Jack Cafferty Rips Palin Again On 2nd Couric Interview

This just keeps getting better.

John McCain now plays damage control and has to hold Sarah Palin's hand while she gets interviewed by Katie Couric about her disastrous first interview.

Click above to catch Jack Cafferty's priceless comment.

And, in case you missed the first Cafferty comments that sliced and diced Alaska's queen of pork, click on the following video:

Separated At Birth: Sarah Palin & Miss South Carolina

For those who watched the Sarah Palin interview with Katie Couric with a dropped jaw, you will appreciate the above video, juxtaposing Sarah Palin's convoluted responses to those notoriously given by Miss South Carolina, at last year's Miss Teen USA competition.

Is it me, or do they share an identical rhetorical style?

Yes, John McCain has certainly selected the ideal representative from the religious right. And a former pageant contestant in her own right.

Perhaps in the next interview segment, Katie might ask Ms. Palin to do a bit of baton-twirling for us.

Frank Rich Exposes John McCain

It's not like he hasn't done it before, but in today's Op-Ed in the New York Times, Frank Rich gives Senator John McCain the dressing down he deserves after his disastrous campaign week. I have not seen the fraudulent machinations and manipulations of Team McCain laid out any better.

In a column titled, "McCain's Suspension Bridge to Nowhere," Rich writes:

What we learned last week is that the man who always puts his “country first” will take the country down with him if that’s what it takes to get to the White House.

For all the focus on Friday night’s deadlocked debate, it still can’t obscure what preceded it: When John McCain gratuitously parachuted into Washington on Thursday, he didn’t care if his grandstanding might precipitate an even deeper economic collapse. All he cared about was whether he might save his campaign. George Bush put more deliberation into invading Iraq than McCain did into his own reckless invasion of the delicate Congressional negotiations on the bailout plan.

By the time he arrived, there already was a bipartisan agreement in principle. It collapsed hours later at the meeting convened by the president in the Cabinet Room. Rather than help try to resuscitate Wall Street’s bloodied bulls, McCain was determined to be the bull in Washington’s legislative china shop, running around town and playing both sides of his divided party against Congress’s middle. Once others eventually forged a path out of the wreckage, he’d inflate, if not outright fictionalize, his own role in cleaning up the mess his mischief helped make. Or so he hoped, until his ignominious retreat.

Dead on.

In my last post, I wrote about the latest revelations surrounding campaign manager Rick Davis and the fact that he was still receiving lobbying money from Freddie Mac up until last month. Rich, in his column, succinctly connects all the dots and also, as I did, wrote about the GOP tactic of making a pre-emptive strike to deflect attention away from his own serious political problems. As Rich put it:

The McCain campaign tried to pre-emptively deflect such revelations by reviving the old Rove trick of accusing your opponent of your own biggest failings. It ran attack ads about Obama’s own links to the mortgage giants. But neither of the former Freddie-Fannie executives vilified in those ads, Franklin Raines and James Johnson, had worked at those companies lately or are currently associated with the Obama campaign. (Raines never worked for the campaign at all.) By contrast, Davis is the tip of the Freddie-Fannie-McCain iceberg. McCain’s senior adviser, his campaign’s vice chairman, his Congressional liaison and the reported head of his White House transition team all either made fortunes from recent Freddie-Fannie lobbying or were players in firms that did.

Rich goes on to discuss the other elements of the Team McCain meltdown...from the ludicrous Sarah Palin interview with Katie Couric...to the threatened debate postponement...to the Letterman fallout. Frank Rich makes a very clear case that there was never any true campaign suspension, just an unprecedented level of political grandstanding.

McCain's increasingly bizarre campaign moves are finally starting to make a dent in polls. If the American public cannot pick Senator Obama over a candidate who has run such an amazingly shoddy, clueless campaign, then we are in far worse shape than I could ever have imagined.

To check out the entire Rich column, click here.

John McCain's Fannie Flak

On exactly what planet does Team McCain live?

I pose this question because the campaign is about to enter the realm of the surreal.

