A curse without cause will not alight.”

Sarah believes in the Good Book’s words and so do I.


95 posted on 09/17/2011 8:47:01 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (You know, 99.99999965% of the lawyers give all of them a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

“No. Slinging mud under the pretense of “vetting” is unconscionable.”

Let me know when it is outlawed.

I don’t disagree with you that it is unconscionable, but that is irrelevant. The opposition will always act in an unconscionable way.

They’re demoncrats. It’s what they do.

Our choice is to pretend it doesn’t exist, or deal with it effectively - and to do that now or later.

I choose to deal with things now, before the general election.


96 posted on 09/17/2011 8:50:53 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (You know, 99.99999965% of the lawyers give all of them a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: antceecee
So it seems you hate a spade being called a spade

Not if the spade is a potential voter and you're trying to get them to consider voting for your candidate.

Attacking the constituents instead of attacking the candidates in the race is something a liberal such as Pelosi or Hoffa would do. And it normally backfires.

I'll bet Sarah Palin would agree with me 100%. They (some of her 'supporters') are hurting her more than they are helping her.

Mit loves what they're doing.

97 posted on 09/17/2011 9:08:51 AM PDT by tsowellfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

There is so much there about 0bama and glaringly obvious the media doesn’t want to go there.


98 posted on 09/17/2011 11:25:06 AM PDT by mrspeelwerneeded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
dirtboy, condemn it, prove it is false, etc.

Prove it is false?

Apparently you are a moron who doesn't understand that you cannot prove a negative.

So my point stands. You are clueless.

99 posted on 09/17/2011 3:59:56 PM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
"dirtboy, condemn it, prove it is false, etc."

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

"Apparently you are a moron who doesn't understand that you cannot prove a negative.

So my point stands. You are clueless."

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

Dirtboy,

Apparently you are a moron who doesn't understand sentence structure, language, logic, the word, "etc.", or politics.

So my sentence stands. You are clueless and seemingly ineducable.

You seen to want to continue in your ignorance. Carry on.

100 posted on 09/17/2011 5:29:28 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (You know, 99.99999965% of the lawyers give all of them a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson