An engagement ... Wedding Bells! ... Levi + Bristol -- A New Today Show VIDEO

Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston reveal exclusively in the new Us Weekly that they are getting married.

And, they tell Us Weekly, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has been kept in the dark about their plans ... until now.

"We got engaged two weeks ago," Bristol, 19, tells Us Weekly. "It felt right, even though we don’t have the approval of our parents."

PHOTOS: Bristol and Levi's relationship: a look back

Bristol and Levi, 20 -- who famously called off their previous engagement two weeks after welcoming son Tripp in December 2008 -- tell Us Weekly they reconnected three months ago while working out a custody plan for their 18-month-old son.

"I really thought we were over," Levi tells Us Weekly. "So when I went, I had no hope. I think we both just started talking — and then we took Tripp for a walk."

Says Bristol, "When he left that night, we didn’t hug or kiss, but I was thinking how different it was. He texted me: 'I miss you. I love you. I want to be with you again' ... I was in shock." ...

US Weekly's story continues with Bristol telling the magazine that she's scared of Sarah's reaction.

NBC's Today has an interesting story about the engagement:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Us Weekly's story is here.


Update: The unavailability of NBC's video may be due to an embargo that may end soon. After it broadcasts on the west coast?

Update: Sarah and Todd Palin said in a statement on NBC's "Today" show Tuesday that they want what's best for their children and that Bristol believes in "redemption and forgiveness." And it seems Bristol blames her mom for their initial breakup. In a newly released People interview, Bristol says that had her mom not been a VP candidate, she and Levi would already be married and would never have split. (via HuffPo, which has a large hi-res picture of Us Weekly's cover)

Update: The new video is not the earlier video with Matt Lauer, but it is an interesting interview with Caroline Schaefer, Us Weekly’s executive editor.

Update: The story must be true. It's made the paper of record. "Bristol Palin + Levi Johnston = Engaged."

Update: From Bristol's interview with People Magazine:

Bristol, who did not wear an engagement ring during her conversation with PEOPLE, replied to the question of if they would marry: "Yeah. I mean, I don't really want to get into detail about what's in store for our future, because who knows? But all I'd like to say about it is, hopefully we will be a family."

As for how they managed to bury the hatchet after their very public falling out, Bristol credits Levi's "just coming around. But, I don't know. It's good. It's good for all three of us [including son] Tripp Easton!"

Looking back, Bristol believes that if fame, money and her mom Sarah Palin's vice presidential campaign had not become part of her and Levi's lives, the ex-couple would already be happy living a simple life.

"I think Levi and I would be married," she says without hesitation. "He would still have his [oil] job on the North Slope, and we'd be in a one-bedroom apartment, scraping by."

Bristol, who says all of her friends have gone out of state, has no plans to follow them. "Levi and I are both Alaska based, and I don't see us moving anywhere else."

Sarah Palin tries to hog the news, and - Oops! - more lies pop out.

USA Today has a concise summary of the endorsement news in Georgia's gubernatorial race:

Two leading GOP conservatives, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, back different horses in Georgia's crowded gubernatorial primary. In the Democratic contest, former president Bill Clinton dissed the front-runner.

In the Democratic primary, Clinton endorsed Attorney General Thurbert Baker for governor over the favorite (and former governor) Roy Barnes. Baker seeks to become Georgia's first black governor. The Associated Press notes that Baker endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton for president in 2008 while Barnes backed John Edwards.

On her Facebook page yesterday, Palin announced her support for "underdog candidate" Karen Handel, a former Georgia secretary of State. Gingrich today endorsed former House colleague Nathan Deal, who left the House just before a potential Ethics Committee investigation. Palin, the GOP's 2008 vice presidential candidate, and Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, touted their candidates as the truest to conservative values. ...

Interestingly, Palin has endorsed a candidate who, according to her opponent, John Oxedine, the state's insurance commissioner and front-runner on the Republican side, "... gave almost a half-million dollars to an abortion provider. And supported tax-payer benefits for gay couples. Sounds like a liberal Democrat. It's the Karen Handel you didn't know" (CNN's Political Ticker via IM).

The Georgia primary will be held on July 20th, and a runoff is scheduled for August 10 if none of the candidates receive more than 50% of the votes.


