Thursday, January 22, 2009

A note from the moderator

I originally covered these points in the comments section, but just so they won't get lost in the ongoing flood of input I thought I'd repeat there here, with Audrey's permission.

Some of you have noticed that all the comments made by "BluTx" - a Palin cheerleader - have been replaced by the text "removed by author." A number of you have inquired as to where they went, and one reader even went so far as to email me and ask whether Audrey or I had scrubbed the site of BlueTx's comments. To her credit, this reader did offer an apology in advance if she'd made the assumption in error. 

The following is my reply:

Your apology is accepted, as you are in error.

We did not remove the comments. When we switched over to requiring everyone to have a Google ID, the one drawback was that any author could go in and remove their comments if they wanted. Some people even pointed that out and worried that someone could - essentially - take their ball and go home in the middle of a debate by removing their side of the argument.

But it was a risk we took due to a string of anonymous comments that we were so numerous and confusing (it's hard to know who you're talking to when they won't sign their name) after getting repeated calls from readers to do something.

Neither Audrey nor I removed BluTx's comments. "Removed by author" means just that, and I don't know or care why BlueTx chose to do what he/she did. I did post a moderation message this morning noting that BlueTx has indeed removed her comments, but noted that we would not be discussing the decision on the blog since our focus is Sarah Palin and not other commenters.

There are constant and consistent efforts to derail the focus of this blog - through either wildly off-topic comments, red-herring issues, submission of topics we've already deemed off-limits, and - in this case it appears - a manufactured issue.

It's our policy to keep the blog conversation running smoothly, which means reading each comment individually, checking links and making sure overly redundant or prohibited material does not get through.

As I've pointed out before, our decisions aren't going to make everyone happy, but that's not the primary goal so we don't try. The primary goal is to run a thoughtful blog that explores the mystery of Sarah Palin's fifth pregnancy in a concise, intelligent way. I believe we are doing that, which is why our readership continues to flourish and also while we continue to attract and keep intelligent, civil commentators.

Thanks again for your suggestions and support. I hope I've addressed your concerns adequately.

Some people here have been asking about how many hits Audrey gets and how many are from Wasilla, etc.

Not to speak in her stead, but knowing her personally I can tell you it's not Audrey's style to crow about how much traffic this site gets. I can only tell you that the Feedjit stats are there for everyone to see at the bottom of the page.

We don't really keep up with what's coming in from where, as Audrey and Co. are too busy compiling information and moderating the blog to watch the stats.

Also, some of you have sent in links via the comments section to sites that either have either sketchy/libelous/clearly unvetted information on SP or that offer her home address and personal contact info. It's against our blog policy to associate ourselves with such sites, even through approval of comments that link to them.

The more salacious, personal stuff can obviously be found online if you wish to seek it out, but we prefer not to direct people to it ourselves.

Again, thanks for your understanding.



Diana said...

Hi Morgan,

I know that Audrey is about as humble about this site as anyone could ever be. But I think the question is so Sarah and the media can Literally interested everyone still is in the inconsistancies and concerns over Sarah Palin version of the story.

I for one would like the number to be posted. When you go to feedjit it doesn't show the TOTAL hits this site has had. That I think would be very telling.

Sarah can not go around saying it is a handful of haters, or annonymous bloggers once she sees how many hits this site has had.

Also...maybe the media will realize how many people are still concerned and focus more attention instead of being beaten down by Sarah for putting attention on the subject.

Vinnie said...

You guys rock!! This is a very professional approach and I fully approve of the way you've been managing things.

The latest news item has Sarah complaining that the media is attacking her children. We all know that this is about Sarah's lies and not her children. By keeping to these rules, you're ensuring that the focus stays where it should be - on SARAH.

More Sarah news below. While this is still speculation, it wouldn't surprise me at all. It's all about Sarah and keeping her name in the news.

sc said...

I understand why some of my posts don’t go thru, they are really off topic! Thank you Audrey and Morgan for keeping it real and keeping us in check!

sc said...

I am just super passionate about the issue of Sarah Palin trying for a higher office than she already has, so much information comes in all the time to me and in my opinion she just needs to be stopped from going any further politically. I do wish that her adult children would put an end to this charade!

Morgan said...


I appreciate your reasoning, but - and again I'm going to sort of go out on a limb and speak for Audrey and Co. - we don't really care to prove anything to Sarah Palin.

The results speak for themselves and the fact that this issue is still being debated - and more prominently these days - says far more than any number could.

The interest in Sarah Palin's fifth pregnancy has increased - not decreased - since the election. And there is still much work to be done. Audrey and Co. is still examining evidence, and let no one forget we still have no evidence of Baby Tripp, even though he's just a few days shy of turning a month old. If, that is, he's been born or exists at all.

So that's where our focus will remain. I know there are bloggers who are eager to prove their popularity by promoting their stats, but keep in mind that we are volunteers and have only so many hours in a day. So if it's a choice between following a lead or engaging in some shameless self-promotion, we're going to follow the lead.

Marcy said...

Thank you! grammy

Tony Walker said...

