Palin Endorses Trump

TrumpPalinby Brad Nelson1/20/16
Sarah Palin has endorsed Donald Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. A fairly thoughtful opinion on this event was written by Emily Zanotti at The American Spectator. Emily writes:

With her endorsement of Donald Trump, Sarah Palin has done a complete 180 from her down-home conservative roots, embracing Trump’s populist, hardly conservative campaign with fervor, proving that she — despite what she’s said over and over for the last decade — is more about defeating an “Establishment” boogeyman than she is following through on the limited government, pro-life, free market world she envisioned in her first speech to a raucous Republican National Convention.

She also opines:

And now, Republicans are paying the ultimate price for turning their leaders into their entertainers.

I don’t disagree with any of that. It must be said. This is a shattering disappointment to Palin fans. If ever there was a Tea Party-like Constitutionalist on the menu it is Ted Cruz, not Donald Trump. If ever there was a place to make a stand on ideals, not celebrity, it is with Ted Cruz, not Donald Trump.

So don’t suppose my disappointment is not deep although my surprise is small. I like Sarah Palin. And I don’t dislike Donald Trump. But politics has more and more become not “the art of the possible” but “the stage of the celebrity.” I don’t blame Palin for likely making a cabinet-level deal with Trump in return for her endorsement. She is probably going with a winner and regains some relevancy for herself. The book sales and lecture circuit can go on, now reinvigorated. The commodity for sale, as always, is celebrity, and Trump has that in spades.

I’ve run out of tears for the fiddling our culture is doing while Rome burns. But do understand I always have that as a backdrop. And although immigration is a key issue, in a reasonably sane world, Ted Cruz would be endorsed by the likes of Palin who claims to be a straight-talking, reformist type of person.

Say what you will about Trump, but he has no track record in regards to being a limited government conservative. But because politics has so clearly been enmeshed in pop culture, the endorsement by Palin comes as no surprise. It’s a good move for her even if the verdict is out on what good or ill a Trump presidency would be over a Cruz presidency.

So I haven’t come to bury Palin but to praise her. She has made a smart move. The price she will pay for this is being regarded as a principled person by those for whom political and moral principles still hold sway. She at least has not sold out to the establishment. In fact, there is some glee to be garnered from this endorsement for she will have dealt a fatal blow to Rich Lowry’s emasculation fantasies regarding Trump.

But it is arguable that she has sold out to something. There will be a great deal of nostril-holding this election cycle. We will squint and believe as best we can that Palin knows what she’s doing, that Trump will at least remain good on his promises regarding immigration, and that the cheap property being offered for sale in Florida is indeed not located on swamp land.


Brad is editor and chief disorganizer of StubbornThings.
About Author  Author Archive  Email • (878 views)

Share
Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Palin Endorses Trump

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    On the positive side of this, apparently Trump has long been a supporter (or at least friend) of Palin. While everyone in the glib world of proper progressive politics (dem or GOP) has considered Palin an embarrassment, he has not. I’ll give him that.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    I read an article yesterday from the HotAir links which noted that Palin and Trump actually were both moderate conservatives in terms of their overall stances (though their differences with conservative orthodoxy aren’t the same), and indeed almost identically so. In addition, one must note that Trump now claims to be far more conservative than he was in the past. Does he mean it? I’d rather trust someone with a good track record, like Cruz — but it’s possible that Palin, with her past dealings with Trump, has a reason to believe he means it. I’m disappointed, but I won’t call it a betrayal. The proof of the pudding of Palin’s conservative populism could be how she reacts if/when Trump later betrays those principles.

    As for the Tea Party movement, it was significant in 2010, and in some areas still in 2012, but by 2014 was no longer important. This partly results from the failure of the GOP to accomplish much after 2010, and partly from the movement assassination by the liberals and their media lackeys, aided and abetted by the GOP Beltway Bandits and the IRS gangsters, since 2010.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Libertarians will be voting for Bernie Sanders, so at this point I’m tempted to pull an arrow out of Hillary’s quiver and say “What difference will it make?”

      To a large degree, government and the unelected bureaucracies have become so great — and the dependency and acquiescence they invoke in the populace so large — that modern political campaigns are but a veneer, particularly from the GOP. All movement is a ratchet toward the Left. The best the GOP can ever do now is put a nice face on it, toss lots of confetti in the air, and put on a grand political display with lots of red, white, and blue bunting.

