Clearly it's easy to miss, but here's a crude transcript:
In a commentary a few months ago I scolded the parents of Brittney Spears for not supervising their children, a situation that has been well-documented....
Of course, there is no evidence that the Governor's children are unsupervised...
So, Bill, are you saying that Bristol Palin WAS supervised when she conceived? Do you have proof? Home video perhaps?
Should there be proof that she was under parental supervision when she became pregnant, I think there would be some rather pointed bi-partisan interest in such a family dynamic, even before we consider who by, really.
On the other hand, Bill, if you are actually suggesting what my catholic-educated ears picked out of the background noise - that Bristol's baby is the product of an "Immaculate Conception," - I think I'll tell you what I suggested to Fr. Kieran, SJ, just before he told me to shut me heathen yap.
Which is it, Bill? Was she "properly supervised?" By whom? And how does pregnancy fit into "proper supervision" when we all know that in her family's moral scheme, that would make her A Bad Girl Who Is Probably Going To Hell?
...even in cases of rape and incest.
I mean, Bill, if you really respected the Palins - or anything other than your loofa - you really ought to try and do an honest day's work of spin control. All the total effect of your "clarification" was to make things one hell of a lot worse for the Palins.
I mean, not that I particularly care. I happen to believe that you don't bet on getting a nice red Roma tomato from a deadly nightshade - even if they are closely related.