Thank you from Tony Walker. I am a Registered Nurse from Baltimore Maryland. I have no reservation about stating my true name and occupation here because of the very professional and ethical way that this blog has been maintained. As a medical professional, it is my duty to question what I see and hear and assess the facts before me. I have been educated in a way which promotes critical scientific thinking regarding how the human body functions. Sometimes discoveries are made by examining the data, and the health of the patient is preserved. Other times, it is with one's heart and "gut" that we decide we must look further - when something doesn't seem right and "does not fit". Such is the case with Ms. Palin's story. I feel in my heart that she is "stuck" in her made-up story.
Do I have a right to know the truth? That is another question. It's my personal opinion, that when she ran for office, it became our business to understand if she is a truthful person or not. When the truth is revealed, however, I trust that Audrey and Morgan and their team will be kind, honest and treat all persons with dignity and respect. After that, we can move on with the second chapter of the Sarah Palin story. When she tells us the honest truth, I'll be able to tell my best friends "I told you something was fishy with that story". Last year they told me, "People like you disgust me". We've not talked much since then...

Thank you for all of your hard work and your very caring, ethical and professional approach,
Tony Walker

KaJo said...

Amen, Tony Walker!

IMHO, folks who make statements like, "People like you disgust me" [here I am doing the same thing!! :)] have closed their minds to critical thinking.

Or -- speaking from my own experience recently -- who say, "you conspiracy theorists" or who misquote, morph statements into something you never said or meant, or even fake regret by saying "I'm sorry you fail to understand..." or "I'm sorry that you are incapable of realizing..."" -- those are the people one wonders about, just what THEIR agenda is.

onething said...

It seems almost bizarre that Sarah would publicly complain that the media is attacking her children. The media have been very kind to her. The media have reported to the world that a grandchild was born on 12/27, on her word.

And independent bloggers or websites - the MSM has no control over that?
Silence would have been a much better policy.

Don G. said...

There are strange things done neath the midnight sun for we curious to behold,

The arctic trails have their secret tales that can make our blood run cold,

The northern lights have seen strange sights but the strangest they ever did see,

Was the night of the flight to cover her plight which fortold Sarah's problems would be.

(with my profoundest apologies to Robert Service)

(couldn't resist it)

The Obamacon said...

Regarding the comments speculating that the McCain-Palin rift originated with McCain's finding out about any shenanigans going on with Trig's birth:

There are two basic strategies that campaigns can follow in the run-up to a Presidential election. If they're leading or close enough to the leader to pull out a victory, they focus their resources in the battleground states. If they determine that they have no chance of winning, they focus their remaining resources in states/districts with close congressional races. The idea is that if the Presidential candidate isn't going to win, they can at least use their coattails to shore up as many victories as possible in Congress.

When it came time for the McCain campaign to make this decision, They decided to fight to the very end, and dumped resources into places like Pennsylvania.

Palin decided to live up to her alleged reputation as a maverick. Instead of helping McCain in the battleground states, or helping congressional republicans in close races, she invented a third way: going rogue and campaigning in places like Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire.

This isn't to say that McCain or his staff didn't find out any dirty secrets about Palin, but the main cause of the rift was Palin's furthering her 2012 Presidential ambitions instead of helping him (or even congressional Republicans) win in 2008.

Ennealogic said...

Morgan, your efforts to steer a sometimes ebullient, enthusiastic and emotional bunch of posters has been, in my opinion, performed with sensitivity and grace. Thank you for helping out here.

That said, many other blogs won't touch the topic we discuss -- the validity of SP's pregnancy stories. Are you receiving any legal advice on what can be said and what can't? For instance, AKM and her helpers at Mudflats refuse to allow any speculation on who Trig's birth mother may be if it is not Sarah. The stated reason for the line they draw is that they do not wish to be sued for libel, or some such thing.

Yet here, for the most part, we are free to speculate whether Sarah's daughter, or some other woman, might have birthed Trig since there's so much evidence against Sarah having truly been pregnant for the 5th time.

I don't think anyone here offers their opinions out of malice or a wish to drag anyone's name through the mud. We just would like definitive evidence to prove or disprove a phony-smelling claim made by a politician who was, and wants again to be in the national spotlight.

How do we, as posters, and also as bloggers, find out what the line is and where to draw it?

Morgan said...


I have no proof to back up my suspicions, but I tell you and the others why I think McCain's sudden about-face on Palin was about more than her maverickiness or clothes or sheer stupidity.

What struck me was the abruptness of it, and the intensity of the coldness they seemed to display towards Palin toward the end and in the wake of the election.

For whatever one thinks of McCain, I believe and still believe he was and is an honorable man. I think if it had been merely a matter of Palin ruining things via her missteps and naivete he'd have taken responsibility for his part in it. And he did have a part to play; after all, he let himself get pressured into picking her.

I think he could forgive her for being a terrible running mate and even a bit of a self-serving backstabber. It is politics. But I think what he would not be able to forgive her for is lying when he asked at the beginning, "Is there anything that might come out later that would compromise your role as my running mate." Or, more bluntly, if he'd asked, her, "Sarah, there are rumors that you didn't give birth to Trig. Are they true."

If McCain found out she'd lied to him then I think he'd find that unforgivable since the truth would have taken her out of the running at the get-go and given him a chance to choose a running mate who could have actually given him a fighting chance.

So there's my take on it. Pure speculation, I know, but I got strong indications from his behavior that the animosity ran deeper than the reported differences would indicate.

Diana said...

Morgan...I think your take on McCain is spot on. He would be willing to overlook her eagerness and need to grab all the attention...but he would not want to a part of a blantant lie.

Morgan said...


First of all, thanks to you and others who've expressed support for our moderation decisions.

Per your questions about legalities: Those of us involved with this blog are simply doing what the media used to do, which is to explore the differences between what we are told and what we suspect to be true.

