Miss California’s father: Palin called to offer her support

posted at 4:25 pm on May 8, 2009 by Allahpundit

Not really worthy of a post but I can’t deny ‘Cuda fans an outlet to relish the thought of the two “queens of the GOP” commiserating about lefty viciousness. Is there anyone in American political life better qualified to give tips on coping with a seek-and-destroy campaign by progressive media?

While he did not reveal exactly which words of wisdom Palin offered to his suddenly—and literally—overexposed daughter, he did clarify that the phone call came prior to the beauty queen’s racy photos appearing on TheDirty.com.

In addition to Palin, the proud father also claimed that Prejean had been receiving well-wishes from an even more unbelievable source.

“The gay and lesbian community has been supportive of Carrie,” he says, despite mounting public evidence to the contrary. “It’s just been overwhelming.

“Everyone comes up to Carrie and says, ‘We may not agree with you, but we respect you for what you say and these individuals do not.’ And they’re very emphatic. ‘Do not represent the gay and lesbian community.’”

The left will accuse him of lying about that, but why would he? All it does is rehabilitate the image of people on the other side of the issue. If he is lying, it’s a magnanimous gesture. Oh, and for the record, he also tells E! he’s not gay, despite the fondest hopes of his daughter’s critics.

Don’t get your own hopes up just yet but it sounds like she’ll get to keep her crown too.

Tags: , ,

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

If you’re not being sarcastic

Go suck a fat one.

I treat my girlfriend like she’s the world

blatantblue on May 8, 2009 at 8:31 PM

plastic gf or do you pay by the hour???

CCRWM on May 8, 2009 at 8:33 PM

Nice to see solidarity among ditzes. Did Katherine Harris and Michelle Bachmann call too?

benny shakar on May 8, 2009 at 8:35 PM

Stop that, right now.

ladyingray on May 8, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Even if I tried, I wouldn’t be able to.

blatantblue on May 8, 2009 at 4:59 PM

Geez you’re creepy and pathetic…God help your gf… real or imaginary…

CCRWM on May 8, 2009 at 8:37 PM

benny shakar on May 8, 2009 at 8:35 PM

Speaking of Ditzes…Look everybody it’s our buddy Benny!!!

Better hurry up there sport, with the wall gone you’re going to have to really rev up the ol’ stupidity engine to make up the difference…but hey you’re off to a good start!

Fighton03 on May 8, 2009 at 8:40 PM

Nice to see solidarity among ditzes. Did Katherine Harris and Michelle Bachmann call too?

benny shakar on May 8, 2009 at 8:35 PM

Pffft. You’re just upset that those ditzes have more balls than you do.

ddrintn on May 8, 2009 at 10:22 PM

Ccrwm

You’re pretty bad at making good jokes. I’ll leave you to your own devices and your moral condescension. Enjoy.

blatantblue on May 8, 2009 at 10:35 PM

Just an observation on strong females:

My view is that it takes a strong woman to truly submit to her husband. If she is weak or unsure, then her submission might not be a choice as much as an inability to do anything else.

Only if a woman has the power to stand on her own can she really make a free will choice to submit to her man. And because he knows she is strong, he never has to wonder if she really means it when she agrees with him. He also knows that he never has to prove he’s a man because she wouldn’t be there if he wasn’t.

Strong women are much sexier than weak women, which is why conservative women look happier and are more assured of themselves. They have the respect that only comes from strength and genuineness. Sarah! is a great example of this.

platypus on May 8, 2009 at 10:38 PM

BTW, if you want more substantial news, Exxon Mobil started drilling at Point Thompson. Only one person is responsible for that, Gov.Palin.

promachus on May 8, 2009 at 10:39 PM

Strong women are much sexier than weak women, which is why conservative women look happier and are more assured of themselves.

-
Always found that to be true… I dated a prison guard for a few years. 120 lbs of blond haired sexy. She carried every where; concerts, night clubs, food shopping, even to family stuff. Her credo was “I got this”, and she always did have it too.
-
Meanwhile… gotta love Palin. She is the bomb. As a side… Do you think Hillary ever calls any of Billy Bob’s Bimbos?

RalphyBoy on May 8, 2009 at 11:23 PM

Strong women are much sexier than weak women, which is why conservative women look happier and are more assured of themselves. They have the respect that only comes from strength and genuineness. Sarah! is a great example of this.

platypus on May 8, 2009 at 10:38 PM

+1000

Fighton03 on May 8, 2009 at 11:41 PM

Meanwhile… gotta love Palin. She is the bomb. As a side… Do you think Hillary ever calls any of Billy Bob’s Bimbos?

RalphyBoy on May 8, 2009 at 11:23 PM

sure…..she probably calls them a lot of things…..