The Prelude

In the aftermath of the historic Wall Street financial collapse, the McCain campaign put out a bizarre attack on Barack Obama, with a disturbing campaign ad as the centerpiece.

The campaign commercial attempted to link Obama to former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines. Observe the ad for yourself and note this...considering both Obama and Raines have claimed the story (alleging that Obama sought financial advice from Raines) is a downright lie, and there is no proof, why even put this out there, when the head of your campaign has a much bigger reason to not want to get into comparisons on this issue?

As you watch, let me give you a clue as to what McCain was doing. This was obviously a 'smear by association' ploy, made popular by Karl Rove. Check out Franklin Raines' skin tone. In one shot they make him look utterly devious. Does the term 'angry black man' come to mind? And then observe the personification of the victims, an elderly white woman. Click on the ad and witness the racism of John McCain.



The Times Article

Earlier this week, the New York Times had this to say about Rick Davis, Senator John McCain's campaign manager:

Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.

For those not fond of calculators, that translates to just under 2 million dollars.

These are the people who put out the attack ad?

The Times expose seems rock solid and insinuates that anger from the Obama/Raines ads was the reason that people came forward to discuss the role of Davis. Read for yourself at the link provided above.

The Davis Rant

So, how does Mr. Davis respond to the allegations? Does he refute the charges uncategorically? Does he offer up a defense?

Well, not exactly.

He equates the New York Times with being a tool of the Democratic Party. That's right, the same Times that cozied up to George W. Bush and helped to lie us into war. I heard an audio clip of Davis, ripping into the Times earlier today. And the campaign has now taken up the mantle.

As the Gothamist reports:

Yesterday, campaign adviser Steve Schmidt said, "Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization...This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be... It is a pro-Obama organization that every day attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. Palin and excuses Sen. Obama.

I can fully understand how the base is going to get all riled up about this, but did they really think such a disgraceful attack would appeal to independents and moderates? Especially since the charges the Times made were not denied?

It gets worse for McCain

Today, the story grew substantially worse for McCain/Palin/Davis.

In reports in both the New York Times, and now, Newsweek as well, money kept being funneled into Davis' consulting firm, even though no work was being done to justify the outlay of money.

How much money?

According to Newsweek's Michaek Isikoff:

Since 2006, the federally sponsored mortgage giant Freddie Mac has paid at least $345,000 to the lobbying and consulting firm of John McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement.

Freddie Mac had previously paid an advocacy group run by Davis, called the Homeownership Alliance, $30,000 a month until the end 2005, when that group was dissolved. That relationship was the subject of a New York Times story Monday, which drew angry denunciations from the McCain campaign. McCain and his aides have vehemently objected to suggestions that Davis has ties to Freddie Mac—an especially sensitive issue given that the Republican presidential candidate has blamed "the lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats" for the mortgage crisis that recently prompted the Bush administration to take over both Freddie Mac and its companion, Fannie Mae, and put them under federal conservatorship.

But neither the Times story—nor the McCain campaign—revealed that Davis's lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, based in Washington, D.C., continued to receive $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac until last month—long after the Homeownership Alliance had been terminated.

And, as the Times, correctly suggests:

The disclosure undercuts a statement by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.

It would seem that way, wouldn't it?

So what's next on the agenda?

Will Mr. Davis and Team McCain now claim that Newsweek is out to get them, too?

If I were a betting man...

Palin's $26 Million Embarrassment:The ROAD To Nowhere

How does an alleged fighter against earmarks and government waste justify allowing a 26 million dollar roads project, designed to complement the proposed 'bridge to nowhere,' to go forward?

As today's Los Angeles Times documents,

The 3.2-mile-long partially paved "road to nowhere" meanders from a small international airport on Gravina Island (pictured above), home to 50 people, ending in a cul-de-sac close to a beach.

Crews are working to finish it. But no one knows when anyone will need to drive it.

...in 2006, Palin stood before residents in this region during her gubernatorial campaign and expressed support for the bridge. It became apparent after she was elected that the state's portion would be too costly, and Palin ordered transportation officials to abandon the project.