The ADN only recently came out and asked Palin for proof that she gave birth to Trig. That's all any of us have wanted or ever asked for. Granted, the ADN is a bit late to the game and unless something is going on behind the scenes that we don't know about then they aren't pressing her particularly hard.

This blog has never come out and said that Sarah is not Trig's mother. It has simply spotlighted the inconsistencies between Sarah's claims that she gave birth to Trig Palin on April 18, 2008 and the mounting body of reported and photographic evidence that seem to tell a different story.

Has anyone ever called Sarah Palin a liar in regards to her claim that she gave birth to Trig? I'm sure they have and if she wanted to sue them she probably could. Anyone can sue anyone for anything these days.

But to prevail she'd have to prove her critics were lying which would mean producing documented proof that she'd given birth to Trig when she said she did. And I can't see that happening.

sandra said...

Tonight will be the State of the State address by SP. It will be interesting to see what her take on the current events in Alaska is. Will she address the problems in the villages? Will she explain why she doesn't want stimulus money for infrastructure projects? Will she indicate a time line on the pipeline? Or will she whine about how the media pick on her family?

How well she can lead Alaska in the remaining two years of her term will be very important in her future as well as that of the state.

I hope she has had enough time to come down from the national campaign to get a handle on the stuff at home and provide some leadership. It would be frightening to think that after the intensity of 2008 that she hasn't learned enough to start on higher ground in 2009.

sandra in oregon

nonny said...

I agree with you completely Morgan. There was such a palpable tension evident between Palin and McCain at the end that I can't imagine was just the result of her waywardness and lack of qualifications in all ways for the VP slot. He must have quickly seen her lack of substance but still was able to go along with the charade that she was in any way qualified. I really believe something shocking must have happened to rock his boat the way that it appeared to have been in regards to her. It also screams volumes that Meghan McCain will not comment on Palin. She seems like a well-bred and articulate and kind-hearted young woman and I think she must know something or else she would dredge up vague but kind words concerning Palin and her family... just because that's what most people want to do and are socially trained to do.

Agreement concerning Huckabee and Romney as well. If this twisted mystery is not resolved in a few years, I fully expect their camps to reach into their "bag of tricks" (or "bag of truth") concerning Palin and it won't be pretty at all.

Thanks for trying your best (and succeeding) in maintaining the integrity of this blog.

Ivyfree said...

"I got strong indications from his behavior that the animosity ran deeper than the reported differences would indicate."

And I agree, but I don't think it has anything to do with family. I never thought that McCain gave a damn about anybody's family, including his own. We heard nothing about his adopted daughter when he was running, and we didn't see her in pictures with the rest of them, and his wife was caught snogging somebody else just a week or so after the election. I just don't think a wanna-be pregnancy is big enough to even register on McCain's consciousness.

Vinnie said...

Sorry Morgan, I gotta agree with Obamacon on this.

McCain could've looked at the evidence and arrived at the same conclusion that we did - that Sarah is lying. We don't need any verification from Sarah to believe what we believe. Why should he? He's a smart guy.

Not only was Sarah a bad pick for VP, she immediately made it all about Sarah with no consideration of how that hurt McCain. For her, it was about getting her name on the national stage. After the campaign, she even complained that they should've given her freer reign with the media! (Anyone seeing the Couric interview knows what complete idiocy that idea is.)

In my opinion, her selfish actions by themselves justify the anger that the McCains have towards Sarah. I would agree that there are probably a lot of Republicans that don't really think 'Sarah First' is a good mantra for their party.

Morgan said...

Ivyfree, I'm no apologist for McCain, but you are dead wrong in what you said about his adopted daughter. Bridget was with him and the rest of the family during the convention and I saw her in quite a few shots taken along the campaign trail.

sandra said...

Go to the immoral minority blog for comments on Palin's book deal. Maybe she's saving the "proof" for her book. Why spoil sales by letting everyone in on the real story?

They are suggesting she may have a career in TV news. Can you imagine her interviewing someone else? That would keep her away from the nuclear button. Maybe back to sports broadcasting.

sandra in oregon

Ivyfree said...

That may be, Morgan, but I didn't see a single picture of her.

trish in SW FL said...

Ivy, I remember seeing her picture at least a couple times. Maybe it's in Meghan McCain's blog? I know she has a ton of Campaign trail pics there?

Morgan said...

Ivyfree, there are several pics of her although Megan traveled more during this campaign. Bridget campaigned more during the 2000 one, and gave a rater nice interview to Scholastic about her decision to spend more time in school this time.

She seems like a nice young lady and I don't thing we can extrapolate that McCain is a horrible father simply because Bridget wasn't on the trail as much as Megan was. By all accounts they seem to be a close family, with Bridget as a much-loved member.

cooky said...

Perhaps this link sheds some light on the recent media barrage from SP and the notion of no longer "trying to prove" she's Trig's birth mother. Perhaps she's saving it for a chapter in her new book:

Tina in CA said...

From reading about Bridget, it sounds like she lucked out by being chosen by the McCain's for adoption.

Here is an article from Scholastic that Morgan referenced.

After reading, you must agree that if Sarah Palin was a BAD mom by dragging her kids all over the country and keeping them out of school and allowing them to fall behind in the process, John and Cindy McCain must be GOOD parents for allowing their daughter to stay in high school and remain a regular kid.

Avvid said...

Thanks much for all you guys are doing Morgan and Audrey!

sc said...

In my opinion, SP is a horrible mother. As for McCain, at least when the family is in public; no one seems sad or distant, never anything that looks forced. In SP’s speech last night she looked horrible, I would guess all of us anonymous bloggers are getting to her, not getting enough sleep.