Fighton03 on May 8, 2009 at 11:43 PM

BTW, if you want more substantial news, Exxon Mobil started drilling at Point Thompson. Only one person is responsible for that, Gov.Palin.

promachus on May 8, 2009 at 10:39 PM

An absolute lie. Exxon drilling at Pt. Thompson was not because of Palin, just the opposite. If she had her way, Exxon would not be drilling at Pt. Thompson. You people are unbelievable.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 3:02 AM

“lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 3:02 AM”

link to prove that rather strong assertion …

or STFU.

Buckaroo on May 9, 2009 at 4:35 AM

link to prove that rather strong assertion …

or STFU.

Buckaroo on May 9, 2009 at 4:35 AM

Point Thomson lease fight hits peak
NORTH SLOPE: Court hearing set as state tries to evict Exxon.

There’s your link. The hypocrisy of Palin supporters never fails to amaze me. This is exactly the same violation of contract law Obama tried to pull with the hedge fund owners, yet when Palin did it she’s hailed as being tough on big oil.
Palin didn’t do anything to force Exxon to drill at Point Thompson. she obstructed them from drilling.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 7:28 AM

lowandslow, maybe you should read your own sources.

How it started

The state’s move to reclaim Point Thomson began under former Gov. Frank Murkowski’s administration in 2005, when the state’s oil and gas director at the time, Mark Myers, rejected Exxon’s “plan of development” for the field. It was the 22nd such plan the company had filed over the years.

Myers faulted the plan’s lack of a firm commitment to produce oil and gas. He said Exxon’s “30-year record of nondevelopment and delay … makes a mockery” of lease obligations.

The state had moved to cancel leases before, but never on such a prize as Point Thomson, or against so formidable an opponent as Exxon.

“Some have questioned our rationale,” Murkowski would tell Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce audience. “Some have questioned our sanity.”

After Gov. Sarah Palin unseated her fellow Republican in the 2006 election, she picked up what Murkowski started and has continued efforts to wrest control of Point Thomson away from Exxon and the other leaseholders.

In fact, Point Thomson has been a frustration for a long string of Alaska governors.

Former Gov. Wally Hickel, near the end of his second term in 1994, considered trying to take back the field. Hickel, now 89 years old, is still advocating such action.

It’s the mania of Palin detractors that’s unbelievable.

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM

What does that prove? So you have more then one Governor of Alaska trying to violate Exxon’s contractual rights, it’s that supposed to make what Palin did okay? The bottom line is Palin did nothing to get Exxon to drill at Point Thompson, nothing, it was only after being faced with having her ass handed to her in court did she cave in and agree to Exxon’s drilling proposal. Then to make matters worse she still continued down her obstructionist position by denying Exxon’s proposal for an iceroad so they couldn’t get started.
To now try to claim credit for Exxon’s drilling is an outright lie.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 9:27 AM

Wow, your own link makes you an idiot. Alaska has been impatient for the field to be developed. Exxon has dragged it’s feet for 30 years, submitting one unrealistic plan after another, so Alaska has said, “Times up, time for a new, aggressive, more realistic player and plan.”

Hey, Downlowandslow, if you are so worried about property rights, how those AIG/Chrysler bondholders doing?

GunRunner on May 9, 2009 at 11:10 AM

What does that prove? So you have more then one Governor of Alaska trying to violate Exxon’s contractual rights, it’s that supposed to make what Palin did okay? The bottom line is Palin did nothing to get Exxon to drill at Point Thompson, nothing, it was only after being faced with having her ass handed to her in court did she cave in and agree to Exxon’s drilling proposal. Then to make matters worse she still continued down her obstructionist position by denying Exxon’s proposal for an iceroad so they couldn’t get started.
To now try to claim credit for Exxon’s drilling is an outright lie.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 9:27 AM

It’s on her watch.

Re- friggin’- READ.

The state’s move to reclaim Point Thomson began under former Gov. Frank Murkowski’s administration in 2005, when the state’s oil and gas director at the time, Mark Myers, rejected Exxon’s “plan of development” for the field. It was the 22nd such plan the company had filed over the years.

Myers faulted the plan’s lack of a firm commitment to produce oil and gas. He said Exxon’s “30-year record of nondevelopment and delay … makes a mockery” of lease obligations.

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 11:19 AM

What is wrong with you people? It doesn’t make any difference how impatient Alaska or Palin was with Exxon, they never violated their lease, Palin did that. You guys are unf’nbelievable. The State of Alaska was wrong ten years ago just as Palin was wrong a year ago when she revoked their leases. Exxon is in business to make money not bankroll the Alaskan government. They didn’t drill because it wasn’t economically viable for them to do so, it still isn’t but they’re abiding by the leases they signed, it has nothing to do with Palin. If Palin was concerned about recovering Alaskan resources she should work with the producers, not against them, it’s as simple as that.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 12:00 PM

They didn’t drill because it wasn’t economically viable for them to do so, it still isn’t but they’re abiding by the leases they signed, it has nothing to do with Palin. If Palin was concerned about recovering Alaskan resources she should work with the producers, not against them, it’s as simple as that.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Have you taken a look at the lease agreement?

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Myers faulted the plan’s lack of a firm commitment to produce oil and gas. He said Exxon’s “30-year record of nondevelopment and delay … makes a mockery” of lease obligations.

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Why do you keep posting when you don’t know a damn thing about this? Exxon’s plan that Myers is talking about is the exact same plan Exxon is now using, Exxon didn’t change anything, it’s the exact same proposal Palin rejected till faced with losing her argument in court. In other words, Palin was in the wrong. Why can’t you admit just it.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Have you taken a look at the lease agreement?

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Why do I have to look at the lease agreements? Palin was the one the withdrew their court challenge because she was going to lose.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 12:10 PM

The 22nd plan was not accepted and the 23rd plan is being offered as a remedy, or second chance, to restore an acceptable plan.

Exxon has offered assurances to the state that Haymes said are a first for the company. Those include a draft court order giving the Department of Natural Resources the authority to terminate the development plan if Exxon fails to meet milestones, including online production by 2014. Exxon is prepared to start engineering within a month of the state approving a plan, Haymes said.

From here. Face it, lowandslow, anything — ANYTHING — Palin does is going to be condemned by you. ANYTHING.

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 12:13 PM

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 12:13 PM

Her actions in this should be condemned by all conservetives. Palin rejected the 23rd plan also, solely on the basis that she didn’t trust them then revoked their lease, violating the very terms of the lease. She kept up this charade till faced with losing in court. This is the same bullying tactics everyone here pissed and moaned about when Obama uses them. Why is it outrageous when he does it and not when Palin does?

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 12:20 PM

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 12:20 PM

So, instead of pushing for development, what do you think Palin should have done? Status quo?

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 12:25 PM

^ And then THAT would have been condemned. See how it works?

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 12:26 PM

So, instead of pushing for development, what do you think Palin should have done? Status quo?

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 12:25 PM

What? She wasn’t pushing for development she was playing the populist game of taking on big oil. If Palin got her way and the leases were revoked it would be ten years before another company could get the engineering, reservoir studies, permitting, etc. done to begin drilling at Point Thompson. That’s the point, she didn’t push anything, she hindered drilling at Point Thompson and to now declare they’re drilling because of her is an outright lie.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 12:42 PM

That’s the point, she didn’t push anything, she hindered drilling at Point Thompson and to now declare they’re drilling because of her is an outright lie.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 12:42 PM

And the governors before her were just playing the populist game and hindering Exxon from developing. Riiiiiight.

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Why do you keep posting when you don’t know a damn thing about this? Exxon’s plan that Myers is talking about is the exact same plan Exxon is now using, Exxon didn’t change anything, it’s the exact same proposal Palin rejected till faced with losing her argument in court. In other words, Palin was in the wrong. Why can’t you admit just it.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 12:08 PM

For one thing, I can selectively read as well as you can. You’re obviously no expert on the situation either. For another, If development of resources commences, I couldn’t care less who gets the credit or blame. You can find some other thing to blast Palin about. Maybe her glasses or something?

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 1:04 PM

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Do you know anything about this? Exxon had no interest in developing Point Thompson till they absolutely had to. Why? Because it isn’t a high profit venture. The cost to ship the gas is too high. When faced with this particular lease expiring they had no choice, it had nothing to do with Palin. She, just like her predecessor used the “evil big oil” canard and failed. It may play well in Alaska and elsewhere but it isn’t based in reality.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 1:07 PM

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Can’t make an argument so you obfuscate, nothing new here.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 1:08 PM

Do you know anything about this? Exxon had no interest in developing Point Thompson till they absolutely had to. Why? Because it isn’t a high profit venture. The cost to ship the gas is too high. When faced with this particular lease expiring they had no choice, it had nothing to do with Palin. She, just like her predecessor used the “evil big oil” canard and failed. It may play well in Alaska and elsewhere but it isn’t based in reality.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 1:07 PM

OK, Exxon was not going to proceed with development because it was not cost-effective; now Exxon is going to proceed with development.

“Your job is to convince me that the pattern has been changed,” Irwin said at a hearing in April.

And Exxon may have done that. Irwin has now partially reversed his decision to revoke Exxon’s leases at the Point Thomson natural gas field, Alaska’s second-largest.

“The appeal hearing gave Exxon and its partners the opportunity to present evidence of their unconditional commitment to develop these lands, and the commissioner’s decision simply provides them a further opportunity to demonstrate that commitment,” said Kurt Gibson, a deputy director of the Oil and Gas Division at DNR.

Irwin issued an interim decision Tuesday conditionally reinstating two of the 31 leases in the Point Thomson area.

Exxon and its partners — including BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips — has “… unconditionally committed to drilling two wells on two leases, including initiating actual drilling during this winter season, completing the two wells by 2010, and unconditionally committed to commencing production from these two wells by 2014 …,” Irwin said in a press release.

In addition to reinstating the two leases, Irwin also authorized the processing of an ice road permit, which Exxon said would allow it to start its drilling commitments this winter if approved by the end of the month.

Here. So, what’s your problem?

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2