She held on to the $223 million in federally earmarked funds for other uses, such as the Gravina road, approved by her predecessor.

Check out these telling comments, from the same article:

Susan Walsh, a nurse who lives on Gravina Island, remembers attending that Chamber of Commerce meeting. When Palin withdrew her support for the bridge, Walsh figured the road project would have died with it. "It was just stupid," she said.

Jacob, the woman who has been protesting the road for two years with a letter-writing campaign on behalf of the Tongass Conservation Society in Ketchikan, says: "We begged her to stop."

An April 2007 letter to Palin read: "I am writing to encourage you to do away with the Gravina Access Highway. At about $8 million per mile of public money, this is a fiscal mistake."

How will Sarah Palin and John McCain talk their way out of this one?

You can access the full Los Angeles Times article here.

The Bush 2004 Political Ads: Sound Familiar?

In an affort to not repeat the mistakes of the past, I thought I would post a couple of the Bush '04 campaign ads. It is interesting to hear the promises that George Bush made for the 2004 election. The above ad had a whole litany of promises that sound remarkably like a 2008 McCain ad (on the rare occasion he does not attack Barack Obama's character).

The references to reducing dependency on foreign energy and strengthening social security are especially ironic. We can be equally confident that in '08, when the McCain makes the same claims, we would have the same result 4 years later. Empty words.

Below is another ad, specifically focusing on our economy. Once again, the mantra is that the Democrats want to destroy small business owners and wreck the economy. That is the excuse that the GOP always uses when choosing not to address why there are no regulations or oversight directed at big business at all. Or why some businesses just don't seem to be paying any taxes.

Watch, and see how many of these promises were kept. Job creation, anyone?

Palin Touts A 'Palin-McCain' Administration

I think Sarah Palin has been spending some quality time with Dick Cheney.

Click on the video for a good chuckle.

By the way, that sound you hear is John McCain pounding his head against the wall, whilst muttering, "I can't believe they wouldn't let me pick Joey."

Calling Out McCain/Palin On Their Lies

CNN, to their credit, have a fairly powerful piece that takes on the lies of McCain/Palin. Click above to see it.

As I posted to Crooks and Liars, where I first caught this video clip, there needs to be a strong, unified response to this GOP strategy.

When the lies are blatant, reporters and the media need to continually refer to it in their coverage, not just in special features.

What the Obama campaign needs to do

If the Dems had run a similar campaign, there would be a united chorus of ‘liar’ coming out of the GOP. Where are the Democrats on this? How about calling out the GOP on specific, deliberate lies, that keep getting repeated.

Maybe they can start a feature called, GOP lie of the day (or week).

It could be a regular ad that begins like this:

The McCain/Palin campaign, just like the Bush administration, believes that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it to be true.

We believe that candidates should be held accountable for deliberately spreading lies. And we believe if you repeat the truth often enough, lies will be exposed for what they are.

Today, we challenge the following McCain lie:

(30 seconds of the lie and the fact-based debunking of it)

(close with a Bush/McCain lie on WMD, or something similar)

Repeating a lie, one knows to be false, is not presidential. Senator McCain, if you have a record to run on, you do not need to distort the truth to win.

I am Barack Obama and I approve this message.

The nose

How about incorporating a Pinocchio nose on McCain and Palin when these spots are run? As their lies are told, we would see a graphic of a growing nose. Use the same GOP tactic of reducing things to images that voters can relate to (flip-flops, anyone?). Visually, make McCain/Palin synonomous with the lies of Pinocchio.

This might actually, at some point, cause McCain to actually run on his record.

Where art thou, Hillary?

Isn't it odd that the one time we have been hearing about Hillary Clinton engaging with Sarah Palin, it turns to be a parody on "Saturday Night Live?"

That makes me wonder, where are you Senator Clinton?

Please try speaking up a little louder against Sarah Palin, the self-professed 'barracuda,' who has unloaded, seemingly scot-free, on Senator Obama. Either the media just isn't listening to what you have to say Hillary, or else you're not doing your best to make yourself heard.