Vinnie said...

More Sarah news. This time she's taken a strong position on an important political topic. NOT!

Just more clothes drama. Note that this is from a conservative site.

It is interesting how every story about her seems like it belongs in the National Enquirer.

Headtrip Honey said...


Also, during McCain's last bid, Bridget was the source of a lot of controversy. (his "black love child"...give me a break!) She probably wanted to stay out of the spotlight partly because of that.

In fact, during the convention (I didn't see this, but my boyfriend did), apparently they mentioned her adoption, and even brought the other girl that Cindy brought back from Bangladesh. (If you don't know the story, Cindy was asked by Mother freakin' Theresa to take these two babies who needed surgeries for a cleft palate back to America, which she did, and inevitably adopted one of them)

So they didn't hide guess is she just wanted a more private role than last time.

Criticize McCain all you want for his policies, but I agree with Morgan that I think he is an honorable man who cares a lot for his family.

Headtrip Honey said...


Also, I believe that pic of Cindy "snogging" someone else was proved to be a fake.

If it wasn't, I did see it, and it only vaguely looked like her...all you saw was the back of her head.

regina said...

The speech... She said "forge" instead of "ford" the river in the poetic bit.

I think she had botox injections. In the Glen Beck interview and last night I noticed that her eyebrows move, but nothing happens to her forehead.

Where were Trig's glasses?

Alex said...

Here's another photo of Sarah and Piper I hadn't seen before. Taken March 22, 2008 at the AK state girls basketball tournament, it's labeled "Seven Months" by its photographer.

Once again, Piper is used as a shield. But it looks as if the heavy coat (in a basketball gym!) is cinched by a belt.

Brrr said...

Sarah IS looking VERY tired lately. AND she seems to have a dullness to her eyes. I saw clips from a press conference this week where it appeared she did not make eye contact with anyone. No luster, no focus. She has real decisions to make here in Alaska and is feeling that pressure. She is letting people in the bush (villages) suffer because of her inaction. She is starting to melt down, I believe.

And really, who wouldn't, after everything she's been through? Can't remember who posted it, but it was a brilliant run down of Sarah's wild year, starting before the 'wild ride.'

Keeping secrets also takes a toll on the soul, now doesn't it? I'm not a doctor, but, it's fairly apparent her adrenal system has been working OT. There's only so much a body can take before it breaks down.

Yellowgirl said...

Re the comments about libel and slander.... coming at this as a lawyer (but who, I caution, is only licensed in one of these 50 states), truth is always an affirmative defense to a defamation case. In otherwords, if you say something that is 100% true, you cannot be guitly of defamation no matter what you said.

Opinion cannot be used to defame someone.... stating "IMHO" or "I believe" or "I think" or "It seems to me".... and you are golden. Your opinion is your opinion, period.

The only time you can get into trouble is when you say something that is flat out a lie.... for example, if I were to say SP is not Trig's mother without any qualification (i.e., in my opinion), AND it was not true, then I would have defamed her. (Oh, hypotheticals such as the one in this sentence are also okay).

Further, SP is a public figure. As such, she has a lesser expectation of privacy, per the US Supreme Court. N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). See also Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967)(Require finding of "knowing or reckless falsity" before plaintiff can recover under state privacy statute for false portrayal). There is even less protection for publication of true statements of a public figure, and a public figure can not recover for "intentional infliction of emotional distress" caused by a parody or satire. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).

For a good general discussion of the law of defamation, see the Electronic Frontier Foundation's blog at

Hope that helps! In my opinion, it does! :-)


Sunshine1970 said...

Audrey & Team. Thank you for all you do. The information and the well-thought out posts are so much fun to read.

Now, on for something quite amusing. Ebay link for Sarah's niece selling Sarah's shoes from the campaign trail Own a piece history? I'm tempted to send a question in to the seller and see if she'll give any info on Tripp, or if she has any other pics between Jan-April 18th, 2008...

B said...

Wonder if those heels belong to the RNC, as do the other clothes?

Littl' Me said...

Hmmm, Sunshine 1970 at January 23, 2009 11:36 AM : I thought she was supposed to have given BACK *ALL* items from the RNC???
Hmmm... Maybe time for someone to do some sleuthing...

And what's with 'Reserve not met'... Just How much does she think she will be getting?

Sunshine1970 said...

Alex: Interesting photos. Unless she came in and left again, there's a girl with spaghetti straps on in the audience and no one else seems to have a coat on. Even Piper...And the way she's holding herself. Not that of a woman who's pregnant at all..

Dianne said...

Sunshine 1970 - that listing is hilarious!!! Sarah will autograph?? OMG - thanks for the laugh!!

CasaCalvo said...

re: John McCain and his own family values.

His treatment of his first wife and family caused Ronald and Nancy Reagan to stop speaking to him.

The first wife won't say anything bad but it is a pretty awful story and he hasn't denied it.

wayofpeace said...


you're about to poke the beast. and the beast will hit back, HARD!

Sarah Palin may be shopping a book

Some reports say she is seeking as much as $11 million.

By Michael Muskal
January 22, 2009

If you thought being governor of Alaska and a new grandmother would be enough to fill the cold, dark nights in the Arctic state, you underestimate Sarah Palin, the failed vice presidential candidate.


Presumably, the book would tell her side of the 2008 presidential election, when the GOP nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, plucked Palin out of relative obscurity and offered her the vice presidential spot.

