Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

O'Reilly Has Sarah Sympathy Moment While “Culture Warriors” Rip Levi Johnston a New One

Reported by Ellen - April 7, 2009 -

Guest blogged by Julie

On Monday's O’Reilly Factor on, April 6th, 2009, O’Reilly hosted his blond bomb “Culture Warriors,” Margaret Hoover and Monica Crowley, Ph.D., to rail about the latest Sarah Palin controversy. It seems that Levi Johnston, Sarah Palin’s almost son-in-law and daughter Bristol’s baby daddy, broke the law of Alaskan Omerta and went on the Tyra Banks show to talk about this and that, and oh, a little about sex with Bristol and Sarah Palin's reaction to it all, and the Culture Warriors were livid. (Interestingly, I didn't notice any hostility from the Foxettes or anyone on Fox News when Bristol gave an interview to Greta van Susteren discussing Johnston and her unplanned pregnancy.)

Instead of letting her adult daughter Bristol handle her own public relationship with Johnston, control freak mama Palin responded with this statement about Johnston's appearance: “Bristol did not even know Levi was going on the show. We're disappointed that Levi and his family, in a quest for fame, attention, and fortune, are engaging in flat-out lies, gross exaggeration, and even distortion of their relationship . . . Bristol's focus will remain on raising Tripp, completing her education, and advocating abstinence (Uh, Sarah, didn't you hear Bristol say that your abstinence only thing is, well, like your thing, and unrealistic?)

. . It is unfortunate that Levi finds it more appealing to exploit his previous relationship with Bristol than to contribute to the well being of the child." Sarah Palin's statement ends, saying, "Bristol realizes now that she made a mistake in her relationship and is the one taking responsibility for their actions." Hmmm, exploiting his relationship with Bristol – isn't that kind of what you did, Guv, when you paraded them both on the stage at the RNC? Just a thought . . . to be continued.

O’Reilly began the segment with the sympathetic comment that the “nightmare is never gonna end for Sarah Palin.”

Of course, Culture Warrior Monica Crowley was more than happy to work herself into a lather about that vile Levi Johnston, and she was at her pompous best. When O’Reilly questioned the wisdom of Palin making any kind of statement in response to Johnston’s interview, Crowley found the courage to talk back to him and indignantly replied that Palin needed to “put this young man in his place.” (Is that the same “place” as when he stood alongside the family on the stage at the Republican National Convention -- you know, when Palin was still trying to pass Bristol and Levi off to the right-wing crowd as an engaged young couple with a forgivable “oops?”)

Crowley was clearly incensed that Johnston was “referring to his girlfriend’s [ex-girlfriend’s] mother by her first name” on national t.v. Blathering on a little more about how unseemly such familiarity was, and how Johnston was just looking for publicity, Crowley blazed that Johnston is “exploiting the Palin family for his own purposes . . . he’s not exactly the brightest bulb in the book . . he's clearly being used here . . . the left has latched on to what he had to say.”

Excuse me, I think I inhaled an ice cube. Being used? By the left? Are you KIDDING me? Like he wasn’t used and exploited as a family-values prop sitting there dutifully holding the hand of “fiancee” Bristol at the RNC. And of course, Palin wasn’t using or exploiting him to further her own vote-getting ends when she announced that he and Bristol were engaged and planning a wedding. (And with all her moral haughtiness, this would be the same Monica Crowley who was accused of more than kissing and telling -- she was accused of plagiarizing an article she wrote in 1999 for the Wall Street Journal. After the paper received charges of plagiarism from a reader, they acknowledged the "striking similarities" between Crowley's article and an article by Paul Johnson titled "In Praise of Richard Nixon" published in the October 1988 issue of Commentary Magazine. The WSJ editor said that they wouldn’t have published the article if they’d known of the “parallels.” Great moral high horse, Mon.

Sandra-Dee-clone Culture Warrior Hoover ranted, “Jerry Springer meets presidential politics, and it’s disgusting.” Well damn, it seemed pretty Jerry-Springer’ish to a lot of us when Palin paraded her knocked-up teenage daughter around on the national stage with her self-proclaimed redneck alleged-husband-to-be (yeah, nobody bought that whole wedding thing anyway) baby daddy, trying to spin it as Love Story II, all the while spouting family values and vetoing budget increases in support of unwed mothers up there in Alaska. And let’s not forget that this is the same Margaret Hoover who said, when Laura Ingraham called Meghan McCain “plus sized,” that “I think we're in a moment now where we're in the wilderness and conservatives need to be very, very clear about what we believe and what we don't . . . we need to not go after people personally, especially people in our own tent."

Well, I think it’s clear enough -- Palin believed it was expedient to “believe” in Johnston as Bristol’s lover while she was campaigning -- until it wasn’t expedient any more.

Clearly not seeing the irony, Hoover ranted that “this kid . . . no one would care about him at all if he wasn’t somehow remotely tied to Sarah Palin.” Yes! Exactly! And remind me again who it was who dragged this poor kid into the national spotlight?

O’Reilly commented that the real story is in the fact that Sarah Palin highlights her social conservativism, and that it’s not about “this guy.”

Hoover agreed, but went on to call Johnston a “nutcase” who is just looking for his “15 minutes of fame.” (Odd, isn’t it? That’s exactly what a lot of us said about Johnston’s almost mother-in-law-from-hell.)

Crowley again charged onto the field, praising Sarah Palin for making a “strong statement” to protect her family, and went on to slam the Johnston family, saying that Johnston is a “relative youth . . . Where are his parents?” (Note to Crowley: 18 is an adult, not a “relative youth.” And wherever his parents are, they're not out there making public statements on HIS behalf like he were a 5-year-old instead of an adult with a kid.)

O'Reilly gleefully interrupted, “His mother was arrested for dealing meth . . . I think that's where his parents are, in the hoosgow!” Yeah Bill, maybe she can share a cell with Diana Palin, Todd Palin's half-sister, who was arrested for burglarizing a house while her 4-year-old child waited outside in a car?

“And that is the point,” Crowley cried. Crowley crowed that Palin's "strong statement" “stands in stark contrast to this kid who has an absentee family and clearly nobody around him to tell him this is a bad idea.” So, Johnston was good enough for the RNC, but now that he's broken it off with Bristol he's nothing but trash? And about that absentee family . . . that would be absentee like Palin was when her daughter was having unprotected sex with b/f Levi? And absentee like Palin would have willingly been to her special needs infant son and pregnant teen -- not to mention forgotten daughters Piper and Willow -- had she been able to snow the American public into electing her Vice President? That kind of absentee?

Compassionate O'Reilly said, “The kid is 18 . . . I’m not gonna scorch the kid, I’m just not.” Of course not, you're just gonna let your water carriers do it for you.

O’Reilly, dripping in sympathy for Sarah Palin to the end, mournfully repeated that Palin is “living a nightmare. . . it's unfortunate.”

Levi Johnston is the one living the nightmare. He’s a guppy swimming around in a tank full of piranhas.

If you can't watch the video below, here's a link.