      But the idea of America as the land of opportunity is nearing its end. And we can wring our hands over this candidate or that candidate saying this, or endorsing that, and it’s little more than a staged political soap opera going out over the airwaves of the stations already owned and controlled by government.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    While I like Palin, I have never been one of those who thought she was the solution to our problem. But credit must be given her willingness to call a spade a spade as regards many of the problems facing the country.

    As to her conservative bono fides; unlike libertarians, I look at her personal life which includes the study of her children. I believe she has failed spectacularly in this area. She has a tramp of a daughter who recently sounded like a typical leftist when asked about her popping out a second illegitimate child. And Palin’s oldest son was arrested recently for something, I believe it was assault. Not a very pretty record in my opinion.

    As I have often said, “we should never forget, they are all politicians.”

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I found it amusing that Bristol had Tweeted some remarks claiming how Cruz had flip-flopped on some issue and/or was otherwise mean to her mother, so therefore her mother’s endorsement of Trump. Bristol? I mean, forgive me. I was never on board in regards to making fun of her children. But it’s laughable that anyone should care what Bristol Palin Tweets.

      We’ve seen the wreck that some of Ronald Reagan’s children were. And I’ve had many a true-blue (true-red, I suppose) conservative friend who has lamented that their son or daughter has been turned into a 100% libtard despite their own wishes and upbringing. With that in mind, I’m not going to join the bandwagon of Sarah-Palin-bashing because of her children.

      But it wouldn’t be surprising that Sarah is an ace but some of her children are bums.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I think anyone making fun of Palin’s son Trig is a scum-bag. But her idiot daughter Bristol is now a legitimate target.

        I am not bashing Palin, simply pointing out facts about her life that I do not think very praiseworthy.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Mr. Kung, I haven’t stayed up on the transgressions of the Palin children. But they’ve become celebrity children. And I think some of them are old enough to be met Tweet-for-Tweet, including Bristol.

          It’s interesting that Palin has at least one slutty daughter if we measure by having children out of wedlock. That does not fit the homespun Sarah Palin image. Certainly children born out of wedlock is an age-old thing…with the expectation among decent people for it to be the equivalent of sending out the wedding invitations.

          Such is the liberal life that has touched all aspects of America. Men are expendable. Mere sperm donors. I like Sarah Palin because of her outspoken critiques of the Left and her impassioned articulation of traditional American values. No one is perfect. But, yeah, maybe some of her children fell a little too far from the tree.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      A HotAir piece just now argued that Palin has already shown — in her virtual endorsement of the younger La Pen in France — that her anti-establishment populism trumps her conservatism. This isn’t a betrayal, just a flaw.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Well, it’s consistent with her claim to fame in Alaska which was fighting the corruption of the politicians and the oil companies.

        As Mr. Kung reminds us, they are all politicians. And I would extrapolate from that is that no one these days is going to make a living taking candy out of the mouths of babies. They may talk about reducing the size of government, etc., but conservatives have always found it much easier to focus their energies on a specific externalized foe — whether the Soviet Union or “corruption.” And I don’t mean the corruption isn’t real when I put quote marks around it. But it’s not about reducing government, reducing taxes, or weening people off of pork, all of which are hard and unpopular things.

        But no one tends to like corruption (unless they’re in on it, of course). And those are easy targets for conservatives. I don’t blame Sarah Palin for acting like a politician and saying one thing and doing what is easier or more expedient. By all means, fight corruption. Fight the establishment. But keep in mind that this was the mindless mantra of the Red Diaper Doper Babies whose only thought was “activism,” to tear down anything and everything because it was somehow corrupt.

        That doesn’t mean I have any sympathy for the Republican Establishment. They can all go to hell as far as I’m concerned. But the days of expecting a Calvin Coolidge are gone. No one is going to cut government except a meaningless gesture here or there. The collapse is in. The collapse is coming. Nothing can stop it.

        On the lighter side, at least we are watching some entertaining politics on the right. Beats the hell out of Romney and McCain.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I agree that Palin is more anti-establishment than conservative and this could probably be said of many of Trump’s supporters.