Salon has a short, excellent article which contains several interesting links: "Michele Bachman outraises Sarah Palin: Is the Minnesota congresswoman more popular than the queen of the Tea Parties?"


Esquire's Politics blog addresses the hoopla over SarahPAC's recent quarterly report, noting:

Winning the GOP candidacy in 2012 will take more than stardom, and more than money. It'll take strategy, alliances, and one heckuva lot of shoe leather. Especially in Iowa and New Hampshire. I won't hazard a guess as to who will emerge victorious. I will predict it won't be be Palin or Romeny [sic], the presumptive frontrunners today. They've both tried and failed on the national stage before. Neither is a new face. And for Palin specifically, the same idiosyncratic tactics she uses to woo the far-right make her, I and others think, uniquely unlikely to be able to mount a successful party-wide candidacy. As for Mitt, Charlie Pierce has some new thoughts. Meantime, money talks.

ABC News has reported that Sarah Palin has assailed a resolution passed by the NAACP at its annual convention:

The NAACP's resolution condemning what it calls racist elements within the Tea Party is drawing fire from top Tea Party supporters, including Sarah Palin, as the civil rights group's president insists the party needs to "expel racists from the ranks."

"For more than a year we've watched as Tea Party members have called congressmen the N-word, have called congressmen the F-word. We see them carry racist signs and whenever it happens, the membership tries to shirk responsibility," NAACP President Ben Jealous said in an interview with ABC News. "If the Tea Party wants to be respected and wants to be part of the mainstream in this country, they have to take responsibility."

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People this evening passed a resolution that calls on Tea Party members to repudiate what Jealous says are "ultra-nationalist and racist factions within the organization." ...

... Former Alaska Gov. Palin, a vocal advocate of the Tea Party movement, jumped into the heated race debate Monday night, assailing the NAACP resolution as an example of "typical divisive politics that is so absolutely unnecessary."

"The Tea Party movement is a beautiful movement, full of diverse people, diverse backgrounds," Palin said on Fox News' "Hannity." "It's very unfortunate that they are taking this tactic because it's a false accusation that Tea Party Americans are racist. Any good American hates racism. We don't stand for it. It is unacceptable."

Palin in turn called on President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama to "repudiate" the resolution and "set the record straight." ...

Michelle Obama delivered the keynote address at the NAACP's annual convention. She appeared before the resolution, which was widely expected to be approved, was voted upon.

Kansas City's ABC affilliate, KMBC, reported about the NAACP's resolution, which condemned racist elements within the tea party:

KMBC's Marcus Moore reported that Benjamin Jealous' speech on the third day of the national convention told members that the country's top priority should be creating new jobs.

"Getting our priorities back right-side up means putting America back to work," said Jealous.

Moore reported that Jealous then turned his attention to the national tea party movement and called out its leaders.

"Expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take the responsibility for them and their actions," Jealous said.

Moore reported that Jealous spoke to tea party members and said some have taken things too far.

"We will no longer allow you to hide like cowards and hide behind signs that say 'Lynch Our President' or anyone else," Jealous said.

Jealous even mentioned the tea party's most well-known figure, Sarah Palin.

"Sarah Palin says, 'Let's party like it's 1776.' My white daddy would say be careful what you wish for because the 18th century, Sarah, wasn't good for anybody, even folks like you," Jealous said.

Isn't Sarah Palin lying about the Tea Party? Is it "a beautiful movement, full of diverse people, diverse backgrounds?" A CBS/NY Times poll found that it isn't so diverse, when compared with Real America:

Finally, something that cannot go without mentioning: David Weigel has a guest post at Andrew Sullivans' place. It's about Trig Palin's birth. I may address Weigel's post in the comments.

Sarah Palin Can Win By Being Stupid! WTF?

Here, we see an eager Sarah Palin as she thinks, "Boy! You sure can fool some of the people all of the time."


Greg Sargent's WaPo blog has an interesting post, "Sarah Palin plays media for chumps." It begins with a video of Chuck Todd commenting on MSNBC's "Morning Joe:"

"I hope we don't hear from Sarah Palin about media bias anymore. Because it is amazing the ability this woman has to get media attention with as little as she does, whether it's a Twitter or a Facebook update, and she gets all this atttention."

