• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report: Glen Rice, Sarah Palin had a one-night stand in ’87

i think glen rice said he knew her, and said he wouldn't elaborate. sounds like they had a roll in the hay to me.

Larry Sinclair says that he knew Obama and gave him a blowjob while Obama was snorting coke. That sounds true to me.
 
Here is a fellow writing about how Joe McGinniss conducts his research:


So a single girl had sex with a single guy more than 20 years ago. I’m, uh, shocked or something. Presuming it even happened, which given McGinnis’ track record it probably didn’t.

I have my own history with Mr. McGinnis. I have no idea if this actually made it into the book, but McGinnis contacted me in 2010 while he was trying to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin’s father Chuck Heath. Back in the 1980′s Heath was a teacher/coach in the Wasilla public school system at the same time a teacher by the name of Walter Koenig was arrested for molesting several girls, one of them my sister. The revelation of Koenig’s crimes came at the time that public schools in Alaska were being rocked with revelation after revelation of molestation.

My father, an Alaska State Trooper at the time, investigated these cases though once it became clear that my sister was involved in Koenig’s case he handed it off to another investigator.

Regardless, Koenig confessed his crimes and was convicted. At the time, though, there was a scandal in the community over the firing of a school principal to whom students had complained about Koenig. The principal, who later regretted his decision for obvious reasons, didn’t take their complaints seriously. At the time there were no mandatory reporting laws in Alaska requiring teachers, etc. to report complaints of abuse to law enforcement. My father investigated the matter and ultimately found that no laws had been broken.

Regardless, the school superintendent still chose to fire the principal. This caused some uproar in the community as some, including Sarah Palin’s father Chuck Heath, felt that while the principal made a mistake it shouldn’t cost him his career. The controversy escalated to the point where the superintendent reported having his tires slashed, though ultimately after my father investigated that incident it turned out that the superintendent had slashed his own tires so he could get new winter tires at the expense of his insurance company (my father arrested him for the crime).

McGinniss’ angle was to attempt to make Chuck Heath out to be some sort of apologist for a sex predator. That wasn’t the case at all. Heath simply felt that the decision to fire the principal was wrong. A debatable position (my family certainly disagreed), but hardly one that reflects on Heath’s character. Indeed, my family and the Heaths/Palins remain friends to this day.

My response to McGinniss was to politely decline to comment on the matter, saying that it was a long-dead issue with no bearing on Sarah Palin or her political career (she was in high school at the time) and that my family considers the Heaths/Palins to be fine people and friends. In response, McGinnis sent me another email with a concocted narrative making Chuck Heath out to be some sort of enabler of pedophilia and my father as someone willing to tolerate it even as his own daughter was victimized. McGinniss told me that if I didn’t share my version of the story, this was the version he’d have to run with.


The modus operandi of McGinniss is clear. He picks up a rumor or weaves together a salacious story and then asks the people he targets to give their side of the story. If they refuse to cooperate he tells them that he will run the rumor/ concocted story as presented.

This creates problems for people like Palin and Rice who don't want to be involved, in any manner, with a waste of human skin like McGuinniss. McGuinniss is simply playing the old LBJ game:


There is a story in politics, commonly attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson, about how LBJ wanted to circulate a rumor attacking his opponent in a Texas election. Johnson, it's said, wanted to spread the story that his opponent liked to have sex with barnyard animals. One of LBJ's aides said, "We can't prove he's a pig f----r."
"I know that," replied Johnson. "I just want to hear him deny it."​


The best thing to do when muckrackers and fabulists swarm around you like zombies from a night of the living dead is to not dignify the accusation with a response.
 
Last edited:
Even the NY Times says the book is not believable.

A conservative quoting the NY Times. As if somehow they had an ounce of credibility to a conservative on anything else. You can't make this **** up.
 
A conservative quoting the NY Times. As if somehow they had an ounce of credibility to a conservative on anything else. You can't make this **** up.

What, are you some kind of segregationist? A cultist... no outside study allowed. Really though, there are good reasons to quote sources outside ones group's periodicals and literature. First, if someone agrees with the 'other's' perspective to some extent and supports the 'other' on that issue. Second, showing an opponent that even the opponent's sources make the claim is a legitimate point. If one was arguing with a mainstream christian and could show how a part of the bible is interpreted in mainstream christian doctrine as contradicting that person... that's a legit move. The christian cannot retort "you don't believe the bible anyway, so you can't use it in an argument against me". What kind of insanity would that be? "You don't really believe in the constitution anyway, so you cannot use it against me".

Let's review:

1. It is possible for an 'opposing' publication to make some sense sometimes, for various reasons.
2. Using an opponent's typical source, or representative source, against them is legit.


Nevermind, I remember now. It's called partisan.
 
Last edited:
However, this entire episode does bring up the interesting question about her own ethics she employed while in the reporting profession as a member of the mainstream media.

Well, it would if there was any actual evidence that this “episode” had actually occurred. So far as I know, the only “evidence“*is the word of a rather credibility-challenged writer who wouldn't have any rational basis on which to know about it if it had happened.
 
A conservative quoting the NY Times. As if somehow they had an ounce of credibility to a conservative on anything else. You can't make this **** up.