        But I would submit that in today’s political climate being anti-establishment is, in essence, more conservative than not, even if many of Trump’s supporters may not realize this.

        The trick for conservatives is to channel this anti-establishment fury into positive conservative political victories. We won’t get everything we may wish, but turning back the Left’s policies is vital.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Rush praised Palin’s speech she gave regarding the endorsement. Parts sounded very good. Palin is framing this as needing to go against the corrupt monied interests who are driving both political parties. I think she is right. I’m good with that.

          There are other dragons to slay. But that would be a good one to shoot for. Not sure what can be done though.

    • Although I do not believe in pre-martial sex, I certainly cannot say that Bristol Palin is a slut. From what we publicly know about her pregnancies, she was in a supposedly long term relationships with the fathers. She is no different unfortunately, than the vast majority of young women today (many of them get abortions to hide their pregnancies). I will say that she was hypocritical in her abstinence speaking tour and I was very disappointed when she revealed she was pregnant again. With that said, after all that the entire Palin family had to unfairly endure during the 2008 campaign and beyond, it is no wonder that her kids are troublesome. These children were cast into the public discussion and spotlight and were dissected like no other politician’s children in history. Joe Biden’s grown daughter ( I believe she is a social worker) was video taped snorting cocaine, however the media buried it. His son was dishonorably discharged from the Navy for drug use, the media buried that too. Also, preachers, school teachers and any public official’s kids have always behaved the worst. I guess it is a form of rebellion.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        She is no different unfortunately, than the vast majority of young women today (many of them get abortions to hide their pregnancies).

        Didn’t someone write a book about that, about defining deviancy down? Maybe “slut” is too strong of a word. But part of the problem with having so many children out of wedlock (aka “bastards”) is that the stigma attached to having children out of wedlock has been lost. And so we may say that “slut” is over the top, and perhaps it is. But such shaming used to serve the purpose of making sure children had two parents in a committed and legally-binding relationship. We see the social carnage created by the attitude that makes men expandable and any criticism of women’s loose morals is written off as “slut shaming.”

        Well…I think if Bristol Palin is out there pumping out kids outside of marriage, she has not learned the right lessons. Whether that is her parent’s fault or not, they are at least the ones responsible for passing on those values.

        And as far as the children being cast into the public spotlight, Sarah had a lot to do with that. And I don’t hold that against her. Celebrity is one of the most valuable commodities there is today and she has helped to give her children a good, if unusual, start in life. But it comes at a price. And it doesn’t occur to me that Bristol Palin has yet the maturity she needs to handle that celebrity.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I would see a slut as a female equivalent of Slick Willie. This isn’t Bristol Palin. She had 2 serious boyfriends, and I think she intended to marry both of them. Indeed, in the second case the wedding was already scheduled, then called off just before it was to happen. She has erred, but she has also been unfortunate.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I would see a slut as a female equivalent of Slick Willie. This isn’t Bristol Palin. She had 2 serious boyfriends, and I think she intended to marry both of them.

            She may have intended to marry both of them. And that’s fine. But what are we doing here at this conservative site if we decide it is normal to have the baby first and then the father (if at all) second? I realize that life isn’t always that neat and tidy. But we’ve so watered down this workable equation that we barely notice it anymore. Instead we make all kinds of excuses for the women who ought to have kept their legs shut and the men who should have behaved like gentlemen.

            And Bristol’s experience itself is a damn fine example of why you should put the marriage before having the children. I don’t know this guy’s circumstance, buy why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Did Sarah teach her daughter well? I’m beginning to come around to Mr. Kung’s way of thinking.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Well, I said she erred, and that’s exactly what I meant.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Really, despite the deck stacked against men now in many ways, regarding sex, they have it just as they would like it. The women are loose and they are not required to marry (or often even to support) the bastards they leave around.

                A lot of labels are thrown around to try to disguise this simple fact. We say “A woman’s right to choose” instead of “The means for a continued sexual free-for-all.” I’m just for honestly addressing the subject. Only when the problem is clearly identified can we find a solution. And, really, the solution to most of our social ills were found long ago. We just don’t want to apply them.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                Err and unfortunate are a bit weak for bringing two illegitimate children into the world. How about she has made multiple selfish stupid choices. I should also point out that we bring a large portion of our fortune or misfortune on ourselves, and this misfortune could have been avoided completely.