You know what's funny? Some sites are suggesting that you aren't saying much about Sarah Palin at all?

If not, I would like to know why?

You see, if you are not seen as going all out in 2008...and by going all out, I mean doing all you can to prevent Sarah Palin from using you as a tool to attract voters to McCain...than there will be nothing to worry about campaigning for in 2012.

If The Revlon Fits

Just a quick comment on the GOP Rovian tactic of taking a comment out of context and deliberately making a controversy out of an intentional distortion...

First, this should not be left to Senator Obama. It should be handled by prominent women in the Democratic party. Hillary, where art thou?

Having said that, this should be the retort:

Senator Obama never made the 'lipstick on a pig' reference, in regards to Governor Sarah Palin. But, since they brought it up, she presides over the state that receives more earmarks per capita than any other in the U.S.

Doesn't that make her the 'Queen of pork?'

As, this post is titled....if the Revlon fits.

Hmm...do you thinks the Dems may actually use the GOP's lies against them? There's a first time for everything.

(note: I will be unavailable to post until the beginning of next week, it will be interesting to see how this new distortion plays out. I think McCain has finally overdone the smear tactics. I hope this will backfire big time. If Americans have any intelligence, and the media has any dignity remaining, it will).

Republican Hypocrisy: John Stewart's Home Run

For me, this was John Stewart's finest moment.

Stewart, on the Daily Show, did exactly what the Democrats should have been doing all along, exposing Republican hypocrisy. My only quibble with the person who provided this video was the erroneously spelled 'hypocracy' on the title card, introducing this video.

Unfortunately, to this point, we are seeing a Kerry-like campaign, which is why the ridiculous ticket of McCain-Palin is currently in the lead.

With so much material to work with from the candidates themselves...with hypocrisy being the true cornerstone of this entire campaign...can the Dems grow some cojones and start playing offense?

The brilliant Mr. Stewart shows you how it is done...with a sense of humor, to boot. And everybody knows how much John McCain appreciates a sense of humor.

Debunking The Lies Of McCain-Palin: The Bridge To Nowhere

The primary narrative that the GOP laid out for Sarah Palin, as she emerged from her relative anonymity in Alaska, was that she was a fellow 'maverick' who fought against earmarks and special interests, culminating in her allegedly turning down the "bridge to nowhere," with a "thanks, but no thanks."

It's a great American story. It also happens to be a lie.

Since the mainstream media will, for the most part, not report the truth, it is something many of us on the progressive side of the blogosphere are doing to help insure we have an informed electorate come November.

As I debunk the McCain-Palin lies, I will make sure everything is fully attributed. I don't want anyone to take my word for anything. The truth is out there, all we need are the proper tools to uncover it.

The Bridge To Nowhere

The 'bridge to nowhere' was a proposed bridge that would have connected Ketchican, Alaska to the Ketchican International Airport on Gravina Island. The bridge was projected to cost $398 million (which sounds much cheaper than 400 million), and would have replaced the need for a ferry, which is currently used.

According to a story in the 5/17/05 edition of USA Today,the proposed bridge would be,

nearly as long as the Golden Gate and higher than the Brooklyn Bridge, to connect the town of Ketchikan (population 8,900) to the city airport on Gravina Island (population 50).

The Metamorphosis Of Sarah Palin

When Sarah Palin was the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, getting earmarks for her city was one of her annual traditions. In fact, it is well documented that Palin hired a lobbyist that got her town $27 million in earmarked projects. The population of Wasilla at the time? 6,900.

During her run for Governor, Sarah Palin had no problem campaigning for funding for the Gravina Island Bridge. As USA Today accurately reported,

While running for governor in 2006, though, Palin backed federal funding for the infamous bridge, which McCain helped make a symbol of pork barrel excess.

In an article in the 10/5/06 edition of the Anchorage Daily News, titled 'Bridges, oil and wolves drive debate: GOVERNOR'S RACE: Candidates sound off on key state issues," (fee required), the following was reported:

As for the infamous "bridges to nowhere," MacDonald asked if the candidates would forge ahead with the proposed Knik Arm crossing between Anchorage and Point MacKenzie and Ketchikan's Gravina Island bridge. Each has received more than $90 million in federal funding and drew nationwide attacks as being unnecessary and expensive. He also asked if they support building an access road from Juneau toward -- but not completely connecting to -- Skagway and Haines. "I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegations worked hard for," Palin said. She said the projects link communities and create jobs. Still, Palin warned that the flow of federal money into the state for such projects is going to slow.

Sarah Palin, shortly after she was elected, had a change of heart. As the 12/16/06 edition of the Anchorage Daily News reported, in a story titled "Budget plan calls for belt- tightening" (fee required),

Palin's budget doesn't include money for mega projects that she supported as a candidate, such as the controversial Gravina Island bridge in Ketchikan.

Asked if she'd changed her mind about the project, Palin said she will hash out where the bridge fits on the state's list of priorities with the help of the Legislature and public.

"We have a limited pot of money, of course, and we need to make wise, sensible choices," she said.

The Lie

Andrew Halcro, on his blog, reported on the following exchange with Sarah Palin and Charlie Rose, from 10/12/07:

CR: What was that highway Senator Stevens wanted to build?

SP: He wanted to build a bridge.

CR: You stopped that didn't you?

SP: Stopped that because we'll make sensible decisions using other peoples money, federal money, and we'll make some wise decisions on how to build up our infrastructure.
CR: Did you get any feedback on your decision?

SP: From those in Congress?

CR: Yes

SP: Yes I did, but Alaskans are supportive, again just to make some wise decisions with other peoples money.

As Halcro writes:

The governor's decision was made just 6 weeks after U.S. Senator Ted Stevens Girdwood home was raided by the FBI and rumors were at a fever pitch that an indictment was soon to follow.

The reason for sending out the 5am press release was to hit east coast newscycles to gain maximum national attention for the move. The move garnered big news coverage nationwide.

The bottom line was that Governor-elect Sarah Palin, whose entire career had consisted of securing earmarks (there is a reason why Alaska had twice the amount of earmarks per capita than any other state), knew that her state was being belittled in the media. She knew that Stevens was being investigated. And she knew that, if Alaska was going to continue to receive money, she had to do something.

To put it simply...Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere, before she was against it.

If it was just a matter of not taking pork, Palin's story would have maybe some validity. However, Governor Palin would have committed political suicide had she generically turned down money earmarked for her state. She didn't. She merely reduced it to a couple hundred million.

As Palin herself wrote in the 3/5/08 edition of the Fairbanks News-Miner,

I am not among those who have said "earmarks are nothing more than pork projects being shoveled home by an overeager congressional delegation." I recognize that Congress, which exercises the power of the purse, has the constitutional responsibility to put its mark on the federal budget, including adding funds that the president has not proposed.

She adds,

This year, we have requested 31 earmarks, down from 54 in 2007. Of these, 27 involve continuing or previous appropriations and four are new requests. The total dollar amount of these requests has been reduced from approximately $550 million in the previous year to just less than $200 million.

It is a lie to suggest that Palin had been against this bridge...that is was somehow offered to her...and, out of her maverick, rebellious nature, she turned it down. It is a lie to suggest she is, or ever has been, against earmarks.

She strongly advocated for earmarks as mayor. As governor, facing stiff opposition from Washington, she merely reduced what she was requesting.

Had Palin not changed her mind on the bridge, the public outcry had gotten so bad, at that point, that she would have been hard-pressed to get money for other Alaskan pet projects.

And, up to that point, those earmarks were what Sarah Palin was all about.

Alaska did not return the money

What makes this the utmost farce was that Alaska got the money anyway and just used it for other projects, as Frank Rich recently pointed out.

According to factcheck.org:

Palin accepted non-earmarked money from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation purposes doesn’t qualify as standing up to Congress.

So, how come the mainstream media is letting her get away with this?

Why the kid gloves treatment on a woman we know nothing about, who is kept under wraps while we are fed carefully chosen media soundbytes?

Why, indeed?

Maverick McCain?

NOTE: POSITIONING OF THIS POST HAS BEEN IRRETRIEVABLY ALTERED, ACCESS THE REPOST OF THIS VIDEO HERE.

As evidence that the 'maverick' part of McCain is pure Hollywood fantasy, right up there with George Bush becoming a cowboy for 8 years with the purchase of his Crawford Ranch, enjoy the above clip from You Tube.

It stars McCain and Bush, with supporting 'mavericks,' Cheney and Palin. It is all set to the theme from the old TV western "Maverick," which ran from 1957-1962.

Gloria Steinem Deconstructs Sarah Palin

In an Op-Ed on Thursday, feminist leader Gloria Steinem laid bare the record on John McCain and Sarah Palin. Steinem, a former Clinton supporter who now supports Barack Obama, did not pull any punches.

In a piece in the L.A. Times, titled "Palin: wrong woman, wrong message," Steinem writes:

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton.

As far as voting for the GOP ticket in anger over Clinton's defeat for the nomination, Steinem had this to say:

To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

In case there is any doubt as to why the choice of Palin should be anathema to women, Steinem spells it all out in one stinging paragraph:

She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

These are points well remembering when we debate the merits of Palin's credentials to be president.

With the sort of record that Sarah Palin has on the issues, I think just letting her record speak for itself should cause Independents and moderate Democrats to get turned off in a hurry.

We just have to let people know what her record is, because the GOP is doing its best to keep it buried.

You can access the full article here.

When Are The Dems Going To Learn How To Fight?

I had to make a couple of brief comments, in the wake of the media genuflection over Sarah Palin's delivery of the speech written for her at the GOP convention.

Democrats need to learn how to play this game.

How is it that we are playing defense from attacks by Palin? Is this the other side of the looking glass?

Once again, Democrats are afraid to attack the GOP because we let them define the terms. We are supposed to mention John McCain/war hero, every time we have the audacity to question his foreign policy experience. And now, instead of McCain having to answer for putting an unknown, inexperienced, religious zealot within a heartbeat from the presidency, we are supposed to feel that her inexperience is somehow equivalent to Obama's? On any level?

Why, because we are afraid to attack a self-professed barracuda for alleged fear of offending Hillary supporters?

This is reading like a bad joke.

Let me make clear what the Democratic strategy has to be from this day forward.

Play offense.

Or lose.

One final thing...if you want 'community organizer' to not go the way of 'trial lawyers,' maybe the Dems could do what I saw suggested at Crooks & Liars...remind folks that Jesus was a community organizer.

Oh, by the way, so was the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And Susan B. Anthony.

Not to mention the countless people, in all the various service groups in communities all over America that exist to help people in all walks of life get empowered.

Since when do those who register voters (they're community organizers of the very best, most patriotic stripe) deserve to be tarred by a Rovian dirty trick?

Fait accomplis.

RNC Co-Chair's "Sarah Pawlenty" Gaffe

It just gets curiouser and curiouser.

This is no slouch referring to Veep nominee Sarah Palin, as Sarah Pawlenty (Tim Pawlenty, of course, being the Minnesota governor who was apparently the one passed over for the nomination). No, this is, believe it or not, the RNC Co-Chair, Jo Ann Davidson who made the goof.

It would be like introducing Biden as Joe Clinton.

Break out the popcorn, maybe I can stomach the GOP convention after all.

Like Mother Like Daughter?

John Aravosis posted some interesting information about Sarah Palin on AmericaBlog. It is the same information that Alan Colmes (who would have thought it?) posted on his blog.

If what I read is true, then Sarah Palin eloped with her husband on August 29, 1988. She gave birth to her oldest son on April 20, 1989...less than 8 months after she eloped.

Does anybody think this is coincidence?

This is especially telling, considering Palin preaches abstinence as the only form of birth control.