Just As You Thought the Palin Trainwreck Might Be Over…
…Levi Johnston shows up to talk to Vanity Fair. This, of course, is just a teaser and Levi has been out and about not doing the Quitta from Wasilla any favors.
The article includes Andrew Sullivan red meat in the form of a tale on Palin trying to convince Levi to let her adopt Bristol’s baby as well as further confirmation that Palin isn’t cut out for hard work or living up to her political commitments. After the campaign was over, Levi notes:
Sarah was sad for a while. She walked around the house pouting. I had assumed she was going to go back to her job as governor, but a week or two after she got back she started talking about how nice it would be to quit and write a book or do a show and make “triple the money.” It was, to her, “not as hard.” She would blatantly say, “I want to just take this money and quit being governor.” She started to say it frequently, but she didn’t know how to do it. When she came home from work, it seemed like she was more and more stressed out.
Not interested in the work, but interested in the money. No wonder the neocon crowd love her.
The adopting Bristol’s baby thing is weird. What’s that all about? Was she going to pretend that Bristol’s baby was hers? Was that even mathematically possible? When was Trig born?
As far as quitting to run with the money, we figured that out already. I wonder how her new career is going. I’ve read that Palin has backed out of 4 speaking engagements at the last minute. Will she keep being a draw if she never shows up?
Will she keep being a draw if she never shows up?
She is either trying to manipulate market scarcity or rebranding as a circus. Not sure which.
Actually, I understand the adoption thing. I’ve seen it done more than once. A set of parents recognizes that the two young people simply are not suited to parenthood when they had their baby, and so propose legally adopting the baby so as to be able to better provide for the child. It also makes things easier in tersm of medical decision-making, insurance issues, and preventing one or both of the natural parents from later deciding “I want my kid” and ripping the child out of a stable home provided by the grandparents (I’ve seen that happen, too).
In other words, it isn’t something all that strange — it is an effort to look out for the best interests of a child.
Agree with RwR. Have also seen it before. And it is usually a good thing.
Rhymes With Right,
Your posts are actually pretty reasonable tonight, so far. Are you feeling O.K.?
I actually am pretty reasonable most of the time, A1 — and you forget that I’ve said many times that there is so much more that reasonable people can agree on than that upon which we disagree.
In this case, a family in our church got custody of and adopted their daughter’s two children shortly after their births — the daughter was not suitable to raise kids at that stage of her life (and probably still isn’t.
They did it because they saw what happened after our pastor and his wife raised took over the raising of her step-daughter’s son so the mother could go to college. Six months after graduation, she announced she was taking back her son and getting married — and now, nine years later, the boy is on his third step-father (plus uncounted “mom’s boyfriends”). The regret not doing the adoption thing when they had the chance.
RwR,
Maybe coming here is actually starting to help you see the light of liberalism . 🙂
Not a chance — but as i have said so many times, I don’t hate (most liberals/Democrats. Indeed, I’m married to one. And of all the political women I’ve dated, EVERY ONE OF THEM was a left-winger.
In other words, I can disagree with someone and like/love them. Might even work for the two of us. 🙂 Now if I could only get you to understand where I’m coming from on certain issues which we have argued. . .
I’m not sure how credible Levi is, but it sure is fun watching him make his former future mother in law look bad. They shut him out of his baby’s life, use him as a prop during the election, and now it’s his turn.
Sort of off topic, but I have been wondering for weeks:
How is Bristol’s baby insured? That is, under whose policy? If he had been adopted, he could be covered under Sarah’s generous government package; but, with Bristol as mom and this charming young man as dad — have they purchased a free-standing policy for the baby?
And will the Palin family be accepting Medicaid now, or at 18, for Trig? At 18, under the current system, he is not insurable by a private insurer (age varies from state to state but, ultimately, he ages out under his parents and is not eligible on his own — pre-existing, don cha know). His medical needs are very significant and many private insurers will either counsel the family to get on Medicaid or insist they do by refusing to pay for many beneficial therapies.
Just wondering…..
Those are good questions PM. I assume Tripp can be insured as a dependent of Sarah Palin, as is Bristol. If Bristol’s not in school, won’t she be dropped from the policy at age 19?
UI – yes and no. In most states a minor is dropped around age 19 if not in school. About 17 states have a provision that allows a minor to stay until 24-25-26 if unmarried and if mom and dad are willing to pay. If Alaska has that provision, Bristol can be covered under Sarah (or Sarah’s husband, whomever is carrying the policy) However, that policy would not cover Tripp, who is a grandchild of the policy holder (although it would cover Bristol’s portion of the delivery costs). Grandchildren are not covered unless legally adopted.
A totally disabled child, which means Trig, the child with Downs, will age out of the current system between 19 and 26 and be uninsurable except for Medicaid. NY State may have the only exception: a totally disabled unmarried adult can stay on mom or dad’s policy forever.
No insurer will write a policy for an adult with Down Syndrome. While many insurers will write a policy for a child under 18 without a pre-existing condition, the policy isn’t inexpensive, which is why we have SCHIP.
Do you think Tripp is on SCHIP (Thanks, Teddy)? Wouldn’t that be a kick? And when will Trig go on Medicaid, or did he already (which is perfectly legal; thanks, Teddy)? And where is Bristol getting her coverage? And Levi? Are they in the ranks of the young, uninsured and hoping-to-stay-well? And how is Sarah getting her coverage: is it still being paid for by the citizens of Alaska, or did she go on COBRA (Thanks, Teddy)? Is the policy being paid by one of Todd’s snowmobile “employers”, and does he work a 40 hour week to get it?
…and if all this sounds confusing, just remember: all this red tape, refusal to cover, regulation and cost is perfectly fine, as long as it’s being done by private industry. Once your coverage comes from the government, it’s socialism.
POLITICO ^ | 04 SEPTEMBER 2009 | POLITICO
Sarah Palin left the governor’s office more than a month ago, yet Alaska is still digging out from under the avalanche of ethics complaints filed by her opponents. The latest development came Thursday night when Alaska’s deputy attorney general announced that a complaint against a former aide to the former Republican governor had been dismissed. Bill McAllister, a former spokesman for Palin, was accused of using state resources—including his time—to politically benefit Palin before, during and after she was picked as Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) running mate in 2008. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26772.html#ixzz0QA0oNqZi