                If one wants to pretend to be an adult and play house, then perhaps one should prepare one’s self. That she is too stupid to do so says a lot.

                I also find it somewhat tasteless than this silly and obviously dim woman lacks the intelligence or at least shame, to keep out of the limelight. But like Brad said, “celebrity” is a valuable commodity and this dimwit is selling herself for all she’s worth. Did she learn that from her mother? Gaul is a poor substitute for humility and self-reflection. She’s another wonderful example for our young ladies.

                That she is even in the public eye and can be part of the public discussion is shameful. It shows how low we have sunk as a society.

                Just to refresh our historical memory, in the old days, if a girl got pregnant the guy married her. I know that is quaint, but like Brad said, the equation has changed so why would a guy marry a girl just because she got pregnant. You know it is “no big deal”.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                At least in theory, it wasn’t Bristol Palin’s fault that they didn’t marry her (depending on why they didn’t, of course).

                An interesting example of where the shame of being a bastard can lead is suggested by Ann Rule in The Stranger Beside Me. It’s possible that Ted Bundy’s murderous career got its start when he found out his birth was illegitimate. A woman was murdered in the library where he found the record, and it might have been when he was there (we don’t know for sure).

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Also, I initially titled this article “Trump Endorses Palin.” But I thought that was being too clever by half.

    But maybe not because Rush mentioned that this whole thing was indeed about Trump endorsing Palin. He noted it was unusual for him to hold a joint press conference and let the *other* person (Palin) have the mike.

    Here’s to too clever by half. At least sometimes.

  5. GHG says:

    I’ve been absent for a long time, quite frankly because when I raise my head out of the sand I see nothing that compels me to not stick my head right back in there. I know that seems like quiting, but I won’t shirk my duty in the voting booth. I still believe in what this country used to stand for, I just don’t think that country exists anymore.

    And then Palin endorsed Trump and my attention was grabbed and curiosity piqued.

    What? Did I miss something while I was ignoring the world? What would compel a Tea Party champion like Sarah to align herself with a non-conservative populist when the “Tea Partiest” of Tea Party candidates was in a political cage match with Trump and could have used her endorsement (again)? Had she flipped or maybe not been who I thought she was?

    And then I downshifted my emotions, read some opinions, engaged reason, and have come away with an entirely different viewpoint than my initial gut reaction.

    In a nutshell, I believe Palin has made a calculation that is the antithesis of stand on principle conservatism , but I think she did it for the right reasons and I think she’s correct. I believe she thinks the battle lines are establishment versus non-establishment and the only way – the only chance – to save this country is to elect a president not beholding to any of the “donor class” and that excludes every other candidate except Trump, including Cruz. It would do no good to stand on principle and elect Cruz if he can’t get anything done because not only does he owe a politician’s allegience to those who helped him get where he is, but the GOP hate him as much or more than the democrats do.

    Now, Trump isn’t going to have any alies in the beltway either, but who would you rather have leading the charge – a politically incorrect alley fighter like Trump or a principled but neutered good guy like Cruz? Sarah thinks the time for winning on principles is past and sadly I agree with her.

    God help us. Truly.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Glen the Lesser,

      I was a little concerned that you might be ill, so I am glad to see you back.

      I believe she thinks the battle lines are establishment versus non-establishment and the only way – the only chance – to save this country is to elect a president not beholding to any of the “donor class” and that excludes every other candidate except Trump, including Cruz. It would do no good to stand on principle and elect Cruz if he can’t get anything done because not only does he owe a politician’s allegience to those who helped him get where he is, but the GOP hate him as much or more than the democrats do.

      I believe it is not only Palin who believes what you write. I am convinced a large portion of the American public believes this and has probably believed it for some time. Perot had the money, but he didn’t have the rest of the package.

      Trump combines all the characteristics which can defeat the entrenched political and financial interests in the country. He is well known and popular thus does not have to modify his message or personality to receive media time. He has a huge fortune thus cannot be controlled from a monetary point of view. He is brash brags he has bought politicians all his business life. This has the double virtue of people thinking he is honest and that he is no respecter of politicians or the system in general.

      And even if Trump is lying, which many of us think might be the case, what have we lost? The whole political and financial class has been lying to this nation for a long time. And they are boring.