Though she was a darling of conservatives and ignited the Republican base whenever she appeared in public, Palin has made it known that she had a difficult time with McCain's strategists.

onething said...

Hi Alex,

Re your photo link @January 23, 2009 8:24 AM-
It sure does look like she is using the scarves not to hide a pregnancy but to hide a non-pregnancy. And one wonders if the person who named the photograph "7 months" was being a little naughty, to innocently call attention to the fact that, hey, this lady is claiming to be 7 months along.
I had always assumed McCain and the upper GOP (Cheney) knew the truth of Trig but maybe not. I also wonder why everyone is so sure anyone was breastfeeding him. He was given a lot of bottles because he spent so much time in public. Trying to breastfeed on the trail would be a huge trial if the very people you are traveling with are not supposed to know you're the real mother.

SpecialMom said...

The latest Palin headlines bring to mind Keith Olbermann's reference to Sarah as a veritable "salad bar of scandal."

Kevin said...


McCain is less than an honorable man. He does seem to understand the concept, which puts him above some people. But a truly honorable man is honorable all the time, and McCain allowed his campaign to misrepresent Obama and his positions and play on race prejudice. He staged his appearance amid the bailout negotiations, and when his bluff was called it was clear he had nothing to contribute. Playing petty politics in a national crisis is not honorable.

I wouldn't call "honorable" his picking Palin. He probably didn't know most of the negatives about her, but he had time to find out. In choosing Palin he decided a matter of critical importance to the country on a hunch, and when he learned the truth -- that Palin is completely untrustworthy -- he chose to endanger the country rather than admit a mistake.

He or his staff surely asked whether Palin had any embarrassing secrets, yet it was evident that Bristol's pregnancy, announced just after SP's selection, came as a surprise. Before her formal nomination at the convention, when he could have retracted his choice of Palin, McCain would have learned that she is a shameless liar, as she made statements concerning Troopergate and the Bridge to Nowhere that were contradicted by publicly available material. But he didn't want to sacrifice his chance of winning -- which would have foisted on the country someone not only unqualified, but dangerous. That is not honorable. I don't know how many dishonorable things a man must do to lose the title of "honorable man," but for me -- and I considered voting for him until SP opened her mouth -- he has lost it.

harvester said...

If Sara is missing those shoes she wore on the campaign trail that her niece is currently selling on E-bay,
she will need to do some serious "sole-searching."

CasaCalvo said...

Sarah Who?

From our local paper - I'm sure it's a national story too:

"Jindal gets top GOP speaking slot"

sandra said...

Good one, Harvester. I think she had those shoes before the campaign. Wasn't she wearing them in Ohio before the RNC went shopping?

sandra in oregon

Tina in CA said...

Hummmm.... those red monkey shoes.

They look very worn on the sole to me. Not new looking like something that had JUST been purchased by the RNC.

Perhaps something she already had in her closet? Perhaps a fake like their alleged wearer. Who knows??

KaJo said...

Ah...Google, our friend.

An article in the LA Times from last September says this:

Shoefly + Hudsons, the Juneau boutique where Gov. Palin bought her sexy Naughty Monkey heels, has the shoes prominently displayed on the website: "First Stop: Shoefly + Hudsons, Second Stop: Run for Vice President of the U.S.?"

trish in SW FL said...

Red shoes on eBay. Ha!

Wonder if her rabid fans at TS know about that!

Jennifer said...

That ebay listing is ridiculous! Haha. That person could have gone to Bloomingdales, bought those shoes, then Googled "Sarah Palin and niece," downloaded that picture (notice the shoes are not in the picture with them), and listed them as Sarah's. Just like everything else surrounding Sarah, I smell a rat.

Patrick said...

There is one picture which has never been publicly discussed before - and although you "cannot see much", it is relevant - maybe even very relevant. It is the ONLY picture which is available of Bristol between autumn 2007 and end of April 2008.

It is the "official" 2007 Christmas photo of the Palin/Heath family, and it was published - in very bad print quality - in the official biography of Sarah Palin, written by Kaylene Johnston.

It was quite difficult to scan it, and I tried to do my very best.

There are several observations to be made here: Bristol is barefoot - in an "official" picture...? And so is obviously Lauden Bruce, who is standing just behind Bristol.

"Barefoot and pregnant"...why do I have to think about this?

You cannot see much of Bristol's belly, it's obscured. And so is the belly of Lauden Bruce.

The picture is here:

and short:

Questions remain. Why has the picture never been published "properly", in high resolution-quality, like THIS ONE:


FishEye said...

Enjoyed the eBay shoe link, Sunshine 1970. As of a few minutes ago, the bid was up to $1,050 with the reserve not even met yet. Meanwhile, the same style (not red, just black or ivory) is selling for $89.99 at
And the other styles available, shown below the larger picture, are named "The Hype" and "N**kie." No kidding.

Myblog said...

You have your story confused about Megan McCain. While Cindy claims that Mother Theresa offered Megan to her, the truth was that Mother Theresa was not at that orphanage at the time. Cindy embroidered the story. However, it doesn't contradict that Cindy brought Megan to the U.S without even telling John first. There is a long story on Cindy in The New Yorker several months ago. Don't know the exact date, but it was before the election...summer I think.

Myblog said...

I don't believe the claim that we haven't yet seen pix of Tripp because they have to figure out how to get around ethics rules of the governor receiving money to have her pix in People. All they have to do is pay Bristol and Levi for their pix with Tripp, and have a separate picture of Sarah, so that people will stop when they see it. They don't have to pay Sarah to use a picture from elsewhere. People won't pay much attention if they see just Bristol, Levi and Tripp on a page, as many people wouldn't know who they are without also a picture of Sarah on the page.

