And take it from Glenn Beck (who knows something about fringe conspiracies), "It's the whackiest rumor about Sarah Palin or any other politician so far this election."
A pregnant Governor Sarah Palin, interviewed by Alaska's TV station KTVA in Anchorage, April 2008.
But Andrew Sullivan has gotten a lifeline from Todd Purdum's hit piece at Vanity Fair:It remains true that no one in the MSM will investigate the details of this truly bizarre story - and MSM journalists instead have devoted their efforts to demonizing any journalist who tries.That's good, actually, that someone still believes reputation matters!The one MSM newspaper that tried to report out the story of the pregnancy, asking the questions that any sane person would ask, was the Anchorage Daily News ....
But Palin refused to answer any questions and went on a tirade against the ADN. You can read the full story of this here. As I have said all along, I do not know what happened and the benefit of the doubt should go to Palin in the absence of actual journalism being committed. But the more her pregnancy with Trig becomes a campaign platform, a serious inquiry into exactly what happened in those few surreal days - days and decisions that she has made public and that reflect vital questions about her character and judgment - remains on the shelf of media deference. And the key witnesses who could verify it all - Palin herself, her husband, her doctor - still refuse to even take questions on the most bizarre series of events in Palin's entire life.
I believed then and I believe now that the MSM is too concerened [sic] with their own reputations and too deferent to power to even ask the questions. Which is another betrayal of their core purpose. And why they are dying. And deserve to.
As it is, far too many people take for gospel the word of Andrew Sullivan.
It's surprising too. Remember the comment by AOSHQ: "A brain-addled conspiracy crank unable to observe the minimum levels of respectability and human decency is simply not fit for polite company."
See also, Ed Morrissey, "A Picture Refutes a Thousand Nutcase Conspiracies."
And in case you missed it, see Christopher Badeaux's, "Through the Looking Glass With Andrew Sullivan."
Also Blogging: JammieWearingFool, "Sullivan: MSM Should Die Because They Won't Go Trig Troofer."
Hat Tip: Memeorandum.
Previously: "Trig Trutherism Lives!"
3 comments:
Great post, again, Dr. Douglas.
I really think it is beneath the true left, Donald, the ones that originated the opposition party to continue to try to diminish a true American patriot, like Sarah Palin.
Does the left understand the roots of the Democratic party? The same individuals that had powerful intellectual merit – Jackson, Van Buren - and would never stoop to vile slander (well, maybe Andrew Jackson, to whom deserves a pass)?
I admired, in my not that distant, liberal youth, FDR (yes on foreign policy, no on domestic) and JFK, both of whom, I fell confident, would condemn the outrageous opposition attacks on the level we are seeing.
Palin, is a successful Governor (the best training for a president is not in the Senate, it is mayor and/or governor), simply a VP candidate who is, too successful? too charming? You can't have it all? and a beautiful WOMAN as a bonus (I would have voted for Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher at one point, so it isn’t about looks)!, who loves her husband, whom she encourages to pursue his manly sports, balances family in a high stress job, and high-end government work in an ENERGY state, who chose the rural life, fiscally savvy enough to bring in a state surplus…
…GAWD, what is it! Give her a f**king break!
Rusty, I don't fault her for loving her family, being good looking, governing the Alaska territory...
I fault her for her incurious nature, her inability to name even one newspaper or book she reads. I fault her for being a religious hypocrite (not for her daughter having an illegitimate child), her hate speech, her tacit support for Alaskan independence, her confusion over what monies she can charge the taxpayer for (her trips, her family) and I see this played out on a much larger stage, the world stage, and I see a disaster in the making. (One could write for hours on her foibles.)
The biggest disaster, of course, is that y'all are bilked out of your common sense. Get a grip Rusty, she ain't all that.
Fair enough, Tim. Good stuff to debate, finally!
All due respect, I would submit that I do have a grip, though. hah! But, the only way for you to have known that is if we had been discussing the submission you just made of actual POLITICAL issues regarding Palin – or anyone else on the political landscape for that matter – the key here is, “political issues,” not “personal.”
As I re-read my posts on Palin I realized that this was not just about Palin, per se, more about unnecessary personal vilification.
In the previous post my focus was still on her as a person, and the erratic personal attacks. We certainly could debate those as well, I suppose. I just don’t see that quite as relevant – sort of like discussing Sanford’s or Clinton’s poor choice of women, rather than their level of responsibility towards a political post. And it really isn’t all about Palin, either.
As I watched the pre-fourth of July fireworks between Americanpowerblog and others, the mean-spirited personal visuals, devoid of any reasonable debate, it seems to me to inhibit any chance at reasonable dialogue. The prospect dims with regards to observing any real common ground or examination of opposite views with intelligent and well-meaning, I must say, VERY well-informed opponents that mutually want the best for America. I would rather move forward with civilized discussion, even expecting to disagree
Just now, above, you successfully illustrated in your post what I am talking about! Your enumeration of REAL reasons for politically not appreciating Sarah Palin, in my view, presents an elegant start to dialectical arguments. Such posts serve, as you very well know, as a point of departure for real dialogue pro and con – Palin- or anyone else, for that matter!
Sometimes fights get launched over the eaves dropping syndrome - the tendency of candid discussions between conservatives (or, liberals) that sound antagonistic towards the opposition. When the opposition shows up there is the eaves-dropping reaction of shock and horror at being called out on something. To me that is when civil conversation showing due respect may be more productive. Example: when liberals talk amongst themselves it is going to sound really disgusting to conservatives and vice versa! It’s called venting! But, when the opposition shows up, personal should be put aside and true debate starts. Right? Let me know if I am off base here.
I do not need to defend Donald, this is his site and he is master of the dialogue and manages the tenor of the blog. But, to “visitors” like us, I am taking this opportunity to speculate aloud, “what is the point of the demonization back and forth?” Let’s hear some intelligent dialogue, instead of tuning out. The input on this and other blogs sometimes rings with clarity, by really well-informed and unique perspectives. I think a lot of us might like to engage in real challenging debate.
I am hoping that this all doesn’t sound, oh-so superior. I don’t mean to suggest that it isn’t okay that we all get reasonably passionate and brash, so forth, which can be rewarding. I may be in the minority here. That’s okay, too. Maybe this isn’t the format for this after all.
Post a Comment