      At least there is a chance Trump is telling the truth and may do something positive for the country. We know the establishment will only do more to screw us and the country.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Mr. Lesser. It’s truly great to hear from you again. I hope you have been well and had a nice Christmas holiday.

      What would compel a Tea Party champion like Sarah to align herself with a non-conservative populist when the “Tea Partiest” of Tea Party candidates was in a political cage match with Trump and could have used her endorsement (again)?

      Well, you give a very nice explanation. And assuming it’s not all about keeping relevant and in the limelight, by George, I think you’ve got it. Your explanation was articulated better than anything I’ve read on the web. Sounds quite plausible.

    • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

      Good to see you back. Here’s my 2 cents on the Palin endorsement: I think it highlights again Palin’s greatest weakness, her love of celebrity. Remember that she resigned as Governor of Alaska to take advantage of her newfound celebrity – in other words, rather than doing the hard work of a stateswoman, she chose money and glamor.

      Now it is true that Democrats were harassing Palin in a manner that went beyond unethical into being positively indecent: they filed baseless accusations of corruption against her to drain her financial resources, knowing that Alaska state law does not allow the Governor to defend herself with attorneys on the State payroll. But a really tough and committed public servant would have persevered and become Alaska Democrats’ worst nightmare.

      It’s a great pity, because Palin had a way of saying things that the ruling class does not want said: the emperor has no clothes, etc. and for this she was hated by the Left with a sheer viciousness which is impossible to believe without exact quotes or video. But in the end she was corrupted not so much by money as by the cult of celebrity, and so there is a kind of logic to her Trump endorsement although it remains disappointing. My estimation is that it won’t change much.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I think it highlights again Palin’s greatest weakness, her love of celebrity. Remember that she resigned as Governor of Alaska to take advantage of her newfound celebrity – in other words, rather than doing the hard work of a stateswoman, she chose money and glamor.

        I think that’s a valid assessment, Nik. Still, one could say she moved toward political activism, something we all know is desperately needed by each and every one of us. I don’t doubt that Palin loves the celebrity aspect. She’s no shrinking violet. But certainly Reagan was on the speaking circuit for quite a while before politics (often speaking politics, of course).

        Palin remains almost unique in her espousal of conservatism by a public figure.

  6. It is so sickening to read the comments of the different pundits claiming to be disappointed in Palin’s endorsement of Trump. Many of these individuals have always hated and mocked Palin. Yet, they have the nerve to say that she has hurt her conservative standing. What difference does it make to them? One thing that is consistent with Sarah Palin, she wants what is best for America. No one can argue that she doesn’t. I too want only what’s best for American and right now that is Trump. Not because he is a conservative, but because he is the only one that is not afraid of the media. I constantly tell the locals in the GOP that it does not matter how qualified our candidates are, we will never win the white house again until someone is willing take it to the media. Trump not only takes it to the media but he single handedly took away Hillary’s only campaign weapon…..war on women. Romney lost because he coward under the war on women meme. It was as though we were living in the twilight zone as we witnessed the majority of the women speaking at the 2012 Democratic Convention speak on nothing but abortion and birth control. And they won by convincing stupid women that republicans wanted to take away their birth control. This time around, it appears that we might win only because Trump changes the conversation and turns the table on the media and the democrats (forgive me for repeating because they are the same organization).

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Note that in 2008, a number of GOP Beltway Bandits decided to endorse Barry Screwtape Obama because they didn’t think highly of Palin. Like Reagan before her, she has a college degree at a minor college, not an Ivy League heavyweight. And she adds to that a local accent — you betcha they were contemptuous of her.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Romney lost because he coward under the war on women meme.

      There are likely a few reasons that Romney lost. But his cowering was a large part of it. I, like Levin and Rush, think it is foolish for Trump to criticize Cruz from the left, but I think Mr. Lesser (GHG) has written a likely explanation for Palin’s endorsement of Trump and thereby her abandonment of Cruz.

  7. Bell Phillips says:

    There seem to be four main types of republican voters in this year’s race:

    1. Angry people only vaguely paying attention. They’re mad ass hell and want someone to stand up to the establishment. With Trump in the center ring of the media circus, they can’t help but see him call bullshit right to someone’s face.

