Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Slouching toward Andronico's: "Sarah Palin is Lying"

When we sent Sarah Palin's strange back stories round the block just one more time yesterday we actually missed out the biggest question of all. But Berkeley Blogger Leigh Bailey had it alright. She begins:

Okay, let's break this down: 1. Upon being accused by the Daily Kos of NOT being the mother of 4-month-old Trig, and accused of covering for her then 16-year-old daughter by claiming the child as her own, VP candidate Sarah Palin responds NOT by releasing run-of-the-mill medical records which would name the obstetrician, the pediatrician, the on-call anesthesiologist, the nurses -- in short, records that would name the dozen or so people who would have witnessed and could attest to the truthfulness of Palin's assertion that she did, in fact, give birth to Palin on April whatever, and St. Whatever Hospital in Wherever, Alaska.

Nope. To prove she is Trig's mother, she makes a public statement that, in effect, only serves to make it "impossible" that her daughter Bristol is Trig's mother, by asserting that Bristol is "five months' pregnant," making it "physically impossible" that Bristol is Trig's mother.

And after careful discussion of the other outstanding questions that we too raised Leigh concludes:

Mark my words, one of three things is going to happen post-convention, and none of them are good for the McCain campaign:

1. Palin will drop out of the race without acknowledging maternity of Trig and cite the "pressures of preserving her family's privacy and integrity during a trying time" as reasons.
2. Palin will admit to the subterfuge and drop out of the race citing protection of her daughter as her motive, and then promptly agreed to an exclusive sit-down with Barbara Walters to give the "Palin side of the story."
3. Palin will continue to lie, until demands for irrefutable proof of her maternity overwhelm the campaign. She'll either produce, or she'll opt for No. 1, or 2.

Okay, once again because I'm not sure how clearly I've made the point: When faced with the political obligation to verify one's own maternity of a child, why would anyone incorporate the medically and factually irrelevant fact of their under-aged (sic) daughter's unwed pregnancy as proof if they had ANYTHING ELSE to offer?

It has to be hats off too for the Guardian's Oliver Burkeman who has found Bristol Palin's beau's 30-second "escalator script":

· If common decency will not prevent the tabloid media from digging into the personal lives of Bristol Palin and her boyfriend, the father of her child, perhaps these excerpts from the boyfriend's Myspace page will do the trick instead. "I'm a fuckin' redneck who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes," he explains. "I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some shit and just fuckin' chillin' I guess ... Ya fuck with me, I'll kick your ass."

Here's the "sound off" column in Sarah Palin's local paper and their current poll is above left. Top is a picture of the Deliverance-stylee bow and arrow elk hunter Levi Johnson. Sadly Bristol's fates picked skate bum and for that matter hockey bum and college drop out Levi Johnston (above right) as her life partner.


Anonymous said...

There are enough reasons that you could find for arguing with Sarah Palin and her politics - why oh why give house room to conspiracy theories?

Anonymous said...

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin portrayed herself as a dysfunctional parent, work-place bully, gun-totting killer of innocent wild animals, and insane religious fundaMENTALIST. As she drew a round of applause from vicious wild animals at the republican connection, before she fired a shotgun at the nutty maniacs. She boasted of her pea brained small town mentality. Then she said she is exactly the sort of ill informed small town minded moron to run the most powerful nation on the planet.

Chris Paul said...

I will argue with almost any policy she thinks she has anon. And elsewhere I do. But it's me and the Guardian and the Huffington Post and the Liberal Christians and all asking these damned questions.

It's journalistic. Asking questions. trying to get at answers.

Clearly there should be an nth amendment that says NO CREATIONISTS.

Anonymous said...

The question you and other journalists need to ask yourselves is this - if this were a man would you be asking these questions at all?

For example; we try to avoid visiting the sins of the father on a child and forgive all sorts of nastiness in a parent; when did we start visiting the sins of children's boyfriends on the child's parent? When did you last read of comments made by Euan Blair's girlfriend from her bebo or facebook site being reported, let alone being taken as 'evidence' against Tony Blair.

The problem with the reporting and your involvement in repeating these sorts of conspiracy theories is that it exposes what I believe to be an innate mysogyny - that almost certainly is not intentional, but rather is unconscious.

The fact that you usually fight these things - along with the so-called feminists who join in this campaign - merely emphasises the inherent nastiness of the commentary!