Myblog said...

Regarding the "tight abs" comment from Sarah, those of you who are over a certain age may remember the Australian tennis player Evonne Goolagong, who was a top player in the 70's. When she was pregnant, she continued to play. I don't know if she competed then, but I remember seeing pictures of her in tennis clothes when she was pregnant. She was HUGE. Now, who do you suppose has tighter abs: a 44-year-old who exercises 1 - 2 hours a day, max, on her 5th pregnancy, or a much younger woman, a professional athlete, who exercises hours and hours each day and is having her first baby? Forgive me if this idea was posted before.

AKPetMom said...

For anyone who wants more information on John McCain. I found this article to be very informative and read it soon after he chose his running mate. Honorable? I don't think so. (yes it is 10 pages but it is very enlightening)

luna1580 said...

do you all think the "buy SP's red shoes @ ebay" thing is a hoax? link to the item:

it's not important, but a few other blogs that came up when i googled it pointed out that if the seller is really "SP's niece" she's QUITE willing to make a buck.

which makes her an smart teen who doesn't need ill-fitting club heels in AK -or (in the speculations) someone who might be ready to sell an SP story if the price is right.

is the girl in the pic w/SP at the bottom of the item lauden? SP has 2 sisters and a brother (i don't know about todd's siblings), but there must be many nieces.

also, if this is not someone's publicity stunt/hoax, it's REALLY sad that the item description posted by the seller has spelling/grammar mistakes! everyone typos now and then, (especially me) and the mistakes: "thee/not the" and "to/not too" spellcheck will miss. but if this is real, she must have known the sale would get attention -does the whole extended family just CRAVE being abused in the blogisphere for appearing under-educated?

as a final note, anyone can buy the same shoes brand new online for about $90 USD, the ebay sale is @ $1,175.00 as i type, and the reserve price has not been met -this means the seller is asking an undisclosed price starting price, and the sale isn't binding unless a bid at least that high is submitted (and it hasn't been reached yet).

so trying to make at least $1,200 (reserve could be higher) on something you got for free (and was possibly purchased by the RCN....) all by trading on "palin-mania" -whoever the seller really is must known this would be noticed.

wanting SP's old sweaty shoes is gross! lol ;)

luna1580 said...

nice catch with the xmas pic patrick!

however i'm not sure the "barefoot thing" is significant. i'm know i've been in big family pics the same way!

both my parents had five siblings, and our holiday get-togethers are large and filled with kids (one of them autistic, like sarah's nephew) taking a group picture with everyone and no crying is an adventure! at that point it could have very simply been that bristol was somewhere else in the house, maybe fussing with food or gifts, while they arranged everyone for the pic (my father is a maniac about this) when they yelled "bristol! time for the picture!" so she (and lauden) rushed over, "oh, no one will see your feet, the kids are fussing, hurry!" and the pic was snapped. not significant.

if i'd been with my family at xmas mass or something in uncomfortable heels (or snow boots) i would take off my shoes and leave them off as soon as we got home for the dinner party. did it as a teen-ager, still do it at almost 30. but the "shoe-lessness whenever weather permits" -which inside the house is always!- set in strongly as a teen for me.

it's weird that it's the only pic you can find though.

luna1580 said...


you are right that mother teresa was NOT actually there when cindy mccain took home the 2 babies from (i believe) bangladesh, the truth got "massaged" a bit in that story.

however, you are mixing up the mccain daughters. meghan is the older, blond one and is a biological kid, and bridget is of obviously indian-subcontinent ethnic heritage and is an adopted kid.

here is a pic:

i believe bridget was not on the campaign trail (she was at the republican convention) because she's still in high school and wanted to stay in class and as "normal" as possible, i credit the mccains for allowing this if it's the case.

the OTHER time mccain ran for president some very hurtful things were said about bridget, infamously a push-pull which asked the question "would you vote for mccain if he had an illegitimate, black child?" implying that bridget was that child and her family was ashamed of her for it. she was a little kid when this happened! no wonder she shuns the lime-light.

meghan is in her early 20's and was actually working for the campaign, so it makes sense to see much more of her. (so her dad's campaign got her a job, blog fame, a children's book deal, she may become a new cable guest commentator now, and he bought her a house -so at least it was good for someone...)

CasaCalvo said...


That is a good article and there is plenty of others out there that confirm his questionable past.

If you want to read the article but have trouble with pages that have a lot of advertising, click the print button. In most cases the web site will open a new page with no ads and about 8" lines of print instead of 4" lines of print. A much easier read on my old eyes!

CasaCalvo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
nickname said...

Will exposure of Palin's deceptions

help or hurt sales of any book she

may write?

Alex said...


Your 2007 Christmas photoof the entire Heath+ family is interesting. Actually, to me, this is the only time I've ever seen any of these people looking "normal" like a real family. I don't think of this so much as an official photo, but more like one my own family takes at Christmas or at reunions. My children have appeared in such photos in different states of dress and undress. It seems more "family" (in that it contains more people than just the governor and her immediate family) to me.

But it's interesting nonetheless, and might warrant a little enlargement/enhancement of Bristol to see her size and shape.

Alex said...

I have a new pregnancy-comparison story to offer. Bear with me.

I showed up at my book club to see a friend I hadn't seen in four mo. and she's 5 mo pregnant. "T" was wearing a poncho, and I hadn't heard the news and didn't realize she was pregnant with her fourth child at age 42. When she passed up wine, and I asked why, she told me. "I thought you knew!" she said.