    2. Angry people paying close attention. They’re also mad as hell and want someone to stand up to the establishment. They know that Cruz told the people in Iowa that he doesn’t like ethanol and stood on the senate floor and bluntly called Mitch McConnell a liar.

    3. Morons. They either don’t know or don’t care about Rubio’s history on immigration.

    4. Angry people who think that the #1’s significantly outnumber the #2’s and are the best hope of trouncing the Wicked Witch come November and are willing to take their chances on Trumps shortcomings.

    I have to think that Palin is paying attention, so she is likely to be a #4. She might even be right.

    It is a sad commentary on humanity that we can’t seem to take such an important thing seriously enough be informed on it. And it is a sadder commentary on the 4th Estate that it so difficult to do so.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Most people simply have no interest in politics. It’s easy to mock them (e.g., by pointing out that the word “idiot” comes from a Greek word for someone who took no part in public affairs). But most of us pay attention not because it’s our civic duty, but because it interests us. And one can point out that hardly any races end up close enough for a person, or even a family, to make a difference. In that sense, the real sin isn’t apathy, but voting despite the ignorance the naturally springs from that apathy.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Most people simply have no interest in politics

        And they wonder why politicians screw them. One can almost sympathize with the crooks. Sheep are meant to be sheared.

        one can point out that hardly any races end up close enough for a person, or even a family, to make a difference

        One’s individual vote is most important on the local level.

        My previous county commissioner won a run-off by something like 30 votes. His victory helped push county government further toward conservative rule. I think it was important.

        I know of some other cases where the margins were even closer. I heard one conservative from Illinois (I believe) who lost a local election by one or two votes and when he went hope to tell his family, he found out that his children had not taken the time to vote.

        One should exercise one’s civic duty.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Yes, sheep were meant to be sheared, as the bandits pointed out in The Magnificent Seven. Ohio Democrat John J. Gilligan once commented at a state fair that “I don’t shear sheep, I shear taxpayers.” That may be why he was defeated for re-election as governor — in 1974.

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Given that NRO is in the midst of an orgy of Trump-bashing, you can take this article by Maggie Gallagher with a grain of salt. Still, I wasn’t aware that Sarah’s son bitch-slapped (closed fist, actually, along with some kicks while she was on the ground) his girlfriend in a jealous rage.

    Note that your dear Editor is not infallible and will gladly admit fault when necessary. I have to say that Mr. Kung’s criticisms of the Palin clan might be based in reasonableness rather than Palin Deranged Syndrome. Yikes. Something didn’t go right with those children.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I was mildly familiar with the case, but hadn’t read anything in detail. I would say that Palin didn’t exactly blame Obama for her son’s problems. She blamed PTSD (which does have an effect, and maybe that includes such things), and she also complained that a lot of people (starting with Obama and on down) fail to respect the sacrifices her son and others made. I think that’s also true, though it isn’t a justification or even explanation for her son’s behavior. But I don’t know that she was blaming lack of respect.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        As one poster said there, she definitely deflected (aka “spun”). To me it’s a mere unimportant quibble if she didn’t exactly blame Obama.

        But maybe she has stated more about this unfortunate case elsewhere. I don’t know. I don’t read People Magazine. I tend to get this stuff second- or third-hand.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I have to say that Mr. Kung’s criticisms of the Palin clan might be based in reasonableness rather than Palin Deranged Syndrome.

      In one article I read today, perhaps one you recommended, someone pointed out how well Trump’s children appear to have turned out. This is the type of thinking I had in mind when I mentioned Palin and her children.

      Parents cannot be held 100% responsible for their children’s actions other than the fact they brought them into the world. But beyond that, there is some leeway. Nevertheless, I think is says something about parents when their children turn out well or when they turn out badly. One of the requirements to become an elder in the Church is that a man have control over his family. The Bible was not wrong about this.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I wouldn’t say that my parents were great parents. But none of us four children have been in jail, are addicted to drugs, are serial adulterers, or bitch-slap girlfriends in fits of rage. And I do think it’s a very wise thing that before climbing the greasy pole in some church hierarchy that it can be shown that not only do you know Biblical principles but that you’ve successfully put them into practice by producing decent children. Geez, maybe there should be some kind of test of this kind before one can hold political office.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *