David Letterman / Willow Palin Sex Tape

Great googly moogly!

DISCLOSURE: If you got sucked in by the title and think there’s some parody video or other depiction of anything resembling sex between David Letterman and Willow Palin, go away.
There is nothing for you here.
Seek help.

That said,
Not even sure how it happened but wound up on…well, not sure what it is…some sort of ultra-right wing apologist blog that likes to stroke itself silly by claiming to be free thinking Libertarian. It’s out of South Bend, Indiana, so you might well imagine.

Off the back of my defense of Letterman over the stunningly ridiculous accusation that he made a joke about assaulting a child, I wound up trading comments with that sweet righteous indignation.


cousinavi said
June 11, 2009 at 11:38 PM

The premise of the rape humor accusation, then, rests on the presumption that Letterman can distinguish between one Palin spawn and another, and the age of consent – 16 in Alaska and 17 in New York.
Assuming Dave can distinguish between Sleepy, Dopey, Farty, Tic Tic and the rest of the Palin brood, Willow is 14, could not legally consent to sex with A-Rod, so Letterman is making rape jokes.
It’s a bit of stretch. Especially when Bristol was riding Levi just down the hall in the family home.
Frankly, in terms of providing financial support for any accidental, abtinence-only oopsie daisy, Alex is a step up for the Palin girls.
Willow is fourteen, she lives in Alaska where there’s not much else to do, and she has a couple of stunning role models. Who’s taking bets on the due date? They’ll WISH the daddy was A-Rod, instead of the paint huffing son of the turkey geeker.
This fact changes nothing. It was joke. Sarah Palin is a blithering, empty hypocrite.

I fell short there.  The age of consent laws are irrelevant (well, except that they are absolutely central to the ACCUSATION that Dave is making “statutory rape jokes”), and especially so unless Letterman knew that the daughter at Yankee stadium was underage and not the unwed mother.  I wasn’t quite as clear there as I would have liked.
In fact, I think the very distinction is exactly here:  They accuse Letterman of intentionally making a “statutory rape joke”.  They’re wrong.  He’s only guilty of making a statutory “rape joke.”
Letterman has the perfect defense of honest but mistaken belief in fact.  He really believed she was the 18-year-old who had already been blessed with motherhood courtesy of the unemployed ice sasquatch.

“Oops!  Wrong squab.”

And even THAT distinction falls short because the entire filthy, disgusting accusation is premised on the ex post facto discovery that it was Junior Miss at the game rather than Senior Miss.
Letterman NEVER made a “rape joke”.
He made an abstinence only teen pregnancy joke that is only, on subsequent revelation of the facts, able to be cast by those with passionate and starving agendas as “a rape joke.”

I submit that the joke as told, had it been Abstinence Only Bristol at the game, is not only funny but perfectly appropriate.  You don’t want your children’s private lives a topic of derision?  Don’t exploit your children’s private circumstances for selfish political ends.

That it turns out to have been the other daughter does not entitle Sarah Palin or her knee-jerk, hillbot, Jill Iscoll, Hillaryis44, yammering ovarian wingnuts to say it was a “rape joke.”   Haul your heads out of your vagina.

The “editor”, rather than reply properly, stumped into my post.
An old dirty trick designed to protect his blithering snark from response.
What follows was merely appended to mine.

[You mean like when the left freaked over Senator Lott giving the 100 year old Senator Strom Thurmond good birthday wishes and the left and the media whipped it all up to his good wishes amount to him being a racist?
Or how about when the left and the “Media Matters” people using careful editing tricks to claim that Rush Limbaugh is a racist? Or when the Obama campaign used editing tricks to make a commercial that made it seem like Rush Limbaugh said racist things about hispanics when he was really defending them??
Either way letterman knew that Willow was 14 cause it was all over the New York local press before he had his “jokes” and some of that evidence is right here – http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/letterman-lied-he-knew-his-rape-joke-about-willow-palin-was-about-a-14-year-old/
– Oh wait a minute – that is THIS post, which means that you didnt even bother to read it and address the points in it directly that refuted what you stated.
If a Republican had said this about one of Obama’s daughters or Chelsea Clinton you would be right here freaking out over it.
So the only person here who is a hypocrite is you. Its too bad that you couldnt even muster a decent argument. It is also so obvious by your venomous tone that hate is blinding you form your own glaring hypocrisy and your defense of this undefendable sexist conduct with the zeal of a defense attorney. It is no wonder that your blog gets so few hits, irrational haters are a dime a dozen. – Editor]

Hiding behind editing my post to toss up your knee-jerk will not save you, Junior.  And how in the Jesus lifting fuck can you call yourself  “Editor” and use words like “undefendable”?  Do you mean indefensible?
Have you heard of apostrophes?
Capitals for Hispanic and Letterman?
Editor, indeed.

cousinavi said
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 12, 2009 at 1:40 AM

MOTHERFUCKER! You’re modding me? Well that speaks volumes, doesn’t it?

I notice you don’t quote Lott’s words to Thurman on the occasion. Look them up. I think you’ll see where the outrage came from.

I defy you to show me ANY evidence that Media Matters has EVER edited the words of Rush Limbaugh to make him LOOK LIKE a racist. Rush’s own words are sufficient for that. See comments re: Donovan McNabb and Somali pirates for starters, not to mention Colin Powell and Barack Obama. Suggesting that anyone need go to ANY effort to make Rush APPEAR racist is just myopic imbecility. Rush appears racist because he thinks and says racist things on an almost daily basis.

If Chelsea Clinton had humped her way to teen pregnancy under her mother’s own roof, and then been pimped all over the country to promote her mother’s vapid, hypocritical abstinence only sex-ed crap, it would have been open season.
When Sasha shows up…pregnant on the campaign trail, with Michelle using that pregnancy as an excuse to blither about some ridiculous plank in the party platform, it will be fair enough to ask if and when Malia might follow in her older sister’s footsteps.
The only kid humping the local hockey stick…or the turkey geeker’s son…under their mother’s own roof, then being dressed up in red, white and blue maternity clothes to stump for their vacant, idiot, semi-literate, entitled, certain, arrogant gasbag of a mother IS NAMED PALIN.
Don’t send your kids into the paint and then bawl when they get fouled. You want them off limits, keep them out of the spotlight. Hypocrisy is as hypocrisy does.

The fact that it was all over the press IN NO WAY demonstrates, as you wish to assert, that Letterman knew the difference between Trig, Trac, Trip, Trop, Bristol, Mache, Willow, Oak, Donner, Dancer or Blitzen.
He says he was talking about Bristol. You have no evidence to show otherwise.
While your outrage rests on assuming he knew, AND a technical interpretation of statutory conditions regarding the age of consent, AND avoiding the all too apparent fact that Bristol has already been knocked up once, AND ignoring the shameless and disgusting exploitation of her daughter’s unwed pregnancy by Sarah Palin herself, you might actually consider that Dave WAS talking about Bristol – that he really didn’t know the difference.

Not that that would make the slightest bit of difference. Bristol was banging away under Sarah’s own roof. Living with her boyfriend in her mother’s home. You want to take bets on Willow’s due date?

My blog gets few hits? Oh yeah…this place is a veritable treasure trove of pithy analysis I see linked ALL OVER the blogosphere. ALL the top writers reference YOU. LOL. Better luck next time. Your ad hominem is a total giveaway. And, junior, you have a long way to go before you grow the skills to critique my argument. You can take my word for that or continue playing, but you’ll learn. And being stubborn about it won’t stop it from dawning on you sooner or later.

It pissed me off to be modded.  One free, likely more if you appear to be onside.  Those who object are flagged for review (and stealth edits).
Libertarian, my ass.   Fuckwitarian.
And so, provoked:

cousinavi said
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 12, 2009 at 3:37 AM

Modding me now, huh?

You future junior muckrakers club kids are a treat.

In any case, on the chance that your academic requirements keep you from research:

Senator TRENT LOTT: I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of him. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have
had all these problems over all these years, either.

Nothing like some segregation, eh?

You want to equate that with a joke told by a comedian, premised on the issue of teen pregnancy, an issue for which Palin has cravenly thrust her child into the spotlight, as a joke about rape – an argument that requires, in order to make sense, the assumption that Letterman knew one Palin offspring from the next.

An interesting thought experiment: Who’s older, Dweezil or Moon Unit Zappa? I’d take heavy bets on long odds you don’t know.

I think it’s an interesting question: Would Dave have made the same mistake were the Palin girls named Mary and Susan rather than Bristol and Willow?
Is Bristol’s baby Trigg or Tripp? Trac’s in Iraq… I know that.
It might just be fair to say a little confusion over which is which is understandable. It’s like a Dr. Suess story, for chrissakes!
It’s beside the point, in any event, because your assertion that Letterman knew fails in any event.
It was “all over the media,” proves absolutely nothing. It does not prove he knew either girl’s name or age, which of them squabbed ahead of schedule, or which was at the ballgame.
His words are self-evident.
Your attack on Letterman requires that he not only KNEW those things, but that the premise of the joke was assaulting an underage girl – a joke about sex between an adult man and a child Letterman KNEW to be 14 years old.
Your argument requires that we ignore Sarah and Bristol’s yammering public hypocrisy on the subject of teen pregnancy and sex education, AND Sarah’s despicable exploitation thereof.
That is, quite plainly, logically insulting and a nothing more than a desperate ploy to fling outrageous words from a pillbox of phony indignation.

I would go further. I would restate my previous point and stand by it. Even IF Letterman knew which daughter was which, I reject the assertion that the joke crossed any line.
Sarah Palin, the Jesus-loving, abstinence preaching, incompetent shell of a reality TV candidate, exploited her daughter’s teen pregnancy for political advantage. She CONTINUES to do so. Her daughter, it would seem likely, was knocked up under Sarah’s nose – in her own home. If Sarah Palin is going to exploit her poor parenting skills, it’s fair to ask what lies in store for the next pubescent female in line. And if it’s fair to ask the question, it’s fair to make the joke.
In fact, the jokes usually come first.