OK, so I had her stand and show me (with poncho pulled up). Under the poncho, this tall, skinny, willowy woman was VERY pregnant at 5 mo. However, the shape was all in front. And if she had not had on a poncho, she would have been VISIBLY pregnant even in a coat.

Why? Well, here's what I realized (since this blog has sensitized me to pregnant women!) "T" had not broadened in the rear (or across her body) like a person who merely puts on weight. All of her pregnancy weight was in her abdominal area. THAT"S why she was so clearly pregnant. And once I knew she was pregnant, the poncho really hid little of the protuberance. As many here have said, the thinner you are, the more exagerated the frontal projection of the pregnancy is!

So my point is this-- allowing for the fact that all women carry differently-- I've noticed that all of Sarah's rearend shots show a very WIDE woman for her height. As if her fanny got exactly as big as her tummy. Which of course would be the effect of gaining weight (don't we women know about that!) or of wrapping oneself with pillows or padding.

Anyway, I'll never look at a pregnant woman the same again. I asked "T" if I could pat her belly (I'm old enough to have forgotten the sensation) and it shook like a bowl of firm jello! It did not thunk like a watermelon. And I could not imagine ANY woman beating this very soft, fleshy container of fluid and life.

MOre convinced than ever than Sarah faked this.

Tina in CA said...

That large family photo looks like a snap shot to me (it's crooked) Definitely not done by a real photographer.

It looks like one my my large family shots when someone says "hey everyone come over for a picture." The kids just come over (shoes or not) and get in the group without much thought.

Just sayin'.

Ivyfree said...

You have your story confused about Megan McCain. While Cindy claims that Mother Theresa offered Megan to her, the truth was that Mother Theresa was not at that orphanage at the time. "

Not I. Somebody else's post- I would not reference Mother Theresa. I am no fan of either Mother Theresa, John McCain OR Sarah Palin. I simply don't think that McCain is as involved emotionally in his family as other people do- I read his description of Bridget's adoption, and it sounded a lot like his wife found a puppy, not felt a compulsion to cherish and help a child. And his abandonment of his first wife after she became disabled isn't exactly admirable.

I do not think that Sarah Palin faking a pregnancy is the kind of thing that would shock McCain to the extent that he would not talk to her and his campaign would refuse to discuss her. I do not believe he is a stranger to political machinations. I suspect SP got a little too open in her expectation of the Presidency. Nobody likes the thought of their death being anticipated too obviously, and given SP's republican status was only due to McCain's selection of her, her eagerness for the role, and her naivete in assuming she was qualified, undoubtedly struck him as greedy and importunate.

Now that I think about it, "greedy and importunate" are exactly the descriptors for SP.

Margot said...

I just found this letter and thought it might bear repeating.

Many people ask me why Sarah Palin remains relevant.

A former fundamentalist said it best:

Dear Sarah,

As a former fundamentalist, I'd like to call you on what you are doing.

The media has labeled you "opaque" about your religion. Why? Because you have not been honest about the most important thing about you: the fact that you are a born-again charismatic on a mission from God. Most people who have never been entrenched in the subculture of fundamentalist Christianity may not understand what this really means, but I do. Like you, I was raised in the Assemblies of God and I was a zealous part of the Jesus Movement. Like you, my life was consumed with seeking God's will for my life and awaiting the imminent return of Jesus.

Former fundamentalists like me know that your worldview is so encompassing, authoritarian, and powerful that it defines who you think you are, the way you view the world, history, other people, the future, and your place in the world. It defines you far more than hockey mom, wife, hunter, governor, or VP candidate.

You believe that every bit of the Bible is God's perfect word. You, believe there is an unseen spiritual plain (Ephesians 6:12), and that on that plain there is an unseen war going on between good and evil beings, and that you are a leader in this war against evil. You believe that God has "called" you and "anointed" you to do his will. This is why you have accepted blessing for office through the "laying on of hands" and prayer to protect you from witchcraft.

So what does this mean for governing? What could Americans expect with you at the helm?

You cannot trust basic human decency or capability, because according to your dogma, we are sinful, weak, and dependant on God. And so, your decisions would not be based on expert advice or even your own reasoning, but on your gut-level, intuitive interpretation of God's will.

Your thinking necessarily is black or white. People and policies are either good or bad. After all, Jesus said, "He who is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12:30). Under your leadership, diplomacy and cultural nuance would be less important than not blinking. In a spiritual war, you don't negotiate with the devil.

Regarding social policy, as a believer in individual salvation, you would have an individual approach emphasizing morality and responsibility, not a community approach emphasizing structural solutions. You would be judgmental and controlling of personal behavior like sex, reproductive choice, and books borrowed from the library instead of addressing global warming, poverty, and world peace. Your belief in eternal hell-fire, your deference to a literally perfect Bible despite its cruelties, and your indoctrination to disbelieve your own compassionate instincts, may leave your moral core numb. You might recall the verse, "If a man will not work he shall not eat" (2 Thess. 3:10). However, faith-based initiatives would be okay because they would use caring to evangelize.

How about science? As it has in your governorship, your interpretation of the Bible would trump scientific scholarship and findings. You would continue to downplay the human role in global warming because God is in control. More importantly, you would not make the environment a priority because you do not expect the earth to last.