Sargent then cites a very important article written by Politico, last year:

The dirty secret here is that news orgs hype Palin's Tweets and Facebook missives because they drive clicks and traffic, not because they're newsworthy. Just ask the editors of Politico, which recently told its readers bluntly that Palin and the media have a "symbiotic relationship," because for the media, Palin is good "for the bottom line."

And argues that the attention has been good for her:

Some have argued that the media attention lavished on Palin has actually been a negative for her, as evidenced by her dropping approval ratings. But negative media attention actually plays in her favor. It plays into the narrative she's trying to construct, in which she's a warrior for a latter-day silent majority against pointy-headed eastern elites who are trying to destroy her because she represents the values and concerns of Real America. Negative attention only helps her tighten her emotional grip on her supporters. Palin keeps up the nonstop media bashing in order to feed this narrative.

Whoa! Wait just a minute! The attention has been good for her in the sense that it solidifies her fans' support. The attention hasn't helped her with moderates, independents and democrats, all of whom she must woo in order to be elected. The moment she moves to the middle in an attempt to woo them, her base of support will crumble, and everyone else will doubt her sincerity. Everyone will say she's flip-flopped!


It is interesting, and it can be perplexing. From the perspective of someone seeking web hits, nothing could be better than Sarah Palin acting batsh*t crazy and running for President. Isn't she? What could be more entertaining and controversial?

Today the UK's Guardian ran an article "Sarah Palin's war chest points to 2012 presidential bid," in which a blogger was cited for writing,

"'She's too stupid' is what the Establishment GOP really thinks about Sarah Palin. 'Good-looking,' but a 'ditz'. This is unfertile ground, since Palin can turn the argument on a dime and say: 'They drive the country into bankruptcy, they underwrite Fannie and Freddie, they bail out Goldman Sachs, they fight wars they don't want to win, they say enforcing the immigration laws is silly and they call me stupid! I'll give you a choice: you can have their smarts or my stupidity, which one do you want?' A large number of GOP presidential primary voters will take Palin's "stupidity" in a heartbeat." [emphasis added]

Bring on the clowns!

SarahPAC Eats Palinbots' Lunches

Here, we see Sarah Palin laughing maniacally. An aide has just informed her that some poor sap has given his lunch money to SarahPAC.

SarahPAC has filed a quarterly report for the period beginning April 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2010.

The PAC received $865815.42 (line 6(c)) and disbursed $742334.31 (line 7). $82500 was disbursed to to Federal Candidates/Committees and Other Political Committees (line 23), so Federal Candidates/Committees and Other Political Committees received about 9.5% of monies contributed to the PAC, or about 11% of the PAC's disbursements. Whichever way you prefer to look at it (percentage of contributions or percentage of disbursements), only about 10% of the PAC's contributions went to work to help candidates/committees. That means that if you gave $100 to SarahPAC, only about $10 went to work to help candidates/committees.

SarahPAC appears to be an inefficient way to contribute to campaigns and/or committees; you might get more bang for your buck by contributing directly, and by doing so you could contribute to whomever you please.

It appears that if you contribute to SarahPAC, you are helping perpetuate the PAC and its close associates more than anything else.


The Associated Press has published a story written by Becky Bohrer, "FEC filing shows Palin gave $87500 to candidates." Her $87500 figure probably includes a $5000 item from line 29, "Other Disbursements." Ms. Bohrer has written about Palin before, recently in an article about the possibility of a 2012 Palin run for the presidency. At least part of that article was informed by Rebecca Mansour, "a consultant to her [Palin's] political action committee."

Who knows what's in Sarah Palin's head?

Salon has posted a story from Jonathan Bernstein's blog, "What we do (and don't) know about Sarah Palin and 2012."


Bernstein begins:

Andrew Sullivan has a good roundup of some of the recent punditry about Sarah Palin and the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. I've given my position before: Anyone who thinks she has it locked up is nuts, and anyone who thinks that there's zero possibility of her winning is also nuts. But that does raise the question: What can we know now? What should we ignore? And by the way, how does the nomination process work, anyhow?

He goes on to offer five interesting thoughts about Palin/2012 and recommends ignoring anyone who claims to know what Palin will do. Then he concludes by describing the nominating process:

Now, bonus content: Presidential Nomination Process 101. I said that nominations are controlled by "party leaders." That does not mean that a handful of people sit down in a room in Washington and dictate the nomination. What it means is that quite a few people, including the leaders of party-aligned interest groups, local and state party leaders, big donors, opinion leaders, major politicians at the state and national levels, and ordinary activists, collectively try to come to a decision. The role of the voters over the last couple of decades has been three things. First, and most basically, voters ratify the decisions of party leaders. Second, in cases in which party leaders split, voters may determine the outcome. And, third, it appears that party leaders sometimes use voters in the early primaries and caucuses to test how a candidate they are considering supporting will play with the electorate. So Howard Dean failed that test in Iowa in 2004, while Barack Obama passed it in 2008. Those insiders narrow down the field during the "invisible primary" -- hey, wait, that's happening right now! That's why, for example, by the time the voters started choosing in 2008 such reasonable-on-paper candidates as Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson were reduced to asterisks; they had already been winnowed out before anyone even voted.

OK, that's what we do know. What we -- that is, what political scientists -- don't really know is which party leaders are the most influential in any one party at any one time. We're much better at figuring that sort of thing out after the fact. So there's plenty of scope for good reporting, especially over the next year or so when things are beginning to matter. Things such as the National Journal's insiders poll are helpful; campaign finance reports will start being helpful; endorsements are helpful. But it's also helpful to poke around aggressively to find out which interest group leaders are thought of as serious players and which are resting on their reputations; which state and local party people carry resources with their endorsements; which Washingtonians are really plugged in to conservative networks, and which are just repeating stale conventional wisdom. Good reporters can get to that kind of stuff as it's happening. So my advice is to pay attention to reporters and pundits who seem to know what they're talking about when it comes to the Republican Party network, and less attention to those who think they know what's in Sarah Palin's head.

Jonathan Bernstein's post originally appeared, here, in his A plain blog about politics.

California Schemin' - The Rise of The Know Nothings

Yesterday, Chris Matthews talked with California Attorney General Jerry Brown about his opponent, Meg Whitman, and the current Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, as well as the problems the State of California is facing. Brown and Whitman are vying to be California's next Governor, an office Brown has held before. About the 1:50 mark, Matthews asks Brown:

"What is it in the American psyche or character that says, if you don't know anything, you're somehow an average person or average guy and you have horse sense? What is it about people that keep picking people like George W. Bush to be president? And you see these people like Sarah Palin out there with fans. Why would anybody like somebody who the campaign manager for John McCain said, "She doesn`t know anything?" Why is not knowing anything — why does the know-nothing candidate, like Meg Whitman, a person who doesn't have any government experience, have the appeal to be even with you in the polls? The know — the person that doesn`t know anything about government."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It's an interesting interview. Jerry Brown is confident that the voters won't be bamboozled by Meg Whitman's repetitive ads and mailings (she has spent about $100 Million already), that by election day they'll have enough information to pick the best candidate to serve as Governor.

During the interview, Jerry Brown is seated in front of a background picturing U.C. Berkeley's campanile.

Pink Elephants On Parade

Pit Bulls and Mama Grizzlies aren't good enough? Sarah's now saying, "Look out Washington because there’s a whole stampede of pink elephants crossin the line, and the ETA, stampeding through, is November 2nd 2010." (emphasis added)

Dumbo, starring in a 1941 Disney film, drinks water spiked with champagne and hallucinates:



Sarah's "Look out Washington..." is from a transcript of SarahPAC's new video, "Mama Grizzlies." You can see the video and read the transcript at The Mudflats' "SarahPAC Video Post-Mortem." Greg Sargent's blog at The Washington Post has the video, too, and he may be taking it too seriously. CBS has a story, which relates the video to the rise of "conservative feminism," which is an oxymoron, like "a cruel kindness." IM notes that some moms, like Sarah Palin, may not know everything, and in the same post has news that the RNC doesn't believe Palin will be a player in the party's future.

Did you sing along with "Pink Elephants On Parade?"