Actually, given the fact that conservatives tend to believe that the Times will normally stop at nothing to bash conservatives, a story where they defend conservatives would be, in their minds, the ultimate in proof that the attacks in that instance are completely unwarranted. Under the logic of: If even the NYTimes is defending a conservative, then the attacks on that conservative have to be completely unfounded.

For example, if the Enquirer were to run a story claiming that some particular celebrity didn't have an affair, that would be the most inherently believable story in Enquirer history for many people.
 
That has no bearing on this particular part of the book, though. Even if every other story in the book is false, this one could be true.

And if I were to say that you routinely sexually abuse and then murder young children, that could be true. Even if I say a lot of other things that are clearly false, this one claim could be true. I've not heard you deny doing any such thing, which seems to imply that such a claim is not entirely unbelievable.


The fact that there have been no denials about it form either Rice or Palin implies that it is not entirely unbelievable.

I saw Mr. Rice on TV a few days ago saying that it was false, and yesterday, I saw Mrs. Palin on TV also saying it was false. It seems to me that these would constitute “denials”, wouldn't they? And if this did happen, these are the only two people who would plausibly know about it.
 
Actually, given the fact that conservatives tend to believe that the Times will normally stop at nothing to bash conservatives, a story where they defend conservatives would be, in their minds, the ultimate in proof that the attacks in that instance are completely unwarranted. Under the logic of: If even the NYTimes is defending a conservative, then the attacks on that conservative have to be completely unfounded.

For example, if the Enquirer were to run a story claiming that some particular celebrity didn't have an affair, that would be the most inherently believable story in Enquirer history for many people.

Both Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann came out on Governor Palin's side on this.
 
And if I were to say that you routinely sexually abuse and then murder young children, that could be true. Even if I say a lot of other things that are clearly false, this one claim could be true. I've not heard you deny doing any such thing, which seems to imply that such a claim is not entirely unbelievable.

You're absolutely right. It could be true, even if you said a lot of other false things. The lack of credibility would imply that agnosticism is required until further examination can occur.

As the old story goes, one time the boy who cried wolf was telling the truth.


I saw Mr. Rice on TV a few days ago saying that it was false, and yesterday, I saw Mrs. Palin on TV also saying it was false. It seems to me that these would constitute “denials”, wouldn't they? And if this did happen, these are the only two people who would plausibly know about it.

Of course those would be denials if they actually occurred.

But I haven't seen them, myself, so I will continue remain agnostic until such time as I do, because I am not familiar with you and don't have any way to gauge your credibility as a source so I certainly won't blindly trust that you are being truthful.

A Google search has, thus far, turned up nothing for me regarding them denying the story.
 
Both Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann came out on Governor Palin's side on this.

Those are great examples of what I am talking about.

Glenn Beck defending Obama from some slander would also be a great example, if such a thing exists.
 
Last edited:
A conservative quoting the NY Times. As if somehow they had an ounce of credibility to a conservative on anything else. You can't make this **** up.

I undestand that some have difficulty understanding certain concepts, but when an adversary medium says that the adversary is being slandered, it does a lot to destroy the credibility of the slanderer.
 
OK let's all take a vote who, here hasn't had a one night stand?
 
OK let's all take a vote who, here hasn't had a one night stand?

I prefer a balanced look - if you have a large enough room for it. Matching night stands on either side of the bed looks the best.
 
from River Dad

The best thing to do when muckrackers and fabulists swarm around you like zombies from a night of the living dead is to not dignify the accusation with a response.

Actually the best thing to do is to sue them in a court of law if they made up stuff about you. That is our legal remedy.

Let us wait and see if Palin or Rice does this.
 
I prefer a balanced look - if you have a large enough room for it. Matching night stands on either side of the bed looks the best.
LOL, actually liberals have always fared well in this dept. but being who I am and being in the service and a product of the seventies, I will plead the fifth.
 
LOL, actually liberals have always fared well in this dept. but being who I am and being in the service and a product of the seventies, I will plead the fifth.

Perhaps will start you on the road to a career in the fun field of interior decorating?

Interior Design - Basic Interior Design Principles

Your experience in the service may come in valuable using olive green as an accent color. ;)
 
from River Dad



Actually the best thing to do is to sue them in a court of law if they made up stuff about you. That is our legal remedy.

Let us wait and see if Palin or Rice does this.

even if this claim was patently false, it's still not libel....
it would be incredibly difficult to assert any harm comes from this claim.
I hope you aren't going to assign "guilt" on the basis of whether they file suit or not... that would be silly.

there are a number of things she can do... ignoring it is as valid as any other... and ignoring it actually helps it all go away sooner.
 
I'm not sure why Sarah Palin's affair would even be news. Her 15 minutes of fame is over and very few people see her as a serious political force.
 
What, are you some kind of segregationist? A cultist... no outside study allowed. .

You obviously missed the point. Conservative make mockery of the NYT as breakfast fodder. I suggest to you that having it both ways doesn't work.

Either they are credible or they aren't.
 
You obviously missed the point. Conservative make mockery of the NYT as breakfast fodder. I suggest to you that having it both ways doesn't work.

Either they are credible or they aren't.

That's nonsense. Sources are not an all-or-nothing deal. I've already explained why.
 
look, when even Keith Olbermann is saying that this report is crap and out of bounds..... when Keith Olbermann is defending Sarah Palin....



...yeah....
 
i'm not sure why people are still so upset at this...when i saw this I was like "hell yeah, get some!!"
 
Back
Top Bottom