International affairs? Since your subculture has identified the establishment of Israel in 1948 as the beginning of the end, you would see war, epidemics, climate change, natural disasters, and water shortage, all as hopeful signs of Jesus' return. You would be a staunch supporter of Israel--though not of Jews--and deeply suspicious of countries like Russia identified with the antichrist in the end times literature. (You have publically said that you expect Jesus to return in your lifetime.)

The Assemblies of God denomination that has shaped your thinking teaches that working for peace is unbiblical and wrong because peace is not humanly possible without the return of Jesus (1 Thess. 5:2,3). Conflict, even outright war is inevitable, for Jesus came not to bring peace but a sword (Matt: 10:34-37). Like millions of fundamentalist Christians, you may actually find joy in global crises because these things portend His return (Luke 21:28).

But all of this certainty and fantasy in today's complex world is dangerous, Sarah. There was a time when all of humanity thought the world was flat. Today, the stakes for such massive error are much higher.

My message for you, Warrior Princess for God, is from all of us who know what you are about. How dare you presume to take responsibility for our country and our planet when you, in your own mind, do not consider this home? I mean home for the long haul, not just until your rescue arrives from space. How dare you look forward to Christ's return, leaving your public office empty like a scene from the movie, Left Behind?

What if you are completely wrong and you wreak havoc instead with your policies? If you deny global warming, brand people and countries "evil," support war, and neglect global issues, you can create the apocalypse you are expecting. And as it gets worse and worse, with world-wide crisis all around you, and you look up for redemption, you just may not see it. What then? In that moment, you and all who have shared your delusion may have the most horrifying realization imaginable. And it will be too late. Too late to avoid destruction and too late to apologize to all the people who tried to turn the tide and needed you on board.

And you, John McCain, how dare you endanger all of us for the sake of your politics? How dare you choose a partner who is all symbol and no substance, preying on the fears of millions of Americans. Shame on both of you. Leave this beautiful, fragile earth to us, the unbelievers in your fantasy. It's the only heaven we have and you have no right to make it a hell.

B said...


Thanks! Looks like Lauden, Bristol, and Willow are wearing the same shirt. Wonder if they came from a church choir performance or something? If Bristol were greatly showing I think she would have angled herself to be more behind Willow.

Windy City Woman said...

Who do you suppose will ghost-write her book? What will it be about? The campaign? How much money will she make? Will she address the issue of Trig's birth? Bristol's pregnancy and upcoming shotgun wedding?

Truthseeker2 said...

Well, someone buying SP's shoes would have a DNA sample source...

Dan G said...

Thank you for this excellent blog. As a journalism grad I'm happy to see this controversial subject covered in such a clear and detailed fashion. And I absolutely love the photographs you are assembling. Photos don't lie, and they truly are amazing.

I also wonder about Palin's delusion that she is worth a $11 million book advance for her memoir. That's a narcissist if ever there was one. Laura Bush was shopping around her memoirs and she only got a deal for something like 1.2 mil. And Hilary Clinton received something like 6 - or was it 8 mi.? for hers. If Sarah believes she's THAT important I think, again, it shines a light on her character and psychopathology.

What an interesting creature! I just feel bad for her kids who seem cowed and shunted on and off the stage of her life as Sarah sees fit - like props instead of actual people. Each of those kids deserves far better.


sandra said...

Margot: Thank you for the detailed view of Sarah's portion of the Christian fundamentalist beliefs. Unfortunately it all seems to fit very well. I have thought that the ideas on her personality similarities to narcissism and sociopathy make such beliefs possible.

I have always found it difficult to understand how some people can ignore searching for truth and attempting to put reason as a base for their actions. I find it, personally, a constant battle in attempting to avoid emotional pitfalls. Perhaps other people cannot understand how people like us can live.

If anyone thinks this religous viewpoint is an aberration I suggest browsing on Mary Glazier's ideas on SP, and visit the web site of the Apostolic Counsel of Prophetic Elders. These people are not locked up in institutions. They are functioning members of society.

sandra in oregon

wayofpeace said...

Truthseeker2 said... Well, someone buying SP's shoes would have a DNA sample source...

L M A O !!!!

i choked on my drink!

Windy City Woman said...

We know that Sarah was "vetted" minimally if at all before being chosen as McCain's running mate. Maybe the issue of who-is-Trig's-mom came up but was pooh-poohed; perhaps Sarah said, "Yeah, some nuts in tinfoil hats say that Bristol birthed Trig, but no one outside Alaska will know or care, you betcha" or something like that. Perhaps they underestimated the power of the internet.

sandra said...

Interesting family picture posted by Patrick. The teen-aged girls seem to have on the same shirts; probably because they all got them for Christmas. This would mean they are all regular shirts, not maternity sizes.

I've been thinking about a picture from the campaign. I think it was during the Nevada visit. It showed a picture of SP in a gorgeous red, white, and blue scarf. All around the edges it said, "VOTE." We didn't see it again because the rest of the scarf was covered with donkeys. I wonder if that had been photoshopped. If not it would make a wonderful gift for the next
RNC meeting delegates.

sandra in oregon

KaJo said...

No, Sandra, it hasn't been photoshopped.

The story that circulated around about the donkey scarf was that a woman gave her the scarf during the event Palin was seen to be wearing it.

The scarf has both donkeys and elephants on it. I'm not sure if they're on alternating borders, or on 2 adjoining borders each.

I don't think the woman remembered to tell her to fold the scarf a certain way so that the elephants showed.

It was just another one of those probably unintentional "gotcha" moments that Sarah Palin seems to fall into, almost without trying.

Doubting Thomas said...

The Donkey scarf photo's