Libertarian, eh?
I bet you make a point of telling that to the chicks, you free thinker, you.
Rush Limbaugh, still shopping in the “Chunky” section but determined to be bigger.
Here’s hoping you manage to graduate.


TonyfromOz replies …..

I would sincerely like to thank you for your comments, which dramatically show the thought processes of at least one young white male, and is a good indicator of how you, and any friends you may have, do actually think.

Luckily, all our comments go through moderation first, so when we do get comments like this, we can delete them before they appear, and we have to make a conscious decision to approve them first if they are to appear at our site.

However, we are really lucky here, because from reading this comment, it’s easy to see that you will comment quickly on the spur of the moment, and having done that, will not have the brain power to remember where it was that you made this comment in the first place, so in publishing the reply, we know that you will never see it, and we can safely use your comment as an example, safe in the knowledge that you will never see it to take any offense.

The tone of your comment indicates something that we all should see, and hang our heads in shame, because, frankly, the education system has let you down badly.
Because even if you had have been taught that something like this was acceptable, that level of teaching would have shown you how to use your brain enough to realise (sic) that something like like this is most definitely not acceptable.

We can also be thankful that your weakness means that your ’swimmers’ will never have enough strength for you to be able to have any children of your own. That being the case, you will never experience the case of your own 14 year old daughter being subjected to something like this. If you do adopt, you won’t remember this comment by then, and never be able to look back and remember how you once thought it okay for a 14 year old to be subjected to this.

There are three things that also point to where the education process has let you down.
1. The fact that you think something like this is okay because the perpetrator is a ‘Sports Star’, or a TV comedian for cracking the joke for a few short laughs.
2. The fact that you think that because this is (any) female, then it’s also okay.
3. The fact that the political leanings of the parent also make it okay.

This is not okay, was never okay, and never will be okay, even as a joke, because the joke indicates the thoughts of the person telling it in the first place, that they would make a conscious decision to tell it at all, and that you would then think it funny enough to laugh at.

We, as a society in general can thank our lucky stars that the single most important thing you will ever have to say in your whole life will be:

“Would you like fries with that?”


Fridays, rum and fuckwits. I can write the lyrics if Tom Waits will sing the song.
He did call me young. I don’t like being called white, though. Reminds me of that doorman I took a hundred off betting I had 20 years on him. He was white. Talk about ad hominem! Tony went after my “swimmers”.
Not only do your arguments suck but your sperm is suffering as a result.
Hah. I like the way I put it better.
Note: I did copy my own posts, slightly edit, and then expand them into subsequent posts in other threads. When making the same argument, with various species of the same moron, in mutltiple threads I see no reason to RETYPE the details. Clicky-click. If that’s some sort of self-plagiarism, color me guilty.

You copy and paste Hillzoy posts, edit comments, and then bitch at me for dealing with you in kind?

Poster, please.

I write every word. When you’re up to it, try an argument instead of an ad hominem attack.
Go back…read your lengthy response to mine. Tell me what the ARGUMENT is…you know…BEYOND, “Hey, man. You, like, are totally misogynist and, like, that’s not acceptable, man, and, y’know, if you don’t, like, get that, man…”

How am I being misogynist? By NOT twisting Letterman’s words into something hideous that they simply weren’t?
By NOT accepting your limp, contorted analysis?
If you have an actual justification for your outrage beyond, “No one should joke about a candidate’s children” cross-bred with “Holy Fuck, dude! She’s 14!” and mugged by the assertion that it WASN’T an abstinence only Bristol gag, I’d love to hear it.

Otherwise, you can continue modding my comments, Mr. LIBERTARIAN…editing the ones you don’t care for in order to try and hide your juvenile snark.

3 Responses

  1. Let me get this straight, supposed LIBERTARIANS are up in arms over a JOKE about a fictitious statutory rape? This is ludicrous!

    Any Libertarian worth anything should be arguing Dave has a constitutional right to free speech and can say whatever the fuck he wants, especially in jest. They should also be arguing that Age of Consent laws are bullshit because they allow Big Daddy State to determine when a person can and can’t consent to sex, not the participants themselves.

    Holy fuck, even Libertarians have lost their principles! I used to think these guys believed in their principles more than they believed in gravity. No matter how stupid or impossible it was, (ie privatizing streets and giving property owners dominion of the road in front of their homes) the Libertarians would at least stick to their principles.

    They obviously think that Palin is sympathetic to their cause, which is a joke in its own right, and are turning a blind eye to her bullshit.

  2. When a politician can’t take a joke, fuck ’em. Everything you said was fair and spot-on. Given the pregnancy reference, it seems pretty clear that Letterman was referring to the older girl, Caterpiller or Shovel or whatever the fuck her name is. Fuckheads.

  3. I think her name is Darlington. Or is it Cletus? Or maybe it’s Zeppo?

    Whatever her name is, she probably will offer to suck my cock if I don’